Advertisement

Treatment of intra-abdominal infections with quinolones

  • J. A. Smith
Review

Abstract

Intra-abdominal sepsis may be caused by intestinal bacteria or by skin bacteria. In the largest series of patients studied in trials of quinolones, anti-anaerobic drugs were included in the therapeutic regimen. Several small series have reported success without the concomitant use of anti-anaerobic drugs. The balance of evidence at present suggests that the quinolones referred to in this report should be supplemented with anti-anaerobic drugs in the treatment of peritonitis related to bowel disease. Quinolones alone have been highly effective in the treatment of peritonitis associated with chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and biliary sepsis. Notwithstanding this success, the potential for an anaerobic aetiology in biliary sepsis and bacteremia must be borne in mind. Lack of clinical efficacy may be associated with resistant bacteria including streptococci. Quinolones offer a relatively non-toxic alternative in the management of intra-abdominal sepsis as well as being cost-saving since early discharge from hospital on oral medication is possible.

Keywords

Bowel Disease Peritonitis Clinical Efficacy Peritoneal Dialysis Large Series 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chrysanthopoulus CJ, Skoutelis AT, Starakis JC, Anastasiou ED, Bassaris HP Use of intravenous ciprofloxacin in respiratory tract infections and biliary sepsis. American Journal of Medicine 1987, 82, Supplement 4A: 357–359.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chacon JP, Criscuolo PD, Kobata CM, Ferraro JR, Saad SS Pefloxacin vs. ampicillin plus gentamicin for the treatment of biliary tract infections. Reviews of Infectious Diseases 1989, 11, Supplement 5: 1299.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ono Y, Kunio O Studies of lomefloxacin in biliary tract infections. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 1989, 42: 1017–1024.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nakamura T, Hashimoto I, Sawada Y, Mikami J, Bekki E Clinical evaluation of ciprofloxacin on biliary tract infection following oral administration. Japanese Journal of Antibiotics 1986, 39: 2675–2684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Houwen RHJ, Bijleveld CMA, de Vries-Hospers HG Ciprofloxacin for cholangitis after hepatic portoenterostomy. Lancet 1987, i: 1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schweinburg FB, Seligman AM, Fine J Transmural migration of intestinal bacteria: a study based on the use of radioactiveEscherichia coli. New England Journal of Medicine 1950, 242: 747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Modai J Treatment of serious infections with intravenous ciprofloxacin. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87, Supplement 5A: 243–247.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bouza E, Diaz-Lopez MD, Bernaldo de Quiros JCL, Rodriguez-Creixems M The Spanish Group for the Study of Ciprofloxacin. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87, Supplement 5A: 228–231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfand MS, Simmons BP, Craft RB, Grogan JT Clinical study of intravenous and oral ciprofloxacin in complicated bacterial infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87, Supplement 5A: 235–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leal Del Rosal PL, Leal Del Rosal L, Riosvelasco CA, Nesbitt FC, Alanis VS Prospective, controlled, randomized, non-blind comparison of intravenous/oral ciprofloxacin with intravenous ceftazidime in the treatment of severe surgical infections. American Journal of Medicine 1987, 87, Supplement 5A: 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giamarellou H, Perdikaris G, Galanakis N, Davoulos G, Mandragos K, Sfikakis P Pefloxacin versus ceftazidime in the treatment of a variety of gram-negative-bacterial infections. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1989, 33, 8: 1362–1367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gudiol F, Cabellos C, Pallares R, Linares J, Ariza J Intravenous ciprofloxacin therapy in severe infections. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87: Supplement 5A: 221–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benzakour M, Lagarde C, Benevent D, Mounier M, Denis F Peritonitis during continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Treatment with perfloxacin: first results and pharmacokinetics. Nephron 1988, 50: 175–176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Michel C, Viron B, Delisle F, Lependoven C, Mignon F Fosfomycin-pefloxacin in the treatment of peritonitis in patients on chronic ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Pathologie Biologie 1989, 37: 269–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleming LW, Phillips G, Stewart WK, Scott AC Oral ciprofloxacin in the treatment of peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1990, 25: 441–448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chan MK, Cheng IK, Ng WS A randomized prospective trial of three different regimens of treatment of peritonitis in patients on continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. American Journal of Kidney Diseases 1990, 15: 155–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sifuentes-Osornio J, Macias A, Amieva RI, Ramos A, Ruis-Palacios GM Intravenous ciprofloxacin and ceftazidime in serious infections: a prospective controlled clinical trial with third-party blinding. American Journal of Medicine 1989, 87, Supplement 5A: 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr, Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Medical MicrobiologyVancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia, VGH Research InstituteVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations