[Comparative study of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in febrile neutropenia (1994-1996)]. / Estudio comparativo de piperacilina/tazobactam frente a imipenem/cilastatina en la neutropenia febril (1994-1996).

BACKGROUND: We aimed at comparing the effectiveness and safety of piperacillin/tazobactam(PIP-TAZ) versus imipenem/cilastin (IMI) administered as empiric monotherapy in patients with febrile neutropenia. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Patients with hematological diseases who were randomly assigned either PIP-TAZor IMI were enrolled in the study. A sequential strategy of antibiotic therapy addition was applied as long as fever persisted or microorganisms were isolated at 72 h. Moreover, if bacteriologically unconfirmed fever persisted after 5-7 days, an antifungal therapy was started. The treatment was considered successful if fever and clinical signs resolved and/or pathogens were cleared without adding further antibiotics at 72 h. Differences between percentages were analyzed using the *2test. RESULTS: 137 patients were evaluated. The successful response rate of PIP-TAZ after 72 h was similar to IMI (32.2 and 35.2%). The defervescence time was shorter (3.6 and 4.2 days) and the bacterial response more favourable with PIP-TAZ than with IMI, but statistically significant differences were not reached. The overall response in both groups was 91%.18.2% of episodes were bacteriologically confirmed. The most frequent isolated microorganism was Staphylococcus coagulase-negative(48.8%). There was one only case of septic shock, within the IMI group, and the overall mortality of the group was 8.7%. The occurrence of vomiting in the IMI group was significantly higher than in the PIP-TAZ group (39.9 and 5.6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PIP-TAZ is as effective as IMI and it constitutes a good choice as an initial empiric monotherapy of febrile neutropenia.