摘要
目的 :评价国产头孢哌酮 三唑巴坦治疗急性细菌性呼吸道感染、泌尿道感染以及其他系统感染的有效性与安全性。方法 :采用区组随机、平行对照、开放研究设计 ,头孢哌酮 三唑巴坦和头孢哌酮 舒巴坦均为每次给药 2 .0 g ,静脉滴注 30～ 6 0min ,每日 2次或 3次 ,疗程 7～ 14d。结果 :本试验共入选病例 5 7例 ,因各种原因淘汰 4例 ,进入疗效分析的病例数为 5 3例 ,其中头孢哌酮 三唑巴坦组 2 7例 ,头孢哌酮 舒巴坦组 2 6例 ,治疗结束头孢哌酮 三唑巴坦与头孢哌酮 舒巴坦临床有效率分别为 96 .3%与 92 .3% ,各种致病菌清除率分别为 95 .8%与 90 .9% ,两组不良反应发生率分别为 7.1%与 7.4 % ,上述结果经统计学处理 ,差异均无显著性。结论 :头孢哌酮 三唑巴坦与头孢哌酮 舒巴坦在治疗临床常见的敏感细菌引起的细菌性感染均有效、安全。
Objective: To compare the clinical and bacterial efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-tazobactam versus cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of acute bacterial infections. Methods:A randomized parallel controlled clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of cefoperazone-tazobactam with cefoperazone-sulbactam. Both cefoperazone-tazobactam and cefoperazone-sulbactam were given 2 g intravenously within 30 to 60 minutes twice or three times daily for 7 to 14 days. Results:57 patients were enrolled in the study, 4 patients were withdrawn from the trial because of various reasons. 27 cases in cefoperazone-tazobactam group and 26 cases in cefoperazone-sulbactam group were assessable for clinical efficacy. The overall clinical efficacy rates of cefoperazone-tazobactam group and cefoperazone-sulbactam group were 96.3% and 92.3%, the bacterial eradication rates were 95.8% and 90.9% respectively. The adverse reaction rates were 7.1% in cefoperazone-tazobactam group and 7.4% in cefoperazone-sulbactam group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions:Cefoperazone-tazobactam is as effective and safe as cefoperazone-sulbactam in the treatment of bacterial infections caused by susceptible organisms.
出处
《中国抗感染化疗杂志》
2004年第3期139-142,共4页
Chinese Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
