共查询到18条相似文献,搜索用时 78 毫秒
1.
重症急性胰腺炎预防性抗生素治疗的荟萃分析 总被引:5,自引:0,他引:5
目的通过对有关文献的荟萃分析,探讨预防性抗生素治疗在重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)中的作用。方法检索1966年到2004年8月期间发表的有关预防性抗生素治疗SAP的作用方面的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。按照人选标准,有6项临床试验纳入本研究,由2名作者各自独立地对入选研究中有关试验设计、研究对象的特征、研究结果等内容进行摘录,并用RevMan4.2软件进行分析。结果在SAP患者中,使用能在胰腺组织中达到有效浓度的广谱抗生素并不能减少胰腺感染(RR=0.77,95% 可信区间为0.48-1.24,P=0.28),也不能减少手术干预(RR=0.84,95%可信区间为0.40-1.74, P=0.64),更不能降低死亡率(RR=0.54,95%可信区间为0.28-1.04,P=0.07),只有胰外感染的发生率有一定的减少(RR=0.52,95%可信区间为0.31-0.88,P=0.01)。结论不建议在SAP患者中不加选择地预防性使用抗生素,但对于CT证实的坏死性胰腺炎,可以考虑抗生素预防性治疗。 相似文献
2.
重症急性胰腺炎预防性应用抗生素的评价 总被引:6,自引:0,他引:6
王自法 《国外医学:消化系疾病分册》1997,17(4):228-229
感染与重症胰腺炎的结局差密切相关,动物研究显示预防性应用抗生素对重症胰腺炎是有益的,尽管临床上尚无充分的资料证明必须应用。如果选择预防性抗生素,氟喹诺酮类联合甲硝唑,或单用碳青霉烯类应当是最合适的。 相似文献
3.
重症急性胰腺炎预防性应用抗生素的评价 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
感染与重症胰腺炎的结局差密切相关。动物研究显示预防性应用抗生素对重症胰腺炎是有益的,尽管临床上尚无充分的资料证明必须应用。如果选择预防性抗生素,氟喹诺酮类联合甲硝唑,或单用碳青霉烯类应当是最合适的。 相似文献
4.
急性胰腺炎是消化系常见急症,可分为轻症急性胰腺炎(MAP)和重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)。SAP症状较重,病死率高,患者主要死于早期毒血症、全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)、多器官功能衰竭(MODS)等严重并发症和后期继发感染。随着重症监护、影像学、内镜检查和外科技术的发展,多数患者能度过早期SIRS、MODS等并发症,但后期继发感染仍是患者致死的主要危险因素。因此.目前早期应用抗生素能否预防SAP后期继发感染已成为研究热点。本文就预防性应用抗生素在SAP中作用的研究进展作一综述。 相似文献
5.
目的 探讨重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)患者预防性抗感染治疗的作用.方法 计算机检索和手工检索收集1990年1月~2011年4月预防性抗感染治疗SAP的英文和中文临床随机对照研究,按纳入与排除标准选择文献,提取资料,应用RevMan 5.0软件对数据进行Meta分析,对预防性抗生素治疗SAP临床研究进行系统评价.结果 纳入随机对照研究10篇,共有SAP患者599例,其中304例随机给予预防性抗生素.分析显示,在SAP患者中预防性使用抗生素可以降低胰外感染的发生率[相对危险度(RR)为0.67,95%可信区间为0.46~0.99,P=0.04],但病死率(P=0.26)、胰腺感染(P=0.06)和手术干预(P=0.19)发生率均不能降低.亚组分析显示在高质量和多中心组预防性使用抗生素可以降低胰外感染的发生率,P值分别为0.03和0.0003,其余各亚组中病死率、胰腺感染、手术干预及胰外感染的发生率均不能降低.结论 预防性使用抗生素治疗不能改善病死率,亦不能降低胰腺感染和手术干预的发生率,但可能降低了胰腺外感染发生率. 相似文献
6.
胰腺坏死感染是重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)最为严重的并发症,尽管预防性使用抗生素被广泛应用以期降低病死率,但其实际的作用却仍然存在争议.在此问题的基础上,我们总结了最近的研究SAP预防性使用抗生素的临床试验和指南.其结果并不支持所有的胰腺坏死均预防性抗生素,而仅推荐有大于30%胰腺坏死或胆源性患者使用<3 wk的亚胺培南或美罗培南,以降低感染性坏死和病死率. 相似文献
7.
重症急性胰腺炎31例预防性抗生素应用分析 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis,SAP)是在胰腺炎基础上并发胰腺坏死、假性囊肿、胰腺脓肿或器官衰竭。SAP死亡的患者中,多达80%伴有感染。一直以来抗生素在SAP患者治疗过程中占有重要地位。抗生素的应用对患者的病程、预后、费效关系、继发真菌感染等问题均有重要的相关性。本文就31例SAP患者住院治疗期间抗生素应用情况总结如下。 相似文献
8.
重症急性胰腺炎抗生素的合理应用 总被引:4,自引:0,他引:4
急性胰腺炎是一种常见的消化科急症,其发病率近年有增高的趋势。大约有20%的患者为重症急性胰腺炎(SAP),死亡率较高,急性胰腺炎系活化的胰酶逸入胰腺间质致使胰腺自身消化的疾病,本属无菌性炎症,但在病程中如并发细菌感染,则致病情加重。 相似文献
9.
重症急性胰腺炎(SAP)占急性胰腺炎(AP)患者的10% ~25%,病死率高达20% ~ 30%.胰腺及胰周组织坏死感染是与病死率密切相关的独立因素,40%~75%的SAP患者会继发与细菌感染相关的并发症[1].20世纪70年代以来不断出现预防性静脉应用抗生素与安慰剂效果比较的临床研究,但结果不一致,且研究的样本数少,无法明确预防性使用抗生素的效果.各指南在对SAP患者是否预防性应用抗生素上未达成一致[2-3].为此,本研究对SAP预防性使用抗生素的临床效果进行荟萃分析. 相似文献
10.
目的:评价预防性使用抗生素对治疗急性坏死性胰腺炎(acute necrotizing pancreatitis,ANP)的作用.方法:在Medline、PubMed、Springer、Ovid、Elsevier、Embase、CNKI、维普数据库中,检索1994-01/2011-10发表的文献.按入选标准,最终纳入5篇文献,使用RevMan5.1进行统计分析.结果:预防性使用抗生素治疗急性坏死性胰腺炎与对照组相比,并不能显著改善生存率(RR0.75,95%CI0.43-1.28,P=0.29),也不能降低胰腺感染(RR0.81,95%CI0.55-1.19,P=0.29)、胰外感染(RR0.79,95%CI0.59-1.06,P=0.12)及手术干预(RR0.78,95%CI0.45-1.36,P=0.37)等并发症的发生几率.结论:对于预防性使用抗生素治疗急性坏死性胰腺炎,根据现有的随机对照治疗尚不能说明其可以显著降低病死率和减少并发症的发生. 相似文献
11.
12.
13.
Tao Xu 《Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology》2013,48(10):1249-1258
Objective. The effect of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infection and survival of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of prophylactic antibiotic treatment for ANP. Material and methods. Searches were carried out of electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Science Citation Index, and PubMed (updated to December 2007), and manual bibliographical searches were also conducted. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic antibiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment was performed. Results. Eight RCTs including 540 patients were assessed. The outcomes included infected necrosis, death, non-pancreatic infection, surgical intervention, and length of hospital stay. Prophylactic antibiotic use leads to a significant reduction of infected necrosis (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% CI, 0.50–0.95; p=0.02), non-pancreatic infections (RR 0.66 95% CI, 0.48–0.91; p=0.01), and length of hospital stay (p=0.004) but was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.76 95% CI, 0.50–1.18; p=0.22) and surgical intervention (RR 0.90 95% CI, 0.66–1.23; p=0.52). In a subgroup analysis, carbapenem was associated with a significant reduction in infected necrosis (p=0.009) and non-pancreatic infections (p=0.006), whereas other antibiotics were not. Conclusions. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment is associated with a significant reduction of pancreatic or peripancreatic infection, non-pancreatic infection, and length of hospital stay, but cannot prevent death and surgical intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. 相似文献
14.
15.
Total enteral nutrition as prophylactic therapy for pancreatic necrosis infection in severe acute pancreatitis. 总被引:4,自引:0,他引:4
Javier Targarona Modena Luis Barreda Cevasco Carlos Arroyo Basto Arturo Orellana Vicu?a Michael Portanova Ramírez 《Pancreatology》2006,6(1-2):58-64
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the capacity of enteral nutrition, in comparison with the total parenteral nutrition (TPN) plus antibiotic therapy, for avoiding pancreatic necrosis infection in the severe acute pancreatitis. METHODS: In the period between October 1998 and September 2003, 87 patients met the inclusion criteria and took part in this research. Within the first week from their admission, 43 patients received TPN and 44 patients received total enteral nutrition (TEN). An adequate prophylactic antibiotic therapy was used in both groups. The severity of the manifestations was similar for both groups having a tomographic 'severity index' of 8 and an entry C-reactive protein of 208 and 203 mg/l, respectively. RESULTS: The group that received TPN suffered an organ failure in 79% of the cases, while the percentage showed by the group that received TEN was 31%; 88 and 25% of the patients in each group requiring a surgical intervention, respectively (p < 0.001). There was decreased presence of pancreatic necrosis infection in the group of patients that was supplied with TEN (20%) than in the group receiving TPN, where it reached 74% (p < 0.001). The death rate was significantly higher among the patients who received TPN, (35%), while for the patients who received TEN it was only 5% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TEN could be used as a prophylactic therapy for infected pancreatic necrosis since it significantly diminished the necrosis infection as well as the mortality. 相似文献
16.
Prophylactic antibiotic administration reduces sepsis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis 总被引:19,自引:0,他引:19
Severe acute pancreatitis is frequently complicated by local and systemic infections resulting in substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Antibiotic prophylaxis may prevent some infections. We searched for randomized, controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with no prophylaxis in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Only trials that used antibiotics that reach minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in necrotic pancreatic tissue were included. We calculated relative risk reduction (RRR), absolute risk reduction (ARR), and number needed to treat (NNT) for individual trials and pooled data. Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduced sepsis by 21.1% (NNT = 5) and mortality by 12.3% (NNT = 8) compared with no prophylaxis. There was also a nonsignificant trend toward a decrease in local pancreatic infections (ARR = 12%; NNT = 8). Antibiotic prophylaxis decreases sepsis and mortality in patients with ANP. All patients with ANP should be given prophylaxis with an antibiotic with proven efficacy in necrotic pancreatic tissue. 相似文献
17.
18.
AIM: To investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the reduction of mortality of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients, which is highly questioned by more and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.METHODS: An updated meta-analysis was performed. RCTs comparing prophylactic antibiotics for SAP with control or placebo were included for meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were pooled for estimation, and re-pooled estimation was performed by the sensitivity analysis of an ideal large-scale RCT.RESULTS: Currently available 11 RCTs were included. Subgroup analysis showed that there was significant reduction of mortality rate in the period before 2000, while no significant reduction in the period from 2000 [Risk Ratio, (RR) = 1.01, P = 0.98]. Funnel plot indicated that there might be apparent publication bias in the period before 2000. Sensitivity analysis showed that the RR of mortality rate ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 with a relatively narrow confidence interval (P < 0.05). However, the number needed to treat having a minor lower limit of the range (7-5096 patients) implied that certain SAP patients could still potentially prevent death by antibiotic prophylaxis.CONCLUSION: Current evidences do not support prophylactic antibiotics as a routine treatment for SAP, but the potentially benefited sub-population requires further investigations. 相似文献