[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.140.252. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 25, 1982

Piperacillin v Carbenicillin in the Therapy for Serious Infections

Author Affiliations

From the Section of Infectious Diseases (Drs Marier, Sanders, Williams, Derks, and Aldridge), Departments of Medicine and Obstetrics-Gynecology (Dr Faro), and Pathology (Dr Janney), Louisiana State University (LSU) Medical Center, New Orleans.

Arch Intern Med. 1982;142(11):2000-2005. doi:10.1001/archinte.1982.00340240022005
Abstract

• One hundred seven patients were treated with either piperacillin (56) or carbenicillin (51) in an open randomized trial of hospitalized patients with pleuropulmonary (40), urinary tract (26), gynecologic (21), skin and soft-tissue (eight), joint (five), bone (three), and miscellaneous other infections (four). Patients with urinary tract infections were given 150 mg/ kg/day of piperacillin sodium or 200 mg/kg/day of carbenicillin sodium in divided doses every six hours intravenously. Patients with other infections were given 250 mg/kg/day of piperacillin sodium and 450 mg/kg/day of carbenicillin sodium; 53/56 (95%) patients treated with piperacillin and 45/51 (88%) patients treated with carbenicillin were cured clinically. In general, the drugs were well tolerated. There were, however, more adverse experiences in the group taking carbenicillin. Of special interest was the finding of liver function test abnormalities in 17/78 (21%) carbenicillin recipients (evaluative and nonevaluative cases). We concluded that piperacillin was effective and safe. It has potential for use in a great variety of infections.

(Arch Intern Med 1982;142:2000-2005)

×