剖宫产围手术期预防使用抗菌药物的成本-效果分析  

Cost-effectiveness analysis of Prophylactic Application of Antibiotics during Perioperative Period of Cesarean Section

作　　者：李晓霞[1] 熊伟[1] 张启祥[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省建德市第一人民医院,建德311600

出　　处：《海峡药学》2013年第10期166-168,共3页Strait Pharmaceutical Journal

基　　金：浙江省医学会临床科研基金项目(2011ZYC-A50)

摘　　要：目的 对两种方案预防剖宫产围手术期感染进行药物经济学分析,为剖宫产手术抗菌药物的选择提供参考.方法 选择2012年1～6月符合纳入标准的择期剖宫产病例200例,并将患者随机分成两组,即A组和B组,每组100例,A组采用头孢呋辛静滴预防感染,并根据情况加用甲硝唑,B组采用头孢美唑静滴预防感染,比较两组的有效率,并进行成本-效果分析.结果 A组的有效率为96%,B组的有效率为98%,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;通过对两组患者成本-效果分析可见,A组的C/E为2.34,B组为3.45,从经济成本的角度,A组治疗方案优于B组.结论 通过成本-效果分析,本文认为静滴头孢呋辛,并根据情况加用甲硝唑的方案更为经济.OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical efficacy and economic effect of 2 groups of prophylactic appli- cation of antibiotics during perioperative period of cesarean section, and to provide a reference for the rational use of antibiotics. METHODS 200 cases were selected from our hospital during Jan. to Jun. 2012, and cases were randomly divided into two groups,Group A and Group B,100 cases in each group. Cefuroxime were used in group A to prevent infection, and Metronidazole if necessary, was compared Cefmetazole were used in group B to prevent infection. Comparing of Therapeutic efficacy and analysing the cost-effectiveness were and used between 2 groups. RESULTS Effective rate Group A and group B was 96% and 98% resepectively,which was no significant difference （P 〉 0. 05 ）;Through cost-effectiveness analysis of 2 groups, C/E in group A, group B was 2. 34 and 3.45. From the point of economic cost analysis, group A was better than group B. CONCLUSION sing the cost-effectiveness of 2 groups,group A which were used cefuroxime, and used metronidazole to prevent infection is more economical during perloperative period of cesarean section.

关 键 词：剖宫产 抗菌药物 成本-效果分析 

分 类 号：R969.4[医药卫生—药理学]