4.2 Article

Infection after Elective Colorectal Surgery: Bacteriological Analysis of Failures in a Randomized Trial of Cefotetan vs. Ertapenem Prophylaxis

期刊

SURGICAL INFECTIONS
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 111-118

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2007.096

关键词

-

资金

  1. Merck Co.
  2. Schering-Plough
  3. Cubist
  4. Theravance
  5. Optimer
  6. Replidyne
  7. Oculus Innovative Sciences
  8. Pfizer Inc.
  9. Astella
  10. Cerexa
  11. Impex Pharmaceuticals
  12. Optimer Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A randomized study comparing single-dose cefotetan and ertapenem prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery in 1,002 patients found ertapenem to be significantly more effective (p < 0.001). Failures of prophylaxis were thought to involve organisms resistant to both antimicrobial agents, isolated most often from deep or superficial incision sites. Methods: Further testing and analysis of the microbial data was performed. Susceptibility results were correlated with the clinical outcomes reported previously. Results: Of the 216 aerobes tested, 62.6% were resistant to cefotetan and 44% to ertapenem. Enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis were the aerobes recovered most frequently, and Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Clostridium innocuum, and Eubacterium lentum were the most frequent anaerobes. Enterococcus faecalis usually was associated in mixed culture with Bacteroides fragilis group species. Approximately one-half of the 158 anaerobes (50.7%), including all the species above, were resistant to cefotetan; most of these (61.4%) came from superficial incision sites. Only one anaerobe (Desulfovibrio fairfieldensis), found in a superficial incisional infection, was resistant to ertapenem, and no ertapenem-resistant enteric bacteria were recovered. In vitro resistance was associated with therapeutic failure. Conclusions: The in vitro activity of ertapenem was superior to that of cefotetan against all anaerobic and many aerobic bacteria isolated from postoperative cultures of patients who failed prophylaxis with these agents. Our findings help to elucidate the results of the clinical trial.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据