论文部分内容阅读
目的 :用舒巴坦 /头孢哌酮与头孢噻肟随机对照治疗各种中、重度急性细菌性感染 ,评价前者的安全性及有效性。方法 :多中心区组随机平行试验及开放试验 ,舒巴坦 /头孢哌酮 (1∶ 1) 4～ 8g/ d,分 2～ 4次静滴 ,疗程 7～ 14d;头孢噻肟 4～ 8g/ d,用法同上。结果 :共完成 16 7例 (试验组 6 0例 ,对照组 6 1例 ,开放组 46例 ) ,不同感染病种者试验组痊愈率和有效率为 81.7%和 93.3% ,对照组者为 6 7.2 %和 90 .2 % ,开放组者的80 .4%和 95 .6 % ,无显著性差异 (P>0 .0 5 )。试验组和开放组共 10 6例 ,两组总的痊愈率和有效率分别为81.1%和 94.3%。不同细菌感染者各组药物疗效与不同感染病种者临床疗效一致。三组细菌培养阳性率分别为 90 .0 %、95 .2 %及 87.0 % ,细菌β-内酰胺酶产生率分别为 6 6 .7%、5 8.6 %及 6 7.5 % ,细菌清除率 (阴转率 )分别为 98.2 % (98.2 % )、96 .6 % (96 .4% )与 95 .0 % (94.8% ) ,无显著性差异 (P>0 .0 5 )。纸片敏试结果显示临床分离菌对舒巴坦 /头孢哌酮高敏率为 96 .7% ,高于头孢噻肟 6 7.1%、头孢哌酮 6 0 .5 %、头孢曲松 6 0 .5 %、头孢他啶 77.6 %及头孢唑林 44 .1% ,有显著性差异 (P<0 .0 5 )。舒巴坦 /头孢哌酮的 MIC值较其它头孢菌素类低。各组不良反应发生率分别为
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sulbactam / cefoperazone and cefotaxime in the treatment of various moderate and severe acute bacterial infections. Methods: A randomized parallel trial and open trial in a multicenter randomized trial of sulbactam / cefoperazone (1: 1) at 4 to 8 g / day were given intravenously for 2 to 4 drops for 7 to 14 days. Cefotaxime 4 to 8 g / d, usage as above. Results: A total of 167 cases (60 cases in trial group, 61 cases in control group and 46 cases in open group) were achieved. The cure rate and effective rate in experimental group were 81.7% and 93.3%, respectively, and those in control group were 6 7.2% and 90.2% respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (80.4% and 95.6%, P> 0.05). A total of 106 cases in the trial group and in the open group were 81.1% and 94.3%, respectively. Different bacterial infections in each group of drug efficacy and clinical efficacy of different infectious diseases are consistent. The positive rate of bacterial culture in the three groups was 90.0%, 95.2% and 87.0% respectively. The bacterial β-lactamase production rates were 66.7%, 58.6% and 67.5% Transfer rate) were 98.2% (98.2%), 96.6% (96.4%) and 95.0% (94.8%) respectively, with no significant difference (P> 0.05). The results of the paper test showed that the high sensitivity of clinical isolates to sulbactam / cefoperazone was 96.7%, higher than that of cefotaxime 6 6%, cefoperazone 6 0.5% and ceftriaxone 6 0 5 %, Ceftazidime 77.6% and cefazolin 44.1%, there was a significant difference (P <0.05). The sulbactam / cefoperazone MIC value than other cephalosporins. The incidence of adverse reactions in each group were