@entity115 / XXXX versus @entity3524 for antimicrobial prophylaxis in abdominal surgery: a randomized trial.

@entity1 @entity115 @entity6177 @entity294 @entity798 @entity3524 @entity281
@entity115 / @entity798 ( @entity115 2 g/ @entity798 200 mg) has been administered in comparison to @entity3524 (2 g) for antimicrobial prophylaxis in 476 evaluable @entity1 undergoing abdominal surgery at high risk of septic complications. Both antibiotics were administered as a single infusion. 205 evaluable @entity1 (110 in @entity115 / @entity798 group and 95 in @entity3524 group) underwent upper gastrointestinal surgery (including gastroduodenal and biliary surgery). The wound infection rate was 4.5% for @entity115 / @entity798 and 7.4% for @entity3524 , with no significant differences. @entity6177 were observed in 3 @entity1 in the @entity115 / @entity798 group and in 1 @entity1 in the @entity3524 group. 271 evaluable @entity1 (135 in @entity115 / @entity798 group and 136 in @entity3524 group) underwent lower gastrointestinal surgery (including colorectal surgery). The wound infection rate was 11% for @entity115 / @entity798 and 13% for @entity3524 , with no significant differences. A purulent discharge was present in 3 @entity1 in both groups. @entity6177 were observed in 3 @entity1 in the @entity115 / @entity798 group and in 4 @entity1 in the @entity3524 group. No serious adverse events and no cases of @entity294 were observed. In conclusion, in our experience @entity115 / @entity798 proved to be as effective as @entity3524 in protecting @entity1 from surgical @entity281 in abdominal surgery. Its use in surgical prophylaxis may help decrease the cost of treatment and reduce the risk of resistance to antibiotics and superinfections.
