4.6 Article

Comparison of Cefepime with Piperacillin/Tazobactam Treatment in Patients with Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

期刊

ANTIBIOTICS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12060984

关键词

healthcare-associated pneumonia; cefepime; piperacillin; tazobactam; drug therapy; treatment outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia treated with cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam showed that the treatment effects were comparable between the two groups.
Although cefepime and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly prescribed for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), which one is the superior therapy remains unclear. Using Korean National Health Insurance Service data from January 2018 to December 2018, we compared the clinical outcomes of patients with HAP who were treated with cefepime and those treated with piperacillin/tazobactam. Data from 9955 adult patients with HAP, of whom 1502 (15%) received cefepime and 8453 (85%) received piperacillin/tazobactam, were retrieved for primary analysis. Tube feeding, suctioning, positioning care, and intensive care unit admission were more common among patients who received piperacillin/tazobactam. Treatment outcomes, including rates of in-hospital mortality, pneumonia-related readmission, and all-cause mortality within 6 months after discharge, were comparable between the two groups. In a subgroup analysis of data from patients who required tube feeding, the risk for in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among those who received cefepime (fully adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.97; p = 0.042). Treatment outcomes did not differ between patients who received cefepime and those who received piperacillin/tazobactam treatment, but among patients who were at risk for aspiration, such as those receiving tube feeding, those who received piperacillin/tazobactam had lower rates of in-hospital mortality.

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

4.6
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