Evidence Hub

Treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia with piperacillin-tazobactum and amikacin vs cefepime and levofloxacin: A randomized prospective study

Parul Lnu, S. Ahmed, J. Choudhary, M. Ahmed, V. Arora, S. Ali

Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, 2007

879 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

Study Objectives:To compare the survival benefi ts and cost effectiveness of cefepime-levofl oxacin (C-L) as an alternative empirical antibiotic therapy for ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) with the most widely recommended combination of piperacillin-tazobactam and amikacin (P-T-A).Design: Prospective, observational, cohort study.Materials and Methods: A total number of 879 patients were admitted in the ICU during 1st April 2004 to 31 st March 2005 and were screened for the study.Ninety-three patients were clinically suspected to develop early onset VAP.The patients were randomly divided into two groups receiving Cefepime-Levofl oxacin (C-L) or Piperacillin-Tazobactam-Amikacin (P-T-A) as empirical antibiotic therapy.Treatment outcome was compared between the groups, which included ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay and total cost incurred on antibiotics.Results: The epidemiological characteristics including mean age and APACHE II score were comparable between the two groups.The mortality rates in the two groups were similar.The duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in C-L group (5-8 days) as compared to P-T-A group (6-11 days).Also, the mean duration of ICU stay was reduced in C-L group (16±2.1 days) as compared to P-T-A group (19±3.4days).Further, the overall cost of antibiotics in C-L group was 1/3 rd of the cost in P-T-A group.Eleven patients were found to be receiving inappropriate antibiotics and seven patients…

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: 879 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