No abstract

The study presented here compared the efficacy and safety of ertapenem and cefepime as initial treatment for adults with pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospital environments outside the intensive care unit (ICU). Non-ventilated patients developing pneumonia in hospital environments outside the ICU, in nursing homes, or in other skilled-care facilities were enrolled in this double-blind non-inferiority study, stratified by APACHE II score (15) and randomized (1:1) to receive cefepime (2 g every 12 h with optional metronidazole 500 mg every 12 h) or ertapenem (1 g daily). After 3 days of parenteral therapy, participants demonstrating clinical improvement could be switched to oral ciprofloxacin or another appropriate oral agent. Probable pathogens were identified in 162 (53.5%) of the 303 randomized participants. The most common pathogens were Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus, isolated from 59 (19.5%), 39 (12.9%), and 35 (11.6%) participants, respectively. At the test-of-cure assessment 7-14 days after completion of all study therapy, pneumonia had resolved or substantially improved in 89 (87.3%) of 102 clinically evaluable ertapenem recipients and 80 (86%) of 93 clinically evaluable cefepime recipients (95% confidence interval for the difference, -9.4 to 11.8%), fulfilling pre-specified criteria for statistical non-inferiority. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both treatment groups. In this study population, ertapenem was as well-tolerated and efficacious as cefepime for the initial treatment of pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospital environments outside the ICU.

Strains of microorganisms characterized by resistance to antimicrobial drugs used in medical organizations continue to spread In most regions of the world including Russia. It is clear that it affects both the effectiveness of antimicrobial therapy and tactics and strategy of its use not only in adults patients but also in children. The pandemic of coronavirus infection, in addition, highlighted the growing problems in treatment of invasive mycoses, the dose adjustment of antibiotics during sorption and dialysis therapy methods. These circumstances made it necessary to make adjustments to Guidelines on Diagnostics and Antimicrobial Therapy of Infections Caused by Multiresistant Strains of Microorganisms, which were prepared by a group of leading Russian experts in 2020 [1]. The submitted version of the recommendations was approved on 25.03.2022 at a joint meeting of the working group with representatives of public organizations: Association of Anesthesiologists-Intensivists, the Interregional Non-Governmental Organization Alliance of Clinical Chemotherapists and Microbiologists, the Interregional Association for Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (IACMAC), and NGO Russian Sepsis Forum. These recommendations reflect an interdisciplinary consensus opinion on approaches to the diagnosis and antimicrobial therapy of infections caused by multiresistant microorganisms. They are based on data from publications obtained from randomized trials as well as based on international clinical guidelines with a high degree of evidence.It is rational to use the Guidelines for determining the tactics of empirical and etiotropic therapy of the most severe infections.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cefepime/sulbactam in patients with intra-abdominal infection, nosocomial pneumonia (NP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in actual clinical practice. Material and methods. The study was conducted in 14 Russian Clinics from October 2019 to March 2020. Study design: an open-label, prospective, non-comparative, multicenter, observational study. The study included patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed a written informed consent. The studied antibiotic: cefepime/sulbactam (Maxictam®-AF). The primary parameter for effectiveness evaluation was the clinical effect after the conclusion of cefepime/sulbactam therapy — recovery/improvement or no effect. Results. The study included 140 patients (average age — 60.8 years) who received at least one dose of cefepime/sulbactam; 37 of them had intraabdominal infection, 72 — NP, and 31 — VAP. Most of the included patients were in the ICU department (82.1%) and their condition was severe: the average APACHE II score was 15.5 points, SOFA — 5.4 points, the Mannheim peritonitis index value in patients with intra-abdominal infection was from 14 to 35 points, with an average of 24.3 points. The majority of patients treated with cefepime/sulbactam (68.6%) had one or more risk factors for multi-resistant pathogens upon hospital or ICU admission. Cefepime/sulbactam was prescribed as the 1st or 2nd line of empirical therapy at a daily dose of 4 g (in 68.3%), 6 g (2.9%) or 8 g (28.8%); most patients were prescribed cefepime/sulbactam in monotherapy (72.3%). The average duration of therapy with cefepime/sulbactam was 9.6±3.5 days. The final assessment of treatment effectiveness was carried out in 132 patients: recovery or improvement was noted in 80.6% of patients with intra-abdominal infection, the effectiveness in NP and VAP was slightly higher — 95.6 and 89.3%. The effect was absent in 5.3% of patients, relapse or superinfection was noted in 3.0 and 1.5%. The majority of patients (81.3%) treated with cefepime/sulbactam were discharged from the hospital. No serious side effects were observed. In patients with a positive effect, age and values of APACHE II were significantly lower (59.58 years and 14.79 points) compared to those with no effect (67.95 years and 18.39 points). A multivariate analysis found that the probability of recovery of patients treated with cefepime/sulbactam did not depend on the diagnosis of infection, ICU admission, the presence of sepsis or septic shock. Conclusion. The multicenter study has established a high clinical efficacy of cefepime/sulbactam in real clinical practice in the treatment of patients with severe intraabdominal infection, nosocomial pneumonia or ventilator-associated pneumonia.

The objective of this study was to improve the results of surgical treatment for patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers and peritonitis (PGDU-P) by applying the preperitoneal blockade. Materials and Methods:The study included 102 patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers (PGDU) complicated by peritonitis. Patients between 18 and 30 years were predominant. Pain was measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain. The measurements of intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) by indirect infravesical tensometry were performed daily from the first day after the operation. Surgical interventions (laparotomy, laparoscopic suturing of PGDU, sanitation and drainage of the abdominal cavity) was performed under endotracheal anesthesia in all patients.Patients were divided into two groups depending on the method of postoperative analgesia. Patients of Group 1 (n=62) were subjected only to systemic opioid analgesia (an intramuscular injection of 1% solution of Promedol 1ml 4 times a day). Patients of Group 2 were subjected to systemic opioid analgesia and catheterization of the preperitoneal space for infusion of 0.5% solution of Novocaine in the postoperative period.Results: Postoperative analgesia using preperitoneal blockade after laparotomy and suturing of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers reduced the pain intensity by 2 times in comparison with conventional analgesia. The preperitoneal blockade after laparotomy in PGDU-P patients promotes the effective reduction of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) for 2 days. The comparative evaluation of the incidence of the early postoperative complications showed that using preperitoneal blockade contributed to significantly reducing the complications in Group 2. Postoperative mortality was 1.6% in Group 1 and 0 in Group 2. The average length of stay was reduced by approximately 3 days in Group 2 compared to traditional anesthesia. (Int J Biomed. 2016;6(2):114-118.).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract