期刊文献+

利奈唑胺治疗复杂性皮肤软组织感染的临床分析 被引量:8

Linezolid Treatment in Complicated Skin and Soft Tissue Infections:A Clinical Analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的比较利奈唑胺与万古霉素或去甲万古霉素治疗严重血液病和烧伤患者合并复杂性皮肤软组织感染(cSSTI)的临床疗效及安全性。方法回顾性分析了医院2007-2008年116例住院患者发生cSSTI的临床特征、细菌学结果,以及应用利奈唑胺、万古霉素或去甲万古霉素治疗的效果和安全性。结果cSSTI细菌学检测结果以G+球菌为主,葡萄球菌属占51.7%;治疗结束后7 d,利奈唑胺组的临床有效率(93.9%)明显高于万古霉素组(76.3%,P<0.05)和去甲万古霉素组(73.3%,P<0.01),差异有统计学意义;细菌学评价患者治疗结束后7d,针对所有G+球菌,利奈唑胺组的临床有效率(93.1%)优于万古霉素组(74.2%,P<0.05)和去甲万古霉素组(63.2%,P<0.01),其差异也有统计学意义;针对MRSA和肠球菌属,利奈唑胺组的有效率(86.7%)也优于万古霉素组(42.9%,P<0.05)和去甲万古霉素组(43.8%,P<0.05),其差异有统计学意义;利奈唑胺的不良反应少、安全性好、患者可以耐受。结论利奈唑胺治疗严重血液病和烧伤患者合并cSSTI安全性好,具有显著疗效,优于万古霉素和去甲万古霉素。 OBJECTIVE To compare linezolid to vancomycin or norvancomycin in the treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) in the patients with hematological diseases or burn. METHODS Totally 116 patients with hematological diseases or burn diagnosed as cSSTI in our hospital from 2007 to 2008 were analyzed by clinical characteristics, pathogens, and efficacy, then treated with linezolid, vancomycin or nor vancomycin. Difference efficacy and side effect among three groups was observed. RESULTS The most commonly isolated pathogens were Gram-positive cocci, including Staphylococcus aureus (51. 7%), Streptococcus (15. 5 %), and Enterococcus (12.1%). In the clinically evaluation, cure had been achieved in 31 patients (93.9%) in the linezolid group, 29 patients (76.3%, P〈0. 05) in the vancomycin group, and 33 patients (73. 3%, P〈0. 01) in the norvancomyein group, respectively. In the Gram-positive coceus population, cure had been aehieved in 27 patients (93. 1%) in the linezolid group, 23 patients (74. 2%, P〈0. 05) in the vancomyein group, and 25 patients (63.2%, P〈0.01) in the norvancomycin group, respectively. In the MRSA and Enterococcus population, cure had been achieved in 13 patients (86.7%) in the linezolid group, 8 patients (42.9M, P〈0.05) in the vancomycin group and 8 patients (43.8%, P〈0.05) in the norvancomycin group, respectively. Fewer drug-related adverse events were reported in linezolid group. CONCLUSIONS Linezolid is better than vancomycin or norvancomycin in treating cSSTI in the patients with hematological diseases or burn.
出处 《中华医院感染学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2009年第20期2777-2779,共3页 Chinese Journal of Nosocomiology
关键词 利奈唑胺 万古霉素 皮肤疾病 软组织感染 抗菌药物 Linezolid Vancomycin Skin disease Soft tissue infection Anti-infective agents
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

  • 1Jacqueline C,Caillon J,Le Mabecque V,et al. In vitro activity of linezolid alone and in combination with gentamicin, vancomycin or rifampicin against methicillin-resistant Staphflococcus aureus by time-kill curve methods[J]. J Antimicrob Chemother, 2003,51(4) :857-864. 被引量:1
  • 2Solomkin JS, Bjornson HS, Cainzos M, et al. A consensus statement on empiric therapy for suspected Gram-positive infections in surgical patients[J]. Am J Surg, 2004,187 (1) :134-145. 被引量:1
  • 3Drago L,Nicola L,De Vecchi E,et al. A comparative in vitro evaluation of resistance selection after exposure to teicoplanin, vancomycin, linezolid and quinupristin-dalfopristin in Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus spp[J]. Clin Microbiol Infect, 2008,14(6) : 608-611. 被引量:1
  • 4John W,Kamal I, Dennis S, et al. Linezolid versus vancomycin in treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infeetions [J]. Antimierob Agents Chemother, 2005,49 (6) : 2260-2266. 被引量:1

同被引文献62

引证文献8

二级引证文献38

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