Effect of ischemic preconditioning under hepatic inflow occlusion on the SGPT levels of domestic cats undergoing right hepatic lobectomy

OBJECTIVE: This controlled study was done to determine the protective effects of ischemic preconditioning (IP) on the liver of cats undergoing major liver resection.SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of IP on alanine transaminase (ALT or SGPT) in cat*that will undergo major liver resection.DESIGN: This study is a randomized controlled trial.SETTING: LIST Health Sciences Research Laboratory.PATIENTS/ PARTICIPANTS: This is an experimental study on the effects of ischemic preconditioning under hepatic inflow occlusion on the SGPT as a measure of morbidity in Felis catus (domestic cats) undergoing right hepatic lobectomy. Nine male cats, weighing 2.5-5kg, are equally allocated into any one of the following 3 study groups: Control group not subjected to ischemic preconditioning (C), Experimental group subjected to 1 1/2 minutes of ischemia followed by 1.5 minutes of reperfusion (El), Experimental group subjected to 5 minutes of ischemia followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion (E2).RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean weight of cats in the 3 groups (p = 1.00). Comparing the pre and post result between using paired t-test, there was no significant difference in the baseline values (p = 0.14). However, there was a significant difference in the post result between the three groups (p CONCLUSION: In the past few years, interesting new data on the presence of ischemic preconditioning in various organs as an endogenous means to protect itself from ischemiahas been available. This study investigated and suggests that ischemic preconditioning may provide protection to the liver undergoing hepatic lobectomy.

Randomized comparison of piperacillin/tazobactam versus imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infection.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of intra-abdominal infections remains a challenge because of their polymicrobial nature and associated mortality risk. Broad-spectrum empiric coverage is usually required. This randomized study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam with those of intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of 293 hospitalized patients with intra-abdominal infection. METHODS: A total of 149 patients received piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg every 8 hours, and 144 patients received imipenem/cilastatin 500 mg/500 mg every 6 hours. Efficacy was evaluated by clinical and bacteriological response. Safety was evaluated by analysis of adverse events and physical and laboratory examinations. RESULTS: Clinical and bacteriological responses in both evaluable treatment groups were equivalent. The clinical success was 97% (108/111) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 97% (100/103) for imipenem/cilastatin. Bacteriological success was 97% (67/69) for piperacillin/tazobactam and 95% (61/64) for imipenem/cilastatin. The most common pathogens were Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Enterobacter species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The frequencies of treatment-related adverse events were similar (16 with piperacillin/tazobactam and 19 with imipenem/cilastatin). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the safety and efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam administered every 8 hours are equivalent to those of imipenem/cilastatin administered every 6 hours for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

A multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical efficacy of Imipenem/Cilastin and Ceftazidime plus Metronidazole in surgically treated serious intra-abdominal infections

An open, prostective, randomized multicenter clinical trial randomly allocated successive patient who were scheduled for a surgical procedure for serious intra-abdominal infections to receive either treatment CM (ceftazidine plus metronidazole) or monotherapy with treatment IC (imipenem/cilastatin). Out of 90 eligible patients, 87 were clinically evaluable of which 71 were clinically and bacteriologically evaluable (CBE). Cases allocated to each treatment group were comparable as to age, sex, diagnostic group distribution, mean APACHE II scores, and bacteriologic evaluability. Among the 87 clinically evaluable patients, there were 4 (9.1%) and 2 (4.7%) treatment failures among those who received treatments CM and IC respectively (p=0.486). For all eligible patients, the mean fever days was 2.07, mean treatment days was 6.01, and mean hospital days was 11.57, and was not significantly different between the two treatment groups. Among clinically evaluable cases, the mean APACHE II scores of patients with succesful outcomes (5.8) was very significantly lower (p=0.000) than that of patients whose treatment failed (13.8). This was also true for CBE cases. Logistic regression analysis showed that among six variables (diagnostic group, APACHE II score, antibiotic used, fever days, hospital days and treatment days) only the APACHE II score signficantly contributed to treatment failure (p=0.001).