UNLABELLED: Vancomycin is always the drug of choice for treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in spite of his bactericidal kinetic. BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the improvement of bactericidal kinetic of vancomycin associated with cefpirome against MRSA infection in critically ill patients. METHODS: The prospective cross-over study was carried out in 20 patients with severe pneumonia or bacteremia. There were randomized to receive vancomycin 2 g per day (Group 1, n = 10) or vancomycin with cefpirome 2 g x 2 (Group 2, n = 10). Clinical recovery, bacteriologic parameters (bactericidal kinetic and bactericidal power in vivo at the peak and the valley), duration of ventilation and stay in ICU were comparatively explored in both groups. RESULTS: Clinical outcome did not significantly differ between Group 1 and 2. Bactericidal kinetics were better in the Group 2 (40% vs 60% after 6 hours to the dilution for 1/8e) but the difference was not significant. However, bactericidal power in sera was also better in the Group 2 with more bactericidal dilution at 1/16e (68% vs 88.8%: NS) and overall at 1/32e (10.5% vs 50%: p < 0.05) and CRP, an inflammatory marker, was significantly lower in the Group 2 than in the Group 1 (119.5 +/- 24 mg/l vs 198.6 +/- 78 mg/l: p < 0.05) on the third day.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Vancomycin is always the drug of choice for treatment of infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in spite of his bactericidal kinetic. BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the improvement of bactericidal kinetic of vancomycin associated with cefpirome against MRSA infection in critically illpatients. METHODS: The prospective cross-over study was carried out in 20 patients with severe pneumonia or bacteremia. There were randomized to receive vancomycin 2 g per day (Group 1, n = 10) or vancomycin with cefpirome 2 g x 2 (Group 2, n = 10). Clinical recovery, bacteriologic parameters (bactericidal kinetic and bactericidal power in vivo at the peak and the valley), duration of ventilation and stay in ICU were comparatively explored in both groups. RESULTS: Clinical outcome did not significantly differ between Group 1 and 2. Bactericidal kinetics were better in the Group 2 (40% vs 60% after 6 hours to the dilution for 1/8e) but the difference was not significant. However, bactericidal power in sera was also better in the Group 2 with more bactericidal dilution at 1/16e (68% vs 88.8%: NS) and overall at 1/32e (10.5% vs 50%: p < 0.05) and CRP, an inflammatory marker, was significantly lower in the Group 2 than in the Group 1 (119.5 +/- 24 mg/l vs 198.6 +/- 78 mg/l: p < 0.05) on the third day.