连续输注头孢唑林与头孢唑林加probenecid对非复杂性蜂窝织炎的动态治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。

Q3 Medicine
JAMMI Pub Date : 2019-06-17 eCollection Date: 2019-06-01 DOI:10.3138/jammi.2018-0039
Daniel L Landry, Sherif Eltonsy, Luc P Jalbert, Gabriel Girouard, Jonathan Couture, Mathieu Bélanger
{"title":"连续输注头孢唑林与头孢唑林加probenecid对非复杂性蜂窝织炎的动态治疗:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Daniel L Landry,&nbsp;Sherif Eltonsy,&nbsp;Luc P Jalbert,&nbsp;Gabriel Girouard,&nbsp;Jonathan Couture,&nbsp;Mathieu Bélanger","doi":"10.3138/jammi.2018-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The preferred ambulatory IV therapy for cellulitis is often once-daily cefazolin combined with once-daily oral probenecid (C+P). However, due to a national probenecid drug shortage in 2011, our centre developed a replacement protocol for the administration of cefazolin continuous infusion (CCI) using elastomeric infusers. Our goal was to compare treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence associated with CCI and C+P using retrospective data from our centre.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a non-inferiority single-centre retrospective cohort study of emergency department medical records. Patients received either C+P (cefazolin 2 g IV once daily plus probenecid 1 g PO once daily) or CCI (cefazolin 2 g IV loading dose, followed by cefazolin 6 g IV via continuous infusion over 24 hours, via an elastomeric infuser). We compared treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> total of 203 patients were analyzed, with 107 included in the CCI arm and 96 in the C+P arm. Overall, CCI users and C+P users were comparable in their sociodemographic and clinical variables measured at admission. We observed increased odds of achieving successful treatment among the CCI group, however it did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio [OR] 2.25; 95% CI 0.84 to 6.07). Recurrence rates were similar between both groups (OR 1.91; 95% CI 0.32 to 11.31). The average duration of IV therapy was similar between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ith results suggesting that CCI was non-inferior to C+P, and that both approaches required similar treatment durations, CCI could represent an acceptable alternative to C+P for the ambulatory IV treatment of cellulitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":36782,"journal":{"name":"JAMMI","volume":" ","pages":"108-112"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/jammi.2018-0039","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Continuous cefazolin infusion versus cefazolin plus probenecid for the ambulatory treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: A retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel L Landry,&nbsp;Sherif Eltonsy,&nbsp;Luc P Jalbert,&nbsp;Gabriel Girouard,&nbsp;Jonathan Couture,&nbsp;Mathieu Bélanger\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/jammi.2018-0039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The preferred ambulatory IV therapy for cellulitis is often once-daily cefazolin combined with once-daily oral probenecid (C+P). However, due to a national probenecid drug shortage in 2011, our centre developed a replacement protocol for the administration of cefazolin continuous infusion (CCI) using elastomeric infusers. Our goal was to compare treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence associated with CCI and C+P using retrospective data from our centre.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a non-inferiority single-centre retrospective cohort study of emergency department medical records. Patients received either C+P (cefazolin 2 g IV once daily plus probenecid 1 g PO once daily) or CCI (cefazolin 2 g IV loading dose, followed by cefazolin 6 g IV via continuous infusion over 24 hours, via an elastomeric infuser). We compared treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> total of 203 patients were analyzed, with 107 included in the CCI arm and 96 in the C+P arm. Overall, CCI users and C+P users were comparable in their sociodemographic and clinical variables measured at admission. We observed increased odds of achieving successful treatment among the CCI group, however it did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio [OR] 2.25; 95% CI 0.84 to 6.07). Recurrence rates were similar between both groups (OR 1.91; 95% CI 0.32 to 11.31). The average duration of IV therapy was similar between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ith results suggesting that CCI was non-inferior to C+P, and that both approaches required similar treatment durations, CCI could represent an acceptable alternative to C+P for the ambulatory IV treatment of cellulitis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMMI\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"108-112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/jammi.2018-0039\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMMI\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi.2018-0039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMMI","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/jammi.2018-0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:蜂窝组织炎首选的动态静脉治疗通常是每日一次头孢唑林联合每日一次口服probenecid (C+P)。然而,由于2011年全国probenecide药物短缺,我们中心制定了使用弹性输液器给药头孢唑林持续输注(CCI)的替代方案。我们的目标是通过本中心的回顾性数据比较治疗效果、静脉治疗持续时间以及与CCI和C+P相关的复发率。方法:我们对急诊科病历进行了非劣效性单中心回顾性队列研究。患者接受C+P(头孢唑林2 g静脉注射,每日1次,加probenecid 1 g PO,每日1次)或CCI(头孢唑林2 g静脉注射负荷剂量,随后头孢唑林6 g静脉注射,通过弹性输液器连续输注24小时)。我们比较了治疗效果、静脉治疗时间和复发率。结果:共分析203例患者,其中CCI组107例,C+P组96例。总体而言,CCI使用者和C+P使用者在入院时测量的社会人口学和临床变量具有可比性。我们观察到CCI组获得成功治疗的几率增加,但没有达到统计学意义(优势比[OR] 2.25;95% CI 0.84 ~ 6.07)。两组复发率相似(OR 1.91;95% CI 0.32 ~ 11.31)。两组患者平均静脉注射时间相似(p = 0.6)。结论:结果表明CCI不低于C+P,并且两种方法所需的治疗时间相似,因此CCI可以作为蜂窝织炎的动态静脉治疗的可接受替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Continuous cefazolin infusion versus cefazolin plus probenecid for the ambulatory treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis: A retrospective cohort study.

Background: The preferred ambulatory IV therapy for cellulitis is often once-daily cefazolin combined with once-daily oral probenecid (C+P). However, due to a national probenecid drug shortage in 2011, our centre developed a replacement protocol for the administration of cefazolin continuous infusion (CCI) using elastomeric infusers. Our goal was to compare treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence associated with CCI and C+P using retrospective data from our centre.

Methods: We conducted a non-inferiority single-centre retrospective cohort study of emergency department medical records. Patients received either C+P (cefazolin 2 g IV once daily plus probenecid 1 g PO once daily) or CCI (cefazolin 2 g IV loading dose, followed by cefazolin 6 g IV via continuous infusion over 24 hours, via an elastomeric infuser). We compared treatment efficacy, duration of IV therapy, and recurrence rates.

Results:  total of 203 patients were analyzed, with 107 included in the CCI arm and 96 in the C+P arm. Overall, CCI users and C+P users were comparable in their sociodemographic and clinical variables measured at admission. We observed increased odds of achieving successful treatment among the CCI group, however it did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio [OR] 2.25; 95% CI 0.84 to 6.07). Recurrence rates were similar between both groups (OR 1.91; 95% CI 0.32 to 11.31). The average duration of IV therapy was similar between groups (p = 0.6).

Conclusions: ith results suggesting that CCI was non-inferior to C+P, and that both approaches required similar treatment durations, CCI could represent an acceptable alternative to C+P for the ambulatory IV treatment of cellulitis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMMI
JAMMI Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信