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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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