The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ertapenem versus Cefotetan Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Ertapenem, a long-acting carbapenem, may be an alternative to the recommended prophylactic antibiotic cefotetan. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem, as compared with cefotetan, in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A successful outcome was defined as the absence of surgical-site infection, anastomotic leakage, or antibiotic use 4 weeks postoperatively. All adverse events were collected until 14 days after the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: Of the 1002 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 901 (451 in the ertapenem group and 450 in the cefotetan group) qualified for the modified intention-to-treat analysis, and 672 (338 in the ertapenem group and 334 in the cefotetan group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. After adjustment for strata, in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of overall prophylactic failure was 40.2% in the ertapenem group and 50.9% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -10.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.1 to -4.2); in the per-protocol analysis, the failure rate was 28.0% in the ertapenem group and 42.8% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -14.8%; 95% CI, -21.9 to -7.5). Both analyses fulfilled statistical criteria for the superiority of ertapenem. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the most common reason for failure of prophylaxis in both groups was surgical-site infection: 17.1% in the ertapenem group and 26.2% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -9.1; 95% CI, -14.4 to -3.7). In the treated population, the overall incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was 1.7% in the ertapenem group and 0.6% in the cefotetan group (P=0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem is more effective than cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery but may be associated with an increase in C. difficile infection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00090272 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Neutrophil extracellular traps sequester circulating tumor cells and promote metastasis
Cools-Lartigue, J., Spicer, J., McDonald, B., Gowing, S., Chow, S., Giannias, B., Bourdeau, F., Kubes, P., & Ferri, L. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci67484 · Cited by 1,395
Antimicrobial‐Associated Risk Factors for Clostridium difficile Infection
Owens, Jr., Donskey, C. J., Gaynes, R. P., Loo, V. G., & Muto, C. A. (2008) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/521859 · Cited by 603
Metadata
- Authors
- Itani, K. M. F., Wilson, S. E., Awad, S. S., Jensen, E. H., Finn, T. S., & Abramson, M. A.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2006-12-21
- Volume
- 355
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 2640-2651
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2076659018
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ertapenem versus Cefotetan Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa054408
- The paper
- Itani, K. M. F., Wilson, S. E., Awad, S. S., Jensen, E. H., Finn, T. S., & Abramson, M. A. (2006). Ertapenem versus Cefotetan Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa054408
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.