Cargando…
Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefope...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216753/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168466 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S313828 |
_version_ | 1783710481408589824 |
---|---|
author | Chen, Chia-Hung Tu, Chih-Yen Chen, Wei-Chih Kuo, Li-Kuo Wang, Yao-Tung Fu, Pin-Kuei Ku, Shih-Chi Fang, Wen-Feng Chen, Chin-Ming Lai, Chih-Cheng |
author_facet | Chen, Chia-Hung Tu, Chih-Yen Chen, Wei-Chih Kuo, Li-Kuo Wang, Yao-Tung Fu, Pin-Kuei Ku, Shih-Chi Fang, Wen-Feng Chen, Chin-Ming Lai, Chih-Cheng |
author_sort | Chen, Chia-Hung |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP. CONCLUSION: For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazone-sulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8216753 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82167532021-06-23 Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Chen, Chia-Hung Tu, Chih-Yen Chen, Wei-Chih Kuo, Li-Kuo Wang, Yao-Tung Fu, Pin-Kuei Ku, Shih-Chi Fang, Wen-Feng Chen, Chin-Ming Lai, Chih-Cheng Infect Drug Resist Original Research OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate. RESULTS: A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP. CONCLUSION: For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazone-sulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam. Dove 2021-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8216753/ /pubmed/34168466 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S313828 Text en © 2021 Chen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Chen, Chia-Hung Tu, Chih-Yen Chen, Wei-Chih Kuo, Li-Kuo Wang, Yao-Tung Fu, Pin-Kuei Ku, Shih-Chi Fang, Wen-Feng Chen, Chin-Ming Lai, Chih-Cheng Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title | Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title_full | Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title_fullStr | Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title_short | Clinical Efficacy of Cefoperazone-Sulbactam versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam in the Treatment of Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia |
title_sort | clinical efficacy of cefoperazone-sulbactam versus piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8216753/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34168466 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S313828 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chenchiahung clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT tuchihyen clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT chenweichih clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT kuolikuo clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT wangyaotung clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT fupinkuei clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT kushihchi clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT fangwenfeng clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT chenchinming clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia AT laichihcheng clinicalefficacyofcefoperazonesulbactamversuspiperacillintazobactaminthetreatmentofhospitalacquiredpneumoniaandventilatorassociatedpneumonia |