Evidence Hub

Use of intravenous ciprofloxacin in difficult-to-treat infections

Giamarellou H, Galanakis N

The American journal of medicine, 1987

54 participants

Abstract

Intravenous ciprofloxacin was administered to 54 patients who were either critically ill or in whom oral administration was not possible. The 31 males and 23 females ranged in age from 20 to 89 years (mean, 53.2 +/- 17.8 years). Patients had "difficult-to-treat" infections, i.e., respiratory infections (15), abscesses (four intraabdominal, three lung, two soft tissue, and one intrahepatic), deep soft tissue infections (10), chronic post-traumatic osteomyelitis in exacerbation (nine), upper urinary tract infection (five), malignant external otitis (two), catheter-related bacteremia (two), and infectious endocarditis (one). Thirty patients (56 percent) had serious associated medical problems. Pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (38 isolates), Acinetobacter species (10 isolates), Enterobacter cloacae (eight isolates), Escherichia coli (two isolates), Proteus mirabilis (one isolate), Kingella kingae (one isolate), Bacteroides fragilis (eight isolates), and Peptostreptococcus species (five isolates). Minimal inhibitory concentrations of ciprofloxacin ranged from 0.003 to 2 micrograms/ml. In 39 patients, the isolated microorganisms were multi-resistant; resistance included ceftazidime and amikacin in 32 patients. In 24 patients, ciprofloxacin was given exclusively by the intravenous route at a dose of 200 mg every 12 hours; in 30 patients, treatment was completed after discontinuation of the parenteral drug with the oral preparation of ciprofloxacin at a dose of 750 mg every…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 54 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free