Phillips S L, Branaman-Phillips J
Veterans Home of California, Yountville.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993 Oct;41(10):1071-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb06454.x.
To compare the efficacy and safety of intramuscular cefoperazone and intramuscular ceftriaxone in the treatment of nursing home-acquired pneumonia in the nursing home setting.
A randomized clinical trial.
Skilled nursing wards at the Veterans Home of California.
104 residents of skilled nursing wards, aged 65 years or older.
Intramuscular administration of either cefoperazone or ceftriaxone.
The variables analyzed for baseline comparability were demographics (age, sex), clinical variables (duration in nursing home; presence of sputum, fever, cough, or leukocyte count), and clinical symptoms and signs. Efficacy was assessed by days of therapy, final maximum temperature, and clinical and bacteriological response.
Fifty residents received cefoperazone, 1 gm every 12 hours, intramuscularly. Fifty-four residents received ceftriaxone, 1 gm every 24 hours, intramuscularly. The total duration of treatment was scheduled for 10 days. Clinical cure was seen in 45 (90%) of the cefoperazone treatment group and 51 (94%) of the ceftriaxone treatment group, with a mean duration of therapy of 10.30 and 9.90 days, respectively. Satisfactory sputum specimens were collected in 71% of the treated residents; the most common isolate was Streptococcus pneumoniae, followed by Haemophilus influenzae and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively. The overall mortality was 4.5% at long-term follow-up. Both agents were well tolerated and no therapy was discontinued due to intramuscular pain or abnormal laboratory values.
Intramuscular cefoperazone and intramuscular ceftriaxone are safe and effective in the treatment of nursing home-acquired pneumonia. The clinical outcomes in both treatment groups support their use within this select population without the need for transferring the patient to an acute care hospital. Clinical studies are needed to evaluate the impact of such therapy on the control of health care expenditures within the nursing home facility.
比较肌内注射头孢哌酮与肌内注射头孢曲松在疗养院环境中治疗疗养院获得性肺炎的疗效和安全性。
一项随机临床试验。
加利福尼亚退伍军人之家的专业护理病房。
104名年龄在65岁及以上的专业护理病房居民。
肌内注射头孢哌酮或头孢曲松。
用于基线可比性分析的变量包括人口统计学特征(年龄、性别)、临床变量(在疗养院的时长;是否有痰液、发热、咳嗽或白细胞计数)以及临床症状和体征。通过治疗天数、最终最高体温以及临床和细菌学反应评估疗效。
50名居民接受头孢哌酮治疗,每12小时肌内注射1克。54名居民接受头孢曲松治疗,每24小时肌内注射1克。治疗总时长预定为10天。头孢哌酮治疗组45例(90%)临床治愈,头孢曲松治疗组51例(94%)临床治愈,平均治疗时长分别为10.30天和9.90天。71%接受治疗的居民采集到了满意的痰液标本;最常见的分离菌株是肺炎链球菌,其次分别是流感嗜血杆菌和金黄色葡萄球菌。长期随访时总死亡率为4.5%。两种药物耐受性均良好,未因肌内注射疼痛或实验室检查值异常而停止治疗。
肌内注射头孢哌酮和肌内注射头孢曲松治疗疗养院获得性肺炎安全有效。两个治疗组的临床结果支持在这一特定人群中使用这两种药物,无需将患者转至急症医院。需要进行临床研究以评估此类治疗对疗养院设施内医疗保健费用控制的影响。