Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

In order to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacies and safety of piperacillin plus tazobactam with those of imipenem plus cilastatin, 134 patients with intra-abdominal infections ( (11,14).Tazobactam is a newly developed P-lactamase inhibitor of the penicillanic acid sulfone class. Its structure is similar to that of sulbactam, except that one of the methyl groups of sulbactam is replaced by a triazolylmethyl group. It is more active than sulbactam against enterobacteria that produce class III and V plasmid-mediated 3-lactamases and is more active than clavulanic acid against those that produce class I chromosomal 3-lactamases (2,7,9).Piperacillin is an extended-spectrum penicillin which has been widely used in the treatment of serious infections. It is active against most enterobacteria and also shows good activity against enterococci and most anaerobic bacteria (5). * Corresponding author. t Scientific coordinators.Recently, the spread of 3-lactamase-producing organisms has raised concerns about the future utility of piperacillin and suggested that it should be used in combination with a 1-lactamase inhibitor such as tazobactam. In vitro studies have shown that piperacillin plus tazobactam is one of the most active penicillin-inhibitor combinations against a wide variety of resistant gram-negative aerobic and anaerobic bacteria (7,9

In order to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy and safety of meropenem with imipenem/cilastatin, 249 patients with intra-abdominal infections participated in an open randomised comparative multicentre trial. Seventy-five men and 57 women (mean age 51 years) were enrolled in the meropenem group and 67 men and 50 women (mean age 52 years) in the imipenem/cilastatin group. The patients received either meropenem, 500 mg q 8 h, or imipenem/cilastatin, 500 mg/500 mg q 8 h by intravenous infusion for up to 17 days (mean 5 days). Ninety-seven of 99 patients (98%) receiving meropenem were clinically cured while 86 of 90 patients (96%) in the imipenem/cilastatin group were clinically cured. The microbiological response was satisfactory in 89 of 94 evaluable patients (95%) receiving meropenem and in 78 of 81 evaluable patients (96%) receiving imipenem/cilastatin. There was no significant difference in clinical and microbiological efficacy between the two treatment groups. Adverse reactions were noted in 26 patients receiving meropenem and in 36 patients receiving imipenem/cilastatin. The present study shows that meropenem is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

Twenty-seven patients (15 diabetics and 12 non-diabetics) with normal to moderately reduced renal function underwent femoral angiography with a low-osmolar contrast agent, iohexol (Omnipaque), under perexaminatory hydration. Fourteen patients were randomised to pretreatment with oral felodipine extended release (Plendil) 10 mg and 13 patients to placebo 3-4 h before angiography. GFR measured with [51Cr] EDTA-clearance decreased 24 hours after the angiography in the felodipine group from GFR 52.5 +/- 18.6 (mean +/- SD) to 46.2 +/- 16.5 ml/min (p < 0.01) and in the placebo group from 70.6 +/- 18.6 to 62.6 +/- 26.4 ml/min (p < 0.01). Serum creatinine increased significantly in the felodipine group from 128 +/- 61 to 139 +/- 67 mumol/l (p < 0.05) but not in the placebo group (122 +/- 54 to 125 +/- 51 mumol/l (ns)). The values of serum creatinine returned to baseline levels 7 days after angiography. During hydration there was only a slight reduction of GFR after angiography with iohexol. Thus, felodipine had no major effect on GFR after iohexol but, as baseline GFR tended to be lower in the felodipine pre-treated patients, it might have had some renoprotective effect in patients with more advanced renal failure.

No abstract