• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

头孢唑林与氯唑西林作为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌脊柱硬膜外脓肿的确定性抗生素治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。

Cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus spinal epidural abscess: a retrospective cohort study.

机构信息

Health Research Methodology Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Division of Infectious Diseases, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021 Nov;58(5):106429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106429. Epub 2021 Aug 29.

DOI:10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106429
PMID:34469802
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

We compared the effectiveness of cefazolin and cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) spinal epidural abscess (SEA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with MSSA SEA from two academic hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, between 2014 and 2020. Patients treated with cefazolin were compared to those treated with cloxacillin. Co-primary outcomes included 90-day mortality, antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores was used to balance important prognostic factors and to estimate an adjusted risk difference.

RESULTS

Of 98 patients with MSSA SEA, 50 and 48 patients were treated with cefazolin and cloxacillin, respectively. Mortality at 90 days was 8% and 13% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.52). The antibiotic failure rate was 12% and 19% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.41). The serious adverse reactions rate was 0% and 4% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.24). The recurrence rate was 2% and 8% in the cefazolin and cloxacillin groups, respectively (P = 0.20). The adjusted risk difference for mortality at 90 days was -1% [95% confidence interval (CI) -10% to 8%] favouring cefazolin. The adjusted risk differences for antibiotic failure, adverse reactions and recurrence were 1% (95% CI -12% to 14%), -5% (95% CI -11% to 2%) and -18% (-36% to -1%) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cefazolin is likely as effective as an antistaphylococcal penicillin and may be considered as a first-line treatment for MSSA SEA.

摘要

目的

我们比较了头孢唑林和氯唑西林作为治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MSSA)脊柱硬膜外脓肿(SEA)的确定性抗生素治疗的效果。

方法

这项回顾性队列研究纳入了 2014 年至 2020 年期间在加拿大安大略省汉密尔顿的两家学术医院就诊的 MSSA SEA 患者。比较了使用头孢唑林治疗的患者和使用氯唑西林治疗的患者。主要结局包括 90 天死亡率、抗生素失败、不良反应和复发。使用倾向评分进行逆概率治疗加权以平衡重要的预后因素,并估计调整后的风险差异。

结果

在 98 例 MSSA SEA 患者中,分别有 50 例和 48 例患者接受了头孢唑林和氯唑西林治疗。头孢唑林组和氯唑西林组 90 天死亡率分别为 8%和 13%(P=0.52)。头孢唑林组和氯唑西林组的抗生素失败率分别为 12%和 19%(P=0.41)。头孢唑林组和氯唑西林组严重不良反应发生率分别为 0%和 4%(P=0.24)。头孢唑林组和氯唑西林组的复发率分别为 2%和 8%(P=0.20)。90 天死亡率的调整风险差异为-1%(95%置信区间(CI)-10%至 8%),有利于头孢唑林。抗生素失败、不良反应和复发的调整风险差异分别为 1%(95% CI-12%至 14%)、-5%(95% CI-11%至 2%)和-18%(-36%至-1%)。

结论

头孢唑林可能与抗葡萄球菌青霉素一样有效,可考虑作为 MSSA SEA 的一线治疗药物。

相似文献

1
Cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus spinal epidural abscess: a retrospective cohort study.头孢唑林与氯唑西林作为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌脊柱硬膜外脓肿的确定性抗生素治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2021 Nov;58(5):106429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106429. Epub 2021 Aug 29.
2
Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteraemia: results from a large multicentre cohort study.头孢唑林与氯唑西林作为耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌菌血症确定性抗生素治疗的比较疗效:一项大型多中心队列研究的结果
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015 May;70(5):1539-46. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku560. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
3
Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus spp.: a multicenter propensity weighted cohort study.头孢唑林与氯唑西林治疗耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌引起的心内膜炎的有效性和安全性:一项多中心倾向评分队列研究。
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2024 Aug;43(8):1569-1577. doi: 10.1007/s10096-024-04851-6. Epub 2024 May 28.
4
Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort.头孢唑林治疗 MSSA 感染性心内膜炎的当代应用:一项全国前瞻性队列研究分析。
Int J Infect Dis. 2023 Dec;137:134-143. doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2023.10.019. Epub 2023 Nov 4.
5
Empirical use of β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations does not increase mortality compared with cloxacillin and cefazolin in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia: a propensity-weighted cohort study.β-内酰胺/β-内酰胺酶抑制剂联合用药在耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌菌血症中的经验性应用并不比氯唑西林和头孢唑林增加死亡率:一项倾向评分匹配队列研究。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022 Jul 28;77(8):2288-2295. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkac152.
6
Efficacy of cloxacillin versus cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible bacteraemia (CloCeBa): study protocol for a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.氯唑西林与头孢唑林治疗甲氧西林敏感菌血症的疗效比较(CloCeBa):一项随机对照非劣效性试验的研究方案
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 1;8(8):e023151. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023151.
7
Comparative outcomes of cefazolin versus antistaphylococcal penicillins in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus infective endocarditis: a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicentre French cohort study.头孢唑林与抗葡萄球菌青霉素治疗甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌感染性心内膜炎的比较结果:一项法国前瞻性多中心队列研究的事后分析
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Jul;27(7):1015-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.044. Epub 2020 Sep 17.
8
A large retrospective cohort study of cefazolin compared with flucloxacillin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia.头孢唑林与氟氯西林治疗甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌菌血症的大型回顾性队列研究。
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2018 Aug;52(2):297-300. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2018.02.013. Epub 2018 Feb 28.
9
Comparison of outcomes in patients with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteremia who are treated with β-lactam vs vancomycin empiric therapy: a retrospective cohort study.对接受β-内酰胺类药物与万古霉素经验性治疗的甲氧西林敏感金黄色葡萄球菌(MSSA)菌血症患者的治疗结果比较:一项回顾性队列研究。
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 May 23;16:224. doi: 10.1186/s12879-016-1564-5.
10
Retrospective Analysis of Adverse Drug Events Between Nafcillin Versus Cefazolin for Treatment of Methicillin-Susceptible Infections.耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌感染的治疗中,萘夫西林与头孢唑林的药物不良反应的回顾性分析。
Ann Pharmacother. 2020 Jul;54(7):662-668. doi: 10.1177/1060028019897267. Epub 2019 Dec 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Treatment of Complicated Gram-Positive Bacteremia and Infective Endocarditis.复杂性革兰氏阳性菌血症和感染性心内膜炎的治疗
Drugs. 2025 Feb;85(2):193-214. doi: 10.1007/s40265-024-02135-z. Epub 2024 Dec 25.
2
Targeted Therapy of Severe Infections Caused by in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Multidisciplinary Proposal of Therapeutic Algorithms Based on Real-World Evidence.危重症成年患者由[具体病原体未给出]引起的严重感染的靶向治疗:基于真实世界证据的治疗算法多学科建议。
Microorganisms. 2023 Feb 3;11(2):394. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms11020394.