Brun-Buisson C, Sollet J P, Schweich H, Brière S, Petit C
Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Feb;26(2):346-54. doi: 10.1086/516294.
In a randomized trial conducted in 27 intensive care units, we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of piperacillin-tazobactam (TAZ; 4 g/0.5 g q.i.d.) and of ceftazidime (CAZ; 1 g q.i.d.), both combined with amikacin (7.5 mg/kg b.i.d.), as therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP; acquired after > or =48 hours of mechanical ventilation). VAP was diagnosed with use of protected samples and quantitative cultures, and outcome was assessed blindly from treatment. Of 204 patients suspected of having VAP and randomized to a treatment arm of the study, 127 (64%) had bacteriologically confirmed infections, of which 37% were polymicrobial and 32% involved Pseudomonas aeruginosa; 115 patients (51 TAZ and 64 CAZ recipients) remained evaluable as per protocol. Clinical/bacteriologic cure rates (TAZ vs. CAZ, 51% vs. 36%; 95% confidence interval of difference, -0.2% to 30.2%), and 28-day mortality rates (16% vs. 20%) were similar; however, fewer bacteriologic failures occurred with TAZ (33% vs. 51%; P = .05). We conclude that the two regimens were of equivalent clinical efficacy in therapy for confirmed VAP.
在一项于27个重症监护病房开展的随机试验中,我们比较了哌拉西林-他唑巴坦(TAZ;4克/0.5克,每日4次)和头孢他啶(CAZ;1克,每日4次)联合阿米卡星(7.5毫克/千克,每日2次)作为呼吸机相关性肺炎(VAP;机械通气≥48小时后获得性肺炎)治疗方案的临床疗效和安全性。采用保护性样本和定量培养诊断VAP,并对治疗结果进行盲法评估。在204例疑似VAP并随机分组进入本研究治疗组的患者中,127例(64%)有细菌学确诊感染,其中37%为多微生物感染,32%涉及铜绿假单胞菌;按照方案,115例患者(51例TAZ治疗者和64例CAZ治疗者)仍可进行评估。临床/细菌学治愈率(TAZ组与CAZ组分别为51%和36%;差异的95%置信区间为-0.2%至30.2%)以及28天死亡率(分别为16%和20%)相似;然而,TAZ组细菌学治疗失败较少(分别为33%和51%;P = 0.05)。我们得出结论,两种治疗方案在确诊VAP的治疗中具有同等的临床疗效。