Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the usefulness of cefoperazone-sulbactam and that of piperacillin-tazobactam in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).
Methods: This retrospective study included the adult patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam against HAP/VAP in nine hospitals in Taiwan from March 1, 2018 to May 30, 2019. Primary outcome was clinical cure rate.
Results: A total of 410 patients were enrolled. Among them, 209 patients received cefoperazone-sulbactam and 201 patients received piperacillin-tazobactam. Overall, cefoperazone-sulbactam group had similar distribution of age, sex, or SOFA scores as piperacillin-tazobactam group. However, cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher comorbidity score and disease severity than piperacillin-tazobactam group (Charlson score: 6.5 ± 2.9 vs 5.7 ± 2.7, p < 0.001; APACHE II score: 21.4 ± 6.2 vs 19.3 ± 6.0, p = 0.002). Regarding clinical outcomes, no significant difference in clinical cure and failure rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical cure rate: 80.9% vs 80.1% and clinical failure rate: 17.2% vs 18.4%, p = 0.943). Moreover, no significant difference in clinical effectiveness and ineffectiveness rates was observed between cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam group (clinical effective rate: 80.9% vs 80.6% and clinical ineffective rate: 17.7% vs 18.9%, p = 0.711). The all-cause mortality rates of the cefoperazone-sulbactam and piperacillin-tazobactam groups were similar (23.9% vs 20.9%, p = 0.48). After adjustment of Charlson score and APACHE II score, the similarities in these clinical outcomes did not change in overall patients and patients with HAP or VAP.
Conclusion: For treating adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia, cefoperazone-sulbactam was as effective as piperacillin-tazobactam.
