Comparison of prophylactic ampicillin/sulbactam with gentamicin and metronidazole in elective colorectal surgery: A randomized clinical study

AhChong, K; Yip, A. W. C.; Lee, F.C.W.; Chiu, K. M.

doi:10.1016/0195-6701(94)90008-6

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanate to be as effective as i.v. combinations of gentamicin and metronidazole, 464 gentamicin and clindamycin, 465 and cefotaxime and metronidazole for preventing SSIs in elective colorectal procedures.…”

Section: Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery

Bratzler

Dellinger

Olsen

et al. 2013

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

1,844

1,464

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery

Bratzler

Dellinger

Olsen

et al. 2013

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy

1,844

1,464

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…ampicillin-sulbactam or amoxicillin-clavulanic acid to be as effective as i.v. combinations of gentamicin and metronidazole [464], gentamicin and clindamycin [465], and cefotaxime and metronidazole for preventing SSIs in elective colorectal procedures.…”

Section: Surgical Prophylaxis Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other i.v. agents that have been evaluated either alone or in combination include aminoglycosides [464,[466][467][468][469], clindamycin [466], ampicillin [467,[469][470][471], penicillins plus b-lactamase inhibitors [464,465,468,472,473], doxycycline [470,[474][475][476], piperacillin [91,473], imipenem-cilastatin [462], and ciprofloxacin [300].…”

Section: Surgical Prophylaxis Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery

Bratzler

Dellinger

Olsen

et al. 2013

Surgical Infections

1,181

1,225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T hese guidelines were developed jointly by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). This work represents an update to the previously published ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery [1], as well as guidelines from IDSA and SIS [2,3]. The guidelines are intended to provide practitioners with a standardized approach to the rational, safe, and effective use of antimicrobial agents for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) based on currently available clinical evidence and emerging issues. Prophylaxis refers to the prevention of an infection and can be characterized as primary prophylaxis, secondary prophylaxis, or eradication. Primary prophylaxis refers to the prevention of an initial infection. Secondary prophylaxis refers to the prevention of recurrence or reactivation of a preexisting infection. Eradication refers to the elimination of a colonized organism to prevent the development of an infection. These guidelines focus on primary perioperative prophylaxis. Guidelines development and use Members of ASHP, IDSA, SIS, and SHEA were appointed to serve on an expert panel established to ensure the validity, reliability, and utility of the revised guidelines. The work of the panel was facilitated by faculty of the

show abstract

“…Other controlled clinical trials support the effectiveness of ampicillin-sulbactam 1.5 and 3.0 g for both respiratory and urinary tract infections. [20][21][22][23][24] Other literature supports the potential cost savings we found with ampicillin-sulbactam 1.5 g. In a therapeutic interchange program, the agent was substituted for cefoxitin as prophylaxis against intraabdominal infection and as treatment of gynecologic infections. 25 Results during the first 3 months indicated no antibiotic failures that could be attributed to the use of ampicillinsulbactam rather than cefoxitin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%