sultamicillin and Peritonitis

P. multocida (Pasteurella multocida) is animal-sourced gram-negative coccobacillus which can be transmitted to human through many animals including household pets. P. multocida induced peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis has rarely been reported. In recent years, there has been an increase in the incidence of P. multocida induced peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis, for the reason that patients with PD at home bred household pets. In this study, we present a case of a P. multocida induced peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis, which is suspected to be caused through intimate contact with a household cat and we have reviewed 28 cases reported before and give suggestions for treatment and the way of prevention.. A 75-year-old man with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) for nearly 5 years on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) was admitted to the nephrology department with a 1-week history of abdominal pain and a cloudy peritoneal dialysis effluent. Based on the history, physical examination and laboratory results with the findings in the peritoneal dialysis fluid, a diagnosis of peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis was confirmed. The final culture of initial peritoneal effluent results indicated the organism was P. multocida. After a 12-day antibiotic treatment, the condition of patient was not improved. The patient was switched to ampicillin/sulbactam (3 g intravenously) twice every day and the condition was improved significantly. On further inquiring, the patient reported that he had had a cat at home and when the patient did CAPD, the cat was usually playing with the tubing or contacting the patient during CAPD.. In our case and reviewed cases, P. multocida induced peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis could be cured by proper antibiotic treatment. If individuals keep the pet away from the PD process, the infection route may be severed. P. multocida induced peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis does not need catheter removal and exchange with hemodialysis except long-time intractable peritonitis.

Topics: Aged; Ampicillin; Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Zoonoses; Cats; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Male; Pasteurella Infections; Pasteurella multocida; Peritoneal Dialysis, Continuous Ambulatory; Peritonitis; Pets; Sulbactam

To evaluate the time-course of ampicillin-sulbactam and percentage of time that its concentration is above a given MIC (T% > MIC) in dogs with septic peritonitis when delivered as either a continuous infusion (CI) or intermittent infusion (II).. 11 dogs with septic peritonitis.. Dogs were randomized to receive ampicillin-sulbactam as either CI or II. Continuous infusions were delivered as a 50 mg/kg bolus IV followed by a rate of 0.1 mg/kg/min. Intermittent infusions were administered as 50 mg/kg IV q8h. Serum ampicillin-sulbactam concentrations were measured at hours 0, 1, 6, and every 12 hours after until patients were transitioned to an oral antimicrobial equivalent. All other care was at the discretion of the attending clinician. Statistical analysis was used to determine each patient's percentage of time T% > MIC for 4 MIC breakpoints (0.25, 1.25, 8, and 16 µg/mL).. No dogs experienced adverse events related to ampicillin-sulbactam administration. Both CI and II maintained a T% > MIC of 100% of MIC 0.25 µg/mL and MIC 1.25 µg/mL. The CI group maintained a higher T% > MIC for MIC 8 µg/mL and MIC 16 µg/mL; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P = .15 and P = .12, respectively).. This study could not demonstrate that ampicillin-sulbactam CI maintains a greater T% > MIC in dogs with septic peritonitis than II; however, marginal differences were noted at higher antimicrobial breakpoints. While these data support the use of antimicrobial CI in septic and critically ill patients, additional prospective trials are needed to fully define the optimal doses and the associated clinical responses.

Topics: Ampicillin; Animals; Infusions, Intravenous; Peritonitis; Prospective Studies; Sulbactam

Intra-abdominal infections are one of the most common infections encountered by a general surgeon. However, despite this prevalence, standardized guidelines outlining the proper use of antibiotic therapy are poorly defined due to a lack of clinical trials investigating the ideal duration of antibiotic treatment. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of a three-day treatment regimen of Ampicillin-Sulbactam to that of a three-day regimen of Ertapenem in patients with localized peritonitis ranging from mild to moderate severity.. This study is a prospective, multi-center, randomized investigation performed in the Department of General, Emergency, and Transplant Surgery of St. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital in Bologna, Italy. Discrete data were analyzed using the Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Differences between the two study groups were considered statistically significant for p-values less than 0.05.. 71 patients were treated with Ertapenem and 71 patients were treated with Ampicillin-Sulbactam. The two groups were comparable in terms of age and gender as well as the site of abdominal infection. Post-operative infection was identified in 12 patients: 10 with wound infections and 2 with intra-abdominal infections. In the Ertapenem group, 69 of the 71 patients (97%) were treated successfully, while the therapy failed in 2 cases (3%). Therapy failures were more frequent in the Unasyn group, amounting to 10 of 71 cases (p = 0.03).. According to these preliminary findings, the authors conclude that a three-day Ertapenem treatment regimen is the most effective antibiotic therapy for patients with localized intra-abdominal infections ranging from mild to moderate severity.. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00630513.

Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; beta-Lactams; Chi-Square Distribution; Drug Administration Schedule; Ertapenem; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peritonitis; Sulbactam; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome

A double-blind trial was conducted in 385 patients with suspected bacterial intra-abdominal infections to compare the efficacy and safety of ampicillin-sulbactam with cefoxitin. Patients were randomized to receive either 3 g ampicillin-sulbactam (2 g ampicillin-1 g sulbactam), or 2 g cefoxitin, every 6 hours. To be evaluable, patients had to demonstrate positive culture evidence of peritoneal infection at the time of operation. A total of 197 patients were evaluable for clinical efficacy. The two treatment groups were comparable in demographic features and in the presence of risk factors for infection. Clinical success (absence of infection and of adverse drug reaction) was observed in 86% of patients in the ampicillin-sulbactam group and 78% in the cefoxitin group. Eradication of infection occurred in 88% of the ampicillin-sulbactam group and 79% of the cefoxitin group. There were no differences in the nature or frequency of side effects observed in the two groups. Ampicillin-sulbactam demonstrated no difference in safety or efficacy when compared with cefoxitin in the treatment of serious intra-abdominal infections of bacterial origin.

Topics: Abdomen, Acute; Adult; Ampicillin; Bacterial Infections; Cefoxitin; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Peritonitis; Prospective Studies; Sulbactam

Appendicitis is a frequent clinical condition in normal children that may be complicated by community-acquired secondary peritonitis (CASP). We evaluated the potential efficacy of different drugs for initial treatment of this condition, as recommended by recent Consensus Conference and Guidelines for paediatric patients. Susceptibility to ampicillin-sulbactam, ertapenem, gentamycin, piperacillin, piperacillin-tazobactam, vancomycin, and teicoplanin was evaluated according to EUCST 2012 recommendations in aerobic bacteria isolated from peritoneal fluid in CASP diagnosed from 2005 to 2011 at 'Istituto Giannina Gaslini', Genoa, Italy. A total of 114 strains were analysed: 83 E. coli, 15 P. aeruginosa, 6 Enterococci, and 10 other Gram-negatives. Resistance to ampicillin-sulbactam was detected in 37% of strains, while ertapenem showed a potential resistance of 13% (all P. aeruginosa strains). However, the combination of these drugs with gentamicin would have been increased the efficacy of the treatment to 99 and 100%, respectively. Resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam was 3%, while no strain was resistant to meropenem. Our data suggest that monotherapy with ampicillin-sulbactam or ertapenem for community-acquired secondary peritonitis would present a non-negligible rate of failure, but the addition of gentamycin to these drugs could reset to zero this risk. On the contrary, monotherapy with piperacillin-tazobactam or meropenem is highly effective.

Topics: Ampicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; beta-Lactams; Child; Community-Acquired Infections; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Therapy, Combination; Ertapenem; Gentamicins; Hospitals, Pediatric; Humans; Italy; Meropenem; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Penicillanic Acid; Peritonitis; Piperacillin; Piperacillin, Tazobactam Drug Combination; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Sulbactam; Thienamycins