You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Treatment of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia with Piperacillin-Tazobactam/Amikacin versus Ceftazidime/Amikacin: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial
C. Brun-Buisson, J. P. Sollet, H. Schweich, S. Brière and C. Petit
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Vol. 26, No. 2 (Feb., 1998), pp. 346-354
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4481358
Page Count: 9
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Infections, Health outcomes, Pneumonia, Ventilator associated pneumonia, Dosage, Species, Artificial respiration, Antimicrobials, Antibiotics, Medical treatment failures
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
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 ≥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.
Clinical Infectious Diseases © 1998 Oxford University Press