Comparative costs of ertapenem and cefotetan as prophylaxis for elective colorectal surgery

Surgical Infections

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 349-356

  Wilson, Samuel E ^a   Turpin, Robin S ^b   Kumar, Ritesh N ^b   Itani, Kamal M F ^c   Jensen, Erin H ^b   Pellissier, James M ^b   Abramson, Murray A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^c VABHCS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CEFOTETAN; ERTAPENEM;

ADULT; AGED; ANASTOMOSIS LEAKAGE; ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS; ARTICLE; COLORECTAL SURGERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG USE; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COST; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SINGLE DRUG DOSE; SURGICAL INFECTION; TREATMENT FAILURE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ANTI-BACTERIAL AGENTS; ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS; BETA-LACTAMS; CEFOTETAN; COLORECTAL SURGERY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HOSPITAL COSTS; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, ELECTIVE; SURGICAL WOUND INFECTION; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 45749110968     PISSN: 10962964     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/sur.2007.047     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Owings MF, Kozak LJ. Ambulatory and inpatient procedures in the United States, 1996. Vital and Health Statistics 1998;Nov(139):1-119.
2. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:470-485.
3. Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST, et al. Wound infection after elective colorectal resection. Ann Surg 2004;239:599-605.
4. Coello R, Charlett A, Wilson J, et al. Adverse impact of surgical site infections in English hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2005;60:93-103.
5. Urban JA. Cost analysis of surgical site infections. Surg Infect 2006;7(Suppl 1):S19-S22.
6. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: Attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725-730.
7. Vegas AA, Jodra VM, Garcia ML. Nosocomial infection in surgery wards: A controlled study of increased duration of hospital stays and direct cost of hospitalization. Eur J Epidemiol 1993;9:504-510.
8. Zmora O, Wexner SD, Hajjar L, et al. Trends in preparation for colorectal surgery: Survey of the members of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Am Surg 2003;69:150-154.
9. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250-278.
10. Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1706-1715.
11. Dela Pena AS, Asperger W, Kockerling F, et al. Efficacy and safety of ertapenem versus piperacillintazobactam for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections requiring surgical intervention. J Gastrointest Surg 2006;10:567-574.
12. Yellin AE, Hassett JM, Fernandez A, et al. Ertapenem monotherapy versus combination therapy with ceftriaxone plus metronidazole for treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2002;20:165-173.
13. Solomkin JS, Yellin AE, Rotstein OD, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections: Results of a double-blind, randomized comparative phase III trial. Ann Surg 2003;237:235-245.
14. Lipsky BA, Armstrong DG, Citron DM, et al. Ertapenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP): Prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blinded, multicentre trial. Lancet 2005;366:1695-1703.
15. Gesser RM, McCarroll KA, Woods GL. Efficacy of ertapenem against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in complicated skin/skin structure infections: Results of a double-blind clinical trial versus piperacillin-tazobactam. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2004;23:235-239.
16. Gesser RM, McCarroll KA, Woods GL. Evaluation of outpatient treatment with ertapenem in a double blind controlled clinical trial of complicated skin/skin structure infections. J Infect 2004;48:32-38.
17. Roy S, Higareda I, Angel-Muller E, et al. Ertapenem once a day versus piperacillin-tazobactam every 6 hours for treatment of acute pelvic infections: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2003;11:27-37.
18. Tomera KM, Burdmann EA, Reyna OG, et al. Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults: Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter study. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002;46:2895-2900.
19. Jimenez-Cruz F, Jasovich A, Cajigas J, et al. A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study comparing ertapenem and ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for complicated urinary tract infections in adults. Urology 2002;60:16-22.
20. Yakovlev SV, Stratchounski LS, Woods GL, et al. Ertapenem versus cefepime for initial empirical treatment of pneumonia acquired in skilled-care facilities or in hospitals outside the intensive care unit. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2006;25:633-641.
21. Woods GL, Isaacs RD, McCarroll KA, Friedland IR. Ertapenem therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:1526-1532.
22. Vetter N, Cambronero-Hernandez E, Rohlf J, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind multicenter comparison of parenteral ertapenem and ceftriaxone for the treatment of hospitalized adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Ther 2002;24:1770-1785.
23. Ortiz-Ruiz G, Caballero-Lopez J, Friedland IR, et al. A study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ertapenem versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:1076-1083.
24. Invanz®: (Ertapenem for injection). Whitehouse Station. Merck & Co., Inc. 2005.
25. Itani KM, Wilson SE, Awad SS, et al. Ertapenem versus cefotetan prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2640-2651.
26. Horan TC, Culver DH, Gaynes RP, et al. Nosocomial infections in surgical patients in the United States, January 1986-June 1992. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:73-80.
27. AstraZeneca. Cefotan insert. 2004.
28. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. HCUP-net: National and regional estimates on hospital use for all patients from the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). 2004 [cited 2007 March 25]; Available at www.hcupnet.ahrq.gov
29. US Food and Drug Administration. Drug Shortages. 2007 [cited 2007 March 24]. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/shortages/
30. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Cefotetan Injection. 2006 [cited 2007 March 26]. Available at http://www.ashp.org/s_ashp/bulletin.asp?CID= 1500&DID=1544&id=113
31. Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg 2005;189:395-404.
32. Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH. The quality of measurement of surgical wound infection as the basis for monitoring: A systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2001;49:99-108.