Comparison of empirical therapy with cefoperazone/sulbactam or a carbapenem for bloodstream infections due to ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

OBJECTIVES

Carbapenems are widely recommended for the treatment of infections caused by ESBL producers however, non-carbapenem β-lactams such as β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations (BLBLIs) deserve consideration for the treatment of ESBL infections. Cefoperazone/sulbactam is one of the most commonly used BLBLIs in China; however, few outcome studies have been reported. In this study, we evaluated and compared the clinical efficacy of cefoperazone/sulbactam with that of a carbapenem in the treatment of bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae.

METHODS

Patients with monomicrobial ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae BSIs empirically treated with cefoperazone/sulbactam or a carbapenem were included. Outcomes of interest were clinical response and 14 day mortality. To make a comparison of the efficacy of cefoperazone/sulbactam and a carbapenem more accurate, propensity score analysis was performed.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in success rates or 14 day mortality were found between the cefoperazone/sulbactam (n = 17) and carbapenem (n = 46) groups. In the propensity score analysis with 17 case-control pairs, the success rate in the cefoperazone/sulbactam group (70.6%, 12/17) was lower than that in the carbapenem group (94.1%, 16/17), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.175). Sepsis-related mortality and 14 day mortality rates did not significantly differ either (P = 1.000 for both). In the cefoperazone/sulbactam group, 66.7% (2/3) of the patients with a Pitt bacteraemia score ≥5 died within 14 days, whereas none (0/14) of the patients with a Pitt bacteraemia score <5 died within 14 days (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that cefoperazone/sulbactam had a lower success rate and a higher 14 day mortality rate compared with carbapenems, although the differences were not statistically significant because of the small patient numbers. Further evaluation of cefoperazone/sulbactam is needed.