Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1985 Mar;38(3):643-70.

[Clinical assessment of sulbactam/cefoperazone in comparison with ceftizoxime in patients with postoperative infections by well controlled method]

[Article in Japanese]
  • PMID: 2993690
Clinical Trial

[Clinical assessment of sulbactam/cefoperazone in comparison with ceftizoxime in patients with postoperative infections by well controlled method]

[Article in Japanese]
J Yura et al. Jpn J Antibiot. 1985 Mar.

Abstract

The clinical effectiveness in postoperative infections of sulbactam/cefoperazone (SBT/CPZ, (SBT 0.5 g+ CPZ 0.5 g) X 2/day) was compared to that of ceftizoxime (CZX, 1.0 g X 2/day) by a well controlled comparative study, to have the following results. The overall effectiveness rate of SBT/CPZ and CZX as judged by Judgement Committee was 84.0% (63/75) and 80.6% (50/62), respectively, and the effectiveness of SBT/CPZ and CZX as assessed by the attending surgeons was 84.0% (63/75) and 71.0% (44/62), respectively. No significant difference was noted in both assessments. In a total of 36 SBT/CPZ-treated patients with intraabdominal infections, the clinical efficacy was judged by attending surgeons to be excellent in 13 patients (36.1%), and to be excellent or good in 31 (86.1%). In the 30 CZX treated patients, it was judged to be excellent in 6 patients (20.0%), and to be excellent or good in 19 (63.3%). These results presented a significant difference (P less than 0.05, U-test) between the 2 drug groups. The final global improvement ratio judged by attending surgeons was 85.3% (64/75) for SBT/CPZ, and 79.0% (49/62) for CZX with no significant difference. In assessment of time-course improvement, the improvement ratio of SBT/CPZ on day 4 was significantly better than that of CZX (P less than 0.05, U-test). The usefulness rate of SBT/CPZ and CZX was 84.0% (63/75) and 73.0% (46/63), respectively. There was no significant difference between the 2 drug groups. To assess the bacteriological efficacy, the eradication rate of SBT/CPZ was compared to that of CZX. There was no significant difference between 85.7% (36/42) for SBT/CPZ and 73.5% (25/34) for CZX. After SBT/CPZ administration, 2 patients (2.5%) complained of side effects. In the clinical laboratory tests, abnormality related to SBT/CPZ medication was observed in 6 patients (7.5%), and that related to CZX, in 5 patients (6.4%). As to the types of side effects and frequency, no significant difference was observed between SBT/CPZ and CZX. It is concluded from the above assessments that SBT/CPZ is a useful drug in the treatment of post-operative infections.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources