• 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

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of 3 antimicrobial regimens for the prevention of infective complications after abdominal surgery.

作者信息

Anderson G, Boldiston C, Woods S, O'Brien P

机构信息

Monash University Department of Surgery, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Arch Surg. 1996 Jul;131(7):744-8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430190066016.

DOI:10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430190066016
PMID:8678775
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To measure the cost and effectiveness of 3 established antimicrobial regimens for the prevention of infective complications after abdominal surgery.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized trial was performed involving a total of 1070 patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

SETTING AND PATIENTS

All patients having upper gastrointestinal tract, colorectal, appendiceal, or biliary surgery at a major teaching hospital in Melbourne, Australia, were considered for entry into the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized prior to surgery to receive a single dose of cefotaxime sodium (1 g), ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid (3.1 g), or ceftriaxone sodium, (1 g). All drugs were given intravenously at the start of anesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of major wound infections, minor wound infections, other wound problems, and other infective complications. The acquisition and administrative costs of the drugs used and the costs of the infective complications were measured.

RESULTS

A Total of 1070 patients were entered into the study. Major wound infections occurred in 21 patients (2.0%). Twenty-five patients (2.3%) developed a minor wound infection. Other infective complications developed in 107 patients. There were significantly fewer minor wound infections in the ceftriaxone-treated group as compared with the other 2 groups. There was no differences in the frequency of major wound infections, other wound problems, or other infective complications. The acquisition costs of cefotaxime and ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid were less than those of ceftriaxone. The estimated cost of treating the infective complications in the group of patients who received ticarcillin plus clavulanic acid ($128,039) was greater than the cost associated with the groups being treated with cefotaxime ($91,243) or ceftriaxone ($96,095).

CONCLUSIONS

The study indicates that each of the 3 regimens was associated with highly satisfactory control of postoperative infective complications after abdominal surgery. On the basis of the estimated costs of infective complications, cefotaxime and ceftriaxone appear equally effective for the prevention of infective complications after abdominal surgery. Acquisition costs for cefotaxime were lower and it is recommended as the preferred agent on this basis.

摘要

相似文献

1
A cost-effectiveness evaluation of 3 antimicrobial regimens for the prevention of infective complications after abdominal surgery.
Arch Surg. 1996 Jul;131(7):744-8. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430190066016.
2
Using cost of infection as a tool to demonstrate a difference in prophylactic antibiotic efficacy: a prospective randomized comparison of the pharmacoeconomic effectiveness of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime prophylaxis in abdominal surgery.将感染成本作为一种工具来证明预防性抗生素疗效的差异:头孢曲松和头孢噻肟预防腹部手术的药物经济学效果的前瞻性随机比较。
World J Surg. 2005 Jan;29(1):18-24. doi: 10.1007/s00268-004-7257-z.
3
Clinical efficacy, tolerability, and cost savings associated with the use of open-label metronidazole plus ceftriaxone once daily compared with ticarcillin/clavulanate every 6 hours as empiric treatment for diabetic lower-extremity infections in older males.与每6小时使用替卡西林/克拉维酸相比,每日一次使用开放标签甲硝唑加头孢曲松作为老年男性糖尿病下肢感染经验性治疗的临床疗效、耐受性和成本节约情况。
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2004 Sep;2(3):181-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2004.09.006.
4
Single-dose surgical prophylaxis using ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (Timentin): a prospective, randomized comparison with cefotaxime.使用替卡西林/克拉维酸(特美汀)进行单剂量手术预防:与头孢噻肟的前瞻性随机对照研究。
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 1987 Jul;7(3):219-23. doi: 10.1016/0732-8893(87)90009-5.
5
Ceftriaxone prophylaxis in abdominal, cardiovascular, thoracic, orthopaedic, neurosurgical and general surgery: a review of practice 1996 - 2003.1996 - 2003年腹部、心血管、胸科、骨科、神经外科及普通外科中头孢曲松预防用药情况综述
J Chemother. 2005 Sep;17 Suppl 2:17-32. doi: 10.1179/joc.2005.17.Supplement-2.17.
6
Cefotaxime single-dose surgical prophylaxis in a prepaid group practice. Comparisons with other cephalosporins and ticarcillin/clavulanic acid.头孢噻肟在预付费团体医疗实践中的单剂量手术预防性应用。与其他头孢菌素及替卡西林/克拉维酸的比较。
Drugs. 1988;35 Suppl 2:116-23. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198800352-00025.
7
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid versus cefotaxime for antimicrobial prophylaxis in abdominal surgery: a randomized trial.阿莫西林/克拉维酸与头孢噻肟用于腹部手术抗菌预防的随机对照试验
J Chemother. 2002 Aug;14(4):366-72. doi: 10.1179/joc.2002.14.4.366.
8
Cost-effectiveness of single dose cefotaxime plus metronidazole compared with three doses each of cefuroxime plus metronidazole for the prevention of wound infection after colorectal surgery.单剂量头孢噻肟加甲硝唑与三剂量头孢呋辛加甲硝唑预防结直肠手术后伤口感染的成本效益比较。
J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992 Dec;30(6):855-64. doi: 10.1093/jac/30.6.855.
9
Ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (Timentin) compared to metronidazole/netilmicin in preventing postoperative infection after elective colorectal surgery.
Can J Surg. 1987 Mar;30(2):120-2.
10
[Cost-effectiveness comparative study of ceftriaxone verus cefotaxime in the treatment of complicated urinary infections].头孢曲松与头孢噻肟治疗复杂性泌尿系统感染的成本效益比较研究
Actas Urol Esp. 1997 Jul-Aug;21(7):668-74.

引用本文的文献

1
A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials assessing the prophylactic use of ceftriaxone. A study of wound, chest, and urinary infections.一项评估头孢曲松预防性使用的随机对照试验的荟萃分析。一项关于伤口、胸部和尿路感染的研究。
World J Surg. 2009 Dec;33(12):2538-50. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0158-4.
2
Single daily dosing ceftriaxone and metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial.儿童穿孔性阑尾炎每日单次剂量头孢曲松和甲硝唑与标准三联抗生素方案的比较:一项前瞻性随机试验
J Pediatr Surg. 2008 Jun;43(6):981-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.02.018.
3
Ceftriaxone versus Other Antibiotics for Surgical Prophylaxis : A Meta-Analysis.
头孢曲松与其他抗生素用于手术预防:一项荟萃分析。
Clin Drug Investig. 2004;24(1):29-39. doi: 10.2165/00044011-200424010-00004.
4
Using cost of infection as a tool to demonstrate a difference in prophylactic antibiotic efficacy: a prospective randomized comparison of the pharmacoeconomic effectiveness of ceftriaxone and cefotaxime prophylaxis in abdominal surgery.将感染成本作为一种工具来证明预防性抗生素疗效的差异:头孢曲松和头孢噻肟预防腹部手术的药物经济学效果的前瞻性随机比较。
World J Surg. 2005 Jan;29(1):18-24. doi: 10.1007/s00268-004-7257-z.