期刊文献+

利奈唑胺、替考拉宁及万古霉素治疗院内MRSA肺炎的临床观察 被引量:20

Clinical Observation of Linezolid,Teicoplanin and Vancomycin in the Treatment of Hospital- acquired MRSA Pneumonia
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:观察利奈唑胺、替考拉宁及万古霉素治疗院内耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)肺炎的临床疗效及安全性。方法:选取被诊断为院内MRSA肺炎的患者120例,按用药方案分为利奈唑胺组、替考拉宁组和万古霉素组,各40例。利奈唑胺组患者给予利奈唑胺注射液600 mg,ivgtt,bid;替考拉宁组患者给予替考拉宁注射液0.4 g,ivgtt,bid;万古霉素组患者给予盐酸万古霉素注射液1 000 mg,ivgtt,bid。3组患者均治疗2周。观察3组患者临床疗效、细菌清除有效率及治疗前后血清炎症因子水平,并比较不良反应发生率。结果:利奈唑胺组、替考拉宁组和万古霉素组患者临床有效率分别为90.0%、72.5%、67.5%,细菌清除有效率分别为85.0%、60.0%、57.5%;利奈唑胺组患者临床有效率和细菌清除有效率明显高于替考拉宁组和万古霉素组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);替考拉宁组和万古霉素组患者上述指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组患者治疗前血清炎症因子比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);3组患者治疗后血清C反应蛋白(CRP)、降钙原素(PCT)水平明显降低,且利奈唑胺组明显低于替考拉宁组和万古霉素组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);替考拉宁组和万古霉素组患者治疗前后血清炎症因子比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:利奈唑胺治疗院内MRSA肺炎优于替考拉宁及万古霉素,对患者肺部炎症控制更好,且安全性较高。 OBJECTIVE: To observe clinical efficacy and safety of linezolid, teicoplanin and vancomycin in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS: 120 patients diagnosed as hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia were divided into linezolid group, teicoplanin group and vancomycin group according to therapeutic regimen, with 40 cases in each group. Linezolid group received Linezolid injection 600 mg, ivgtt, bid; teicoplanin group received Teicoplanin injection 0.4 g, ivgtt, bid; vancomycin group received Vancomycin injection 1 000 mg, bid, ivgtt. 3 groups received 2 weeks of treatment. Clinical efficacy and bacterial clearance effective rate of 3 groups were observed as well as serum levels of inflammatory factors before and after treatment. ADR of 3 groups were compared. RESULTS: The clinical effective rates of linezolid group, teicoplanin group and vancomycin group were 90.0%, 72.5% and 67.5% ; the effective bacterial clearance rates were 85.0%, 60.0% and 57.5%, respectively. The clinical effective rate and the effective bacterial clearance rate in linezolid group were significantly higher than those in teicoplanin group and vancomycin group, with statistical significance (P〈0.05). There was no statistical significance in above indexes between teicoplanin group and vancomycin group (P〉0.05). There was no statistical significance serum inflammatory factors among 3 groups before treatment (P〉0.05). CRP and PCT of 3 groups decreased significantly after treatment, and those of linezolid group were lower than teicoplanin group and vancomycin group, with statistical significance (P〈0.05). There was no statistical significance in serum inflammatory factors between teicoplanin group and vancomycin group before and after treatment (P〉0.05). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of ADR among 3 groups (P〉0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For hospital-acquired MRSA pneumonia, linezolid is better than teicoplanin and v
出处 《中国药房》 CAS 北大核心 2016年第26期3708-3710,共3页 China Pharmacy
关键词 利奈唑胺 替考拉宁 万古霉素 耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌 疗效 炎症因子 Linezolid Teicoplanin Vancomycin Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Efficacy Inflammatory factor
  • 相关文献

参考文献10

二级参考文献50

  • 1吴建浓,施敏凤,王灵聪,叶雪惠.万古霉素治疗葡萄球菌肺炎的疗效与肾毒性评价[J].中国新药与临床杂志,2005,24(3):245-247. 被引量:7
  • 2李美兰,余方友.社区感染金黄色葡萄球菌临床分离株耐药谱研究[J].中国微生态学杂志,2007,19(2):207-208. 被引量:5
  • 3Ito T,Katayama Y, Asada K, et al. Structural comparison of three types of staphylococcal cassette chromosome m ec integrated in the chromosome in methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus [J]. Antimicrob Agents Chemother, 2001,45 (5) : 1323-1336. 被引量:1
  • 4Hiratmatsu K, Hnaki H, Ino T, et al. Methicillin-resist-ant Staphylococcus aureus clinical strain With reduced vancomy- cin susceptibility E J 1. J Antimicrob Chemother, 1997,40 ( 1 ) : 135-136. 被引量:1
  • 5Cuevas O, Cercenado E, Vindel A, et al. Evolution of the anti- microbial resistance of staphylococcus spp. in Spain: five na- tionwide prevalence studies, 1986 to 2002FJ~. Antimicrob A- gents Chemother, 2004,48 : 4240-4245. 被引量:1
  • 6Ena J, Houston A, Wenzel RP, et al. Trends in gram-positive bloodstream organism resistance: a seven year audit of five glycopeptides and other drugs at a large university hospital [J~. J Chemother, 1993,5 .. 17-21. 被引量:1
  • 7Gregory Steinkrausl,Roger White,Lawrence Friedrich. Van- comycin MIC creep in non-vancomycin-intermediateStaphylo- coccus aureus (VISA), vancomycimsusceptible clinicalmethi- cillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) blood isolates from 2001 05[J]. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 2007,60 : 788- 794. 被引量:1
  • 8Quartin AA,Scerpella EG,Puttagunta S,et al. A comparisonof microbiology and demographics among patients withhealthcare-associated, hospital-acquired, and ventilator-asso-ciated pneumonia: a retrospective analysis of 1184 patientsfrom a large,international study [J], BMC Infect Dis,2013,13:561. 被引量:1
  • 9Tadros M, Williams V,Coleman BL.ei al. Epidemiology andoutcome of pneumonia caused by methicillin-resistant Staph-ylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Canadian hospitals [J]. PLoSOne,2013,8(9):e75171. 被引量:1
  • 10Shorr AF,Myers DE,Huang DB,打al. A risk score for identi-fying methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patientspresenting to the hospital with pneumonia [J]. BMC InfectDis,2013,13(1):268. 被引量:1

共引文献659

同被引文献192

引证文献20

二级引证文献113

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