The Experts below are selected from a list of 1332 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
M J Zervos - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
randomized comparative trial with ampicillin sulbactam versus Cefamandole in the therapy of community acquired pneumonia
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 1994Co-Authors: D Williams, M Perri, M J ZervosAbstract:In a randomized prospective study ampicillin/sulbactam and Cefamandole were compared in the therapy of patients hospitalized with community acquired pneumonia. Patients receiving ampicillin/sulbactam (n=37) and Cefamandole (n=38) were similar with respect to age (mean age 70 vs. 76 years respectively), clinical characteristics, severity of illness and underlying disease. Pathogens isolated from patients in the Cefamandole and ampicillin/sulbactam group, respectively, wereStreptococcus pneumoniae (7 vs. 7 patients),Haemophilus parainfluenzae (7 vs. 6 patients),Haemophilus influenzae (5 vs. 5 patients),Staphylococcus aureus (5 vs. 4 patients),Escherichia coli (4 vs. 4 patients),Klebsiella pneumoniae (3 vs. 3 patients),Enterobacter spp. (2 vs. 3 patients),Moraxella catarrhalis (1 vs. 2 patients), and organisms of the oral flora (4 vs. 3 patients). The rate of resistance to penicillin was 80 %, to clindamycin 76 %, to erythromycin 45 %, to ampicillin 43 %, and to cefazolin 18 %. Overall successful treatment rates of 81 % for Cefamandole and 97 % for ampicillin/sulbactam (p=0.05) were observed. Both Cefamandole and ampicillin/sulbactam were shown to be effective agents for therapy of community acquired pneumonia; however ampicillin/sulbactam demonstrated superior overall clinical efficacy.
P D Myerowitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative study of cefazolin Cefamandole and vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in cardiac and vascular operations a double blind randomized trial
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 1992Co-Authors: Dennis G Maki, M J Bohn, Susan M Stolz, G M Kroncke, C W Acher, P D MyerowitzAbstract:Three-hundred twenty-one adults undergoing cardiac or major vascular operations were randomized to receive intravenous cefazolin, Cefamandole, or vancomycin for prophylaxis against surgical infection in a double-blind trial. All three regimens provided therapeutic blood levels throughout operation in patients studied undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. The prevalence of surgical wound infection was lowest with vancomycin (4 infections [3.7%] versus 14 [12.3%] and 13 [11.5%] in the cefazolin and Cefamandole groups, respectively; p = 0.05); there were no thoracic wound infections in cardiac operations in the vancomycin group (p = 0.04). The mean duration of postoperative hospitalization was lowest in the vancomycin group (10.1 days; p < 0.01) and highest in the cefazolin group (12.9 days). Prophylaxis with vancomycin or Cefamandole, compared with cefazolin, did not prevent nosocomial cutaneous colonization by methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci; colonization or infection with vancomycin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci was not detected. Adverse effects attributable to the prophylactic regimen were infrequent in all three groups. Eight patients given vancomycin became hypotensive during administration of a dose, despite infusion during a 1-hour period; however, slowing the rate of administration and pretreating with diphenhydramine allowed vancomycin to be resumed and prophylaxis completed uneventfully in five of the patients. We conclude that administration of vancomycin (approximately 15 mg/kg), immediately preoperatively, provides therapeutic blood levels for surgical prophylaxis throughout most cardiac and vascular operations, resulting in protection against postoperative infection superior to that obtained with cefazolin or Cefamandole. Vancomycin deserves consideration for inclusion in the prophylactic regimen (1) for prosthetic valve replacement and prosthetic vascular graft implantation, to reduce the risk of implant infection by methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci and enterococci; (2) for any cardiovascular operation if the patient has recently received broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy; and (3) for all cardiovascular operations in centers with a high prevalence of surgical infection with methicillin-resistant staphylococci or enterococci. Guidelines for dosing and administration of vancomycin for cardiovascular surgical prophylaxis are provided.
P R Murray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Development of revised quality control limits for disk diffusion susceptibility tests of selected cephem antibiotics with Haemophilus influenzae and description of a new control strain
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 1992Co-Authors: James H. Jorgensen, Mary Jane Ferraro, Gary V Doern, A L Barry, P R MurrayAbstract:Inconsistent quality control results in disk diffusion testing of cefaclor, Cefamandole, cefonicid, and cefuroxime with Haemophilus influenzae ATCC 49247 and Haemophilus test medium (HTM) prompted a search for an alternative control strain that would provide more reliable results. A five-laboratory study was conducted to evaluate two candidate H. influenzae strains as possible alternatives to the aforementioned strain. Repetitive testing of the candidate strains and H. influenzae ATCC 49247 over several days with a total of six different lots of HTM documented consistent performance of the two candidate strains and confirmed inconsistent results for some of the antibiotics with H. influenzae ATCC 49247. In particular, certain lots of HTM failed to yield cefaclor and Cefamandole zone sizes within the quality control range advocated by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Because of the greater consistency offered by the new strains, one was selected (now designated H. influenzae ATCC 49766) to be recommended for routine quality control testing of cefaclor, Cefamandole, cefonicid, cefuroxime, and the related carbacephem loracarbef. The new control strain and zone size ranges proposed here have been approved by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards in place of the previously recommended strain and zone size limits for testing of these five cephem antibiotics.
F. Maggiolo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Teicoplanin versus Cefamandole in the prevention of infection in total hip replacement
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 1994Co-Authors: F. Suter, A. Avai, U. Fusco, M. Gerundini, S. Caprioli, F. MaggioloAbstract:In a prospective, controlled, single-blind study the efficacy of teicoplanin versus Cefamandole in preventing infections in total hip replacement was investigated in 496 consecutive patients. A single intravenous dose of teicoplanin (400 mg) was as effective as two intravenous doses of Cefamandole (2 g before and 1 g after surgery). No major complications were observed in either group. Infective wound complications were observed only in the Cefamandole group. These infections, although not dangerous for the patients, required supplementary antibiotic treatment in all cases. Teicoplanin is a reasonable choice as a prophylactic agent in orthopaedic surgery when a high risk of infection due to staphylococci is present.
Philippe Moreillon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Impact of Penicillinase on Cefamandole Treatment and Prophylaxis of Experimental Endocarditis Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
The Journal of infectious diseases, 1998Co-Authors: Yok-ai Que, José M. Entenza, Patrick Francioli, Philippe MoreillonAbstract:Beta-lactams active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) must resist penicillinase hydrolysis and bind penicillin-binding protein 2A (PBP 2A). Cefamandole might share these properties. When tested against 2 isogenic pairs of MRSA that produced or did not produce penicillinase, MICs of Cefamandole (8-32 mg/L) were not affected by penicillinase, and Cefamandole had a > or =40 times greater PBP 2A affinity than did methicillin. In rats, constant serum levels of 100 mg/L Cefamandole successfully treated experimental endocarditis due to penicillinase-negative isolates but failed against penicillinase-producing organisms. This suggested that penicillinase produced in infected vegetations might hydrolyze the drug. Indeed, Cefamandole was slowly degraded by penicillinase in vitro. Moreover, its efficacy was restored by combination with sulbactam in vivo. Cefamandole also uniformly prevented MRSA endocarditis in prophylaxis experiments, a setting in which bacteria were not yet clustered in the vegetations. Thus, while Cefamandole treatment was limited by penicillinase, the drug was still successful for prophylaxis of experimental MRSA endocarditis.