期刊文献+

头孢哌酮联合罗红霉素治疗下呼吸道感染的效果观察 被引量:2

COMBINED USE OF CEFOPERAZONE AND FLURITHROMYCIN FOR LOWER RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION
下载PDF
导出
摘要 ①目的 评价头孢哌酮联合罗红霉素治疗下呼吸道细菌感染的临床效果及不良反应。②方法 采用随机对照研究方法 ,将 10 6例下呼吸道细菌感染病人随机分为两组 ,每组 5 3例。实验组用头孢哌酮 2 .0 g加入生理盐水 10 0mL中静脉滴注 ,罗红霉素 0 .15g口服 ,均每天 2次 ;对照组单用头孢哌酮 2 .0 g加入生理盐水 10 0mL静脉滴注 ,每天 2次。 7~ 14d为一疗程。③结果 实验组痊愈率为 6 0 .4% ,有效率为 92 .5 % ,细菌清除率为 94.4% ;对照组分别为 34 .0 % ,71.7% ,70 .4% ,两组比较 ,差异有显著性 (χ2 =7.42~ 10 .79,P <0 .0 1)。实验组不良反应发生率为 11.0 % ,对照组为 9.4% ,两组比较差异无显著性 (χ2 =0 .10 ,P >0 .0 5 )。④结论 罗红霉素与头孢哌酮联合治疗细菌感染 。 Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and adverse effects of cefoperazone and flurithromycin in combined therapy for lower respiratory tract bacterial infections (LRTBI). Methods 106 patients with LRTBI were randomly divided into two groups. The treat group (n=53) was treated with cefoperazone 2.0g +NS 100mL intravenous drip, twice a day, and flurithromycin 0.15g orally, twice a day. The control group (n=53) was treated with cefoperazone only , 2.0g +NS 100mL intravenous drip, twice a day. One treatment course was 7 to 14 days for both groups. Results The cure rate of treat group was 60.4% compare with 34.0% for the control group(χ2=7.42,P<0.01); the efficacy rate of treat group was 92.5% compared with 71.7% for the control (χ2=7.76,P<0.01); and the bacterial eradication rate of treat group was 94.4% compared with 70.4% for the control (χ2=10.79,P<0.005), respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups. The adverse effects of two groups was 11.0% vs 9.4% (χ2=0.10, P>0.05). Conclusion The combination of flurithromycin and cefoperazone may increase the therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of bacterial infections.
出处 《青岛大学医学院学报》 CAS 2001年第2期148-150,共3页 Acta Academiae Medicinae Qingdao Universitatis
关键词 罗红霉素 头孢哌酮 呼吸道感染 药物评价 联合治疗 疗效 roxithromycin cefoperazone respiratory tract infections drug evaluation
  • 相关文献

参考文献2

二级参考文献12

  • 1[1]Ohgaki N. Bacterial biofilm in chronic airway infection. Kansenshog aku Zasshi,1994,68:138~151.
  • 2[2]Kobayashi H. Biofilm Disease:its clinical manifestation and therape utic possibilities of macrolides. Am J Med,1995,99(6A):26S~36S.
  • 3[4]Costeton JW,Chen KJ,Geesey GG,et al. Bacterial biofilms in nature a nd disease. Ann Rev Microbiol,1987,41:435~464.
  • 4[5]Anwar H, Strap JL,Costerton JW. Establishment of aging biofilms:pos sible mechanism of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrob Age nts Chemother,1992,36:1347~1351.
  • 5[6]Anwar H,Dasgupta MK,Costerton JW. Testing the susceptibility of ba cteria in biofilms to antibacterial agents. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,1990,34: 2043~2046.
  • 6[7]Hoyle BD,Alcantara J,Costerton JW. Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm as a diffusion barrier to piperacillin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,1992,36:2054 ~2056.
  • 7[8]Kumon H,Ono N,Iida M,et al. Combination effect of fosfomycin and of loxacin against pseudomonas aeruginosa growing in a biofilm. Antimicrob Agents C hemother,1995,39:1038~1044.
  • 8[9]Soboh F,Khoury AE,Zamboni AC,et al. Effects of ciprofloxacin and pr otamine sulfate combinations against catheter-associated pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,1995,39:1281~1286.
  • 9[10]Giwercman B,Jensen ET,Hoiby N,et al. Induction of β-lactam ase production in pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother,19 91,35:1008~1010.
  • 10[12]Ishida H,Ishida Y,Kurosaka Y,et al. In vitro and in vivo a ctivities of levofloxacin against biofilm-producing pseudomonas aeruginosa. Ant imicrob Agents Chemother,1998,42:1641~1645.

共引文献30

同被引文献9

引证文献2

二级引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部