|
|
||||||||
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 99, 981-989, Copyright © 1990 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association
BN Doebbeling, MA Pfaller, KR Kuhns, RM Massanari, DM Behrendt and RP Wenzel
A prospective double-blind trial was performed at a tertiary care center to
evaluate perioperative cephalosporin prophylaxis in cardiac operations.
Patients were randomized to receive either cefazolin (n = 104) or
cefuroxime (n = 109), the preoperative dose being given within 1 hour
before the initial incision. Drugs were continued for 48 hours (cefazolin,
1 gm intravenously every 8 hours; cefuroxime, 1.5 gm intravenously every 12
hours). Postoperative infections were assessed by trained nurse clinicians,
and data were analyzed by the intention-to- treat principle. Sternal wound
infections or mediastinitis occurred in one of 104 patients treated with
cefazolin and 10 of 109 treated with cefuroxime (p = 0.01). Deep sternal
wounds (including mediastinitis and sternal osteomyelitis) occurred in none
of the cefazolin-treated patients and five cefuroxime-treated patients (p =
0.06). Although overall nosocomial infection rates were similar (16.3
versus 19.3 per 100), wound infection occurred somewhat more frequently
with streptococci (groups B and D) in patients receiving cefazolin (four
versus zero, p = 0.110); conversely staphylococcal infections were more
frequent in the cefuroxime group (seven versus one, p = 0.066). Mean and
median postoperative stay was 1 day shorter in the cefazolin group. In
contrast to findings of a previous report, our data indicate that cefazolin
prevented more sternal wound infections than cefuroxime, a finding that
supports prophylaxis with a first-generation cephalosporin.
ARTICLES
Cardiovascular surgery prophylaxis. A randomized, controlled comparison of cefazolin and cefuroxime
Department of Medicine, University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. W. Bratzler, E. P. Dellinger, K. M. Olsen, T. M. Perl, P. G. Auwaerter, M. K. Bolon, D. N. Fish, L. M. Napolitano, R. G. Sawyer, D. Slain, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., February 1, 2013; 70(3): 195 - 283. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M.-R. Movahed, B. Kasravi, and C. S. Bryan Prophylactic Use of Vancomycin in Adult Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, March 1, 2004; 9(1): 13 - 20. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Saginur, D. Croteau, and M. G. Bergeron Comparative efficacy of teicoplanin and cefazolin for cardiac operation prophylaxis in 3027 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2000; 120(6): 1120 - 1130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. G. Jakob, M. Borneff-Lipp, A. Bach, S. von Puckler, J. Windeler, H.-G. Sonntag, and S. Hagl The endogenous pathway is a major route for deep sternal wound infection Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, February 1, 2000; 17(2): 154 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
B. Zickmann, A. Sablotzki, R. Fussle, G. Gorlach, and G. Hempelmann PERIOPERATIVE MICROBIOLOGIC MONITORING OF TRACHEAL ASPIRATES AS A PREDICTOR OF PULMONARY COMPLICATIONS AFTER CARDIAC OPERATIONS J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 1996; 111(6): 1213 - 1218. [Abstract] [Full Text] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |