Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections

Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and agai...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349
Hauptverfasser: Sweet, Richard L., Robbie, Marilyn O., Ohm-Smith, Marilyn, Hadley, W.Keith
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 349
container_issue 3
container_start_page 342
container_title American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
container_volume 145
creator Sweet, Richard L.
Robbie, Marilyn O.
Ohm-Smith, Marilyn
Hadley, W.Keith
description Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80366534</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>0002937883907226</els_id><sourcerecordid>80366534</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMoun78A4WeRA_VpNmk6UWQxS8QvHgPMZlotG1qki7uvzd1F48KA8PMvO8MPIPQMcEXBBN-iTGuyobW4kzQ8wbXVVXyLTQjuKlLLrjYRrNfyR7aj_F9Kqum2kW7vCKiZmyGPha-G1RQyS2hiGk0q8LbYnADBKVd27q-WEKIYyw0WP_lUm7kSG9QpAAqddCnyeFfYoIUnC5Ub4rXVQ_at_411663oJPzfTxEO1a1EY42-QA93948L-7Lx6e7h8X1Y6mpEKkUTCtMTV3XIGzDhDEaC0ZEUxGcW4qZeaWBMlUrShvARps5F8w2nFJsLT1Ap-u1Q_CfI8QkOxc1tK3qwY9RCkw5Z3T-r5BQJnjmmoXztVAHH2MAK4fgOhVWkmA5_UJOZOUEWgoqf34hebadbPaPLx2YX9MGfp5freeQYSwdBBm1g16DcSEjk8a7vw98A1iUmj8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>13586072</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</creator><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><description>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 6218755</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Bacterial Infections - drug therapy ; Cefoxitin - therapeutic use ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Female ; Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Penicillins - therapeutic use ; Piperacillin ; Pregnancy</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349</ispartof><rights>1983</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6218755$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - drug therapy</subject><subject>Cefoxitin - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Penicillins - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Piperacillin</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1983</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LxDAQhoMoun78A4WeRA_VpNmk6UWQxS8QvHgPMZlotG1qki7uvzd1F48KA8PMvO8MPIPQMcEXBBN-iTGuyobW4kzQ8wbXVVXyLTQjuKlLLrjYRrNfyR7aj_F9Kqum2kW7vCKiZmyGPha-G1RQyS2hiGk0q8LbYnADBKVd27q-WEKIYyw0WP_lUm7kSG9QpAAqddCnyeFfYoIUnC5Ub4rXVQ_at_411663oJPzfTxEO1a1EY42-QA93948L-7Lx6e7h8X1Y6mpEKkUTCtMTV3XIGzDhDEaC0ZEUxGcW4qZeaWBMlUrShvARps5F8w2nFJsLT1Ap-u1Q_CfI8QkOxc1tK3qwY9RCkw5Z3T-r5BQJnjmmoXztVAHH2MAK4fgOhVWkmA5_UJOZOUEWgoqf34hebadbPaPLx2YX9MGfp5freeQYSwdBBm1g16DcSEjk8a7vw98A1iUmj8</recordid><startdate>19830201</startdate><enddate>19830201</enddate><creator>Sweet, Richard L.</creator><creator>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creator><creator>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creator><creator>Hadley, W.Keith</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19830201</creationdate><title>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</title><author>Sweet, Richard L. ; Robbie, Marilyn O. ; Ohm-Smith, Marilyn ; Hadley, W.Keith</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c388t-85ca03d777e8f958ddc0851892107e8a5d42ce35a7a339e0dcd4685f96330ff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1983</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - drug therapy</topic><topic>Cefoxitin - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Penicillins - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Piperacillin</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sweet, Richard L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robbie, Marilyn O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hadley, W.Keith</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sweet, Richard L.</au><au>Robbie, Marilyn O.</au><au>Ohm-Smith, Marilyn</au><au>Hadley, W.Keith</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>1983-02-01</date><risdate>1983</risdate><volume>145</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>342</spage><epage>349</epage><pages>342-349</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>Piperacillin sodium (Pipracil, Lederle Laboratories, Wayne, New Jersey), a new semisynthetic penicillin, demonstrated in vitro activity against a broad spectrum of clinical pathogens. It is active against most strains of the clinically important gram-negative aerobic or facultative bacteria and against virtually all the clinically important anaerobic organisms, including Bacteroides fragilis and Bacteroides bivius. This broad antibacterial spectrum suggested that piperacillin might be an effective single antimicrobial agent for the treatment of mixed aerobic/anaerobic infections in obstetric and gynecologic patients. In this study, the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin was compared with that of cefoxitin in the management of pelvic infections. There were 23 patients in the piperacillin group (acute salpingitis, 12; endomyometritis, 7; pelvic cellulitis, 2; tuboovarian abscess, 2) and 25 patients in the cefoxitin group (acute salpingitis, 13; endomyometritis, 10; tuboovarian abscess, 2). An average of six bacteria were isolated from each patient. Aerobic bacteria only were recovered from 12.5%, anaerobic bacteria only in 6.5%, and both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria were present in 82.5% of patients. Overall, 21 of 23 (91%) of the piperacillin treatment group and 23 of 25 (92%) of the cefoxitin group responded to therapy with antimicrobial agents alone. The major cause of failure was the presence of an abscess. Piperacillin was shown to be an effective single agent for the management of pelvic infections caused by mixed aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. In addition, piperacillin proved to be safe and well tolerated.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>6218755</pmid><doi>10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9378
ispartof American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 1983-02, Vol.145 (3), p.342-349
issn 0002-9378
1097-6868
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80366534
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Bacterial Infections - drug therapy
Cefoxitin - therapeutic use
Clinical Trials as Topic
Female
Genital Diseases, Female - drug therapy
Humans
Middle Aged
Penicillins - therapeutic use
Piperacillin
Pregnancy
title Comparative study of piperacillin versus cefoxitin in the treatment of obstetric and gynecologic infections
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T10%3A49%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20study%20of%20piperacillin%20versus%20cefoxitin%20in%20the%20treatment%20of%20obstetric%20and%20gynecologic%20infections&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Sweet,%20Richard%20L.&rft.date=1983-02-01&rft.volume=145&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=342&rft.epage=349&rft.pages=342-349&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/0002-9378(83)90722-6&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E80366534%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=13586072&rft_id=info:pmid/6218755&rft_els_id=0002937883907226&rfr_iscdi=true