Evidence Hub

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for ERCP: a Comparison of Intravenous Ceftriaxone With Intravenous Moxifloxacin in the Prophylaxis of Cholangitis

ClinicalTrials.gov · COMPLETED, 2015

86 participants

Abstract

Background and aims: The use of prophylactic antibiotics before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is recommended by all major international gastroenterological societies, especially in the presence of an obstructed biliary system. Their use is intended to decrease or eliminate the incidence of complications following the procedure, namely cholangitis, cholecystitis, septicemia, and pancreatitis. However, there were a few reports concerning the dosage, duration and adopting antibiotics most suitable for this purpose. The aim of this prospective comparative study is to compare the occurrence rate of post-procedural complications, such as cholangitis, bacteremia and septicemia between intravenous moxifloxacin and ceftriaxone for the prophylactic use in patients with bile duct obstruction who will undergo therapeutic ERCP procedure.

Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 160 patients (calculated by IBM SPSS Sample Power, version 3.0) with bile duct obstruction due to variable causes (bile duct stones, benign or malignant stricture, etc) will be enrolled and randomly allocated to intravenous moxifloxacin and ceftriaxone group, respectively (using simple randomization program). Intravenous moxifloxacin (400 mg/day, infused more than 60 min) or ceftriaxone (2 g/day, diluted in 40 cc of 5% dextrose water, infused more than 30 min) will be given 90 minutes before ERCP procedure, and will be given to a patient for more than 3 days if the patient develops…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 86 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