What is the Role of Glycopeptides in Intensive Care?

References

• Weinstein RA. Epidemiology and control of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Am J Med 1991; 91: 179–184.
   Google Scholar
• Kappstein I, Daschner FD. Nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Curr Opinion Infect Dis 1990; 3: 509–516.
   Google Scholar
• Wenzel RP, Thompson RL, Landry SM et al. Hospital acquired infections in intensive care units: an overview with e emphasis on epidemics. Infect Control 1993; 4: 371–375.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis WR, Edwards JR, Culver DH et al. Nosocomial infection rate in adult and paediatric intensive care units in United States. Am J Med 1991; 91: S3B, 185–191.
   Google Scholar
• Weber DJ, Raasch R, Rutala WA. Nosocomial infections in the ICU: the growing importance of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Chest 1999; 115, (3 suppl.): 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent JL, Bihari D, Suter PM et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care. (EPIC) Study. JAMA 1995; 274: 639–644.
   Google Scholar
• Diekema DJ, Pfaller MA, Schmicz FJ, et al. Survey of infections due to Staphylococcus species: frequency of occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility of isolates collected in United States, Canada, Latin America, Europe and the Western Pacific Region for the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 15, 32, suppl. 2: 114–132.
   Google Scholar
• Kollef MH. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment: an important determinant of outcome for hospital patients. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31, suppl 4: 131–138.
   Google Scholar
• Kollef MH, Sherman G, Ward S, et al. Inadequate antimicrobial treatment of infections. Chest, 115, 462–474, 1999
   Google Scholar
• Rubin RJ, Harrington CA, Poon A, et al. The economic impact of S. aureus infections in New York city hospitals. Emerg Infect Dis 1999; 5: 9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Wood M. The comparative efficacy and safety of teicoplanin and vancomycin. J Antimicrob Chemother 1996; 37: 209–222.
   Google Scholar
• Smith SR, Cheesbrough J, Spearing R, Davies JM. Randomised prospective study comparing vancomycin with teicoplanin in the treatment of infections associated with Hickman catheters. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 1193–1197.
   Google Scholar
• Kureshi A, Jewesson PJ, Rubinger M, et al. Doubleblind comparison of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in febrile neutropenic patients receiving concomitant tobramycin and piperacillin: effect on cyclosporine A-associated nephrotoxicity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 2246–2252.
   Google Scholar
• Charbonneau P, Harding I, Garraud JJ, Aubertin J, Brunet F, Domart Y. Teicoplanin: a well-tolerated and easily administered alternative to vancomycin for Gram-positive infections in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20, Suppl. 4: S35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Neville LO, Brumfitt W, Hamilton-Miller JMT, Harding I. Teicoplanin vs vancomycin for the treatment of serious infections: a randomised trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 1995; 5: 187–193.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert DN, Wood CA, Kimbrough RC. Failure of treatment with teicoplanin at 6 milligrams/kilogram/day in patients with Staphylococcus aureus intravascular infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 79–87.
   Google Scholar
• Van der Auwera P, Aoun M, Meunier F. Randomized study of vancomycin versus teicoplanin for the treatment of gram-positive bacterial infections in immuno compromised patients. Antmicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 451–457.
   Google Scholar
• Van Laethem Y, Hermans P, De Wit S, Goosens H, Clumeck N. Teicoplanin compared with vancomycin in methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: preliminary results. J Antimicrob Chemother 1988; 21, Suppl A: 81–87.
   Google Scholar
• Gerard M, van der Auwera P, Meunier F, Ninove D, Danneau D, Klastersky J. A controlled clinical trial on efficacy and safety of teicoplanin (T) versus vancomycin (V) in the treatment of staphylococcal infections. Washington DC, Am Soc. Microbiol. In Program and Abstracts of the 27th ICAAC 1987, Abstr. 1039, p. 278.
   Google Scholar
• Cony-Makhoul P, Brossard G, Marit G, Pellergrin JL, Texier-Maugein J, Reiffers J. A prospective study comparing vancomycin and teicoplanin as second-line empiric therapy for infection in neutropenic patients. Br J Haematol 1990; 76, Suppl 2: 35–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hedstrom SA. Teicoplanin vs. vancomycin in severe Gram-positive infection—a multicentre Scandinavian trial. In Abstracts of the 7th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Vienna, Austria, 1995. Abstr. 760, p. 232.
   Google Scholar
• Kulmala HK, Heilman CJ, Kuzma RJ, Sullivan WA, Stephens GJ, Rios I. A randomised, blinded, comparative study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin in the treatment of vascular-access-associated bacteremia/septicaemia caused by Gram-positive bacteria (Protocol 102-009). Data on file, Marion Merrell Dow.
   Google Scholar
• Menichetti F, Martino P, Bucaneve G, et al. Effects of teicoplanin and those of vancomycin in initial empirical antibiotic regimen in febbrile, neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 2041–2046.
   Google Scholar
• Trinidad C, Nestora M. A study of teicoplanin and vancomycin in combination therapy for febrile episodes in neutropenic paediatric patients. (19th ICC, Montreal; July 1995) Can J Infect Dis 1995; 6, suppl C: 309 C.
   Google Scholar
• Liu C-Y, Lee W-S. Comparative study of teicoplanin versus vancomycin for the treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. Clin Drug Invest 1996; 12: 80–7.
   Google Scholar
• Choi JY, Kim YR. A randomized study comparing clinical efficacy of ceftazidime plus aztreonam plus teicoplanin or vancomycin regimen in febrile granulocytopenic patients. J Korean Soc Chemother 1992; 10: 165–171.
   Google Scholar