JTCS KCI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, R.
Right arrow Articles by Milo, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, R.
Right arrow Articles by Milo, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiac - pharmacology

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;123:326-332
© 2002 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery


Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease (ACD)

Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections

R. Finkelstein, MDa,b, G. Rabino, MAa, T. Mashiah, MAa, Y. Bar-El, MDa,b, Z. Adler, MDa, V. Kertzman, MDa, O. Cohen, a, S. Milo, MDa,b

From Rambam Medical Centera and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology,b Haifa, Israel.

Received for publication April 23, 2001; revisions requested June 6, 2001 Revisions received July 12, 2001. Accepted for publication July 20, 2001. Address for reprints: R. Finkelstein, MD, Infectious Diseases Unit, Rambam Medical Center, Haifa 31096, Israel (E-mail: rfinkelstein{at}rambam.health.gov.il).


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Objective: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of vancomycin prophylaxis with that of cefazolin in preventing surgical site infections in a tertiary medical center with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections.
Methods: All adult patients (>=18 years) scheduled for cardiac surgery requiring sternotomy were randomly assigned to receive vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours) or cefazolin (1 g every 8 hours). Prophylaxis was started during the induction of anesthesia and continued for only 24 hours. Patients were followed up for at least 30 days (1 year for those receiving a cardiac implant). Surgical site infections were stratified according to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System risk index.
Results: Of the 885 patients included in the study, 452 received vancomycin and 433 received cefazolin. The overall surgical site infection rates were similar in the two groups (43 cases in the vancomycin group, 9.5%, vs 39 cases in the cefazolin group, 9.0%, P = .8). Superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection rates were also similar in the two groups. There was a trend toward more frequent organ-space infections and infections with ß-lactam–resistant organisms among patients receiving cefazolin, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, surgical site infections caused by methicillin-susceptible staphylococci were significantly more common in the vancomycin group (17 cases, 3.7%, vs 6 cases, 1.3%, P = .04). The durations of postoperative hospitalization and the mortalities were similar in the two groups.
Conclusions: This trial suggests that vancomycin and cefazolin have similar efficacy in preventing surgical site infections in cardiac surgery.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

An estimated 468,000 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures and more than 60,000 valve implantations are performed annually in the United States.Go Go 1,2 Surgical site infections (SSIs), particularly organ-space infections, have serious implications when associated with these operations because of the substantial morbidity, mortality, and expense that they add to the health care system. The benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery have been clearly demonstrated in several placebo-controlled studies,Go Go 3-6 but the choice of the optimal agent remains controversial. Cephalosporins have been the mainstay of prophylaxis in cardiac surgery because staphylococci are the most common organisms isolated from both vein donor sites and chest wound infections.Go Go 7,8 A recent review, sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and endorsed by both it and the Surgical Infection Society, recommended, "Vancomycin can be given instead of cefazolin to patients who are allergic to cephalosporins or in settings where infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are prevalent."Go 9 At the time this study was started, only one published clinical trial had investigated the efficacy of vancomycin relative to that of cephalosporins in preventing SSIs in cardiovascular surgery.Go 10 That double-blind control study showed the superiority of vancomycin to cefazolin in preventing thoracic SSIs other than mediastinitis. This trial was undertaken to compare the efficacy of cefazolin and vancomycin in preventing SSIs in cardiovascular surgery at a large university hospital with a high prevalence of MRSA infections.


    Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients
The trial was conducted between January 1997 and December 1999 at Rambam Medical Center, Haifa, Israel, where approximately 400 cardiac operations are performed annually on adult patients. MRSA infections have been highly prevalent in our institution for several years.Go 11 A recently published consensus panel's definitions for discriminating high rates of MRSA transmission have suggested a threshold of 0.5 new nosocomial cases of MRSA per 100 admissions for hospitals with at least 500 beds.Go 12 According to our computerized records, in 1995 and 1996 there were 3.0 and 2.6 new cases of MRSA infection or colonization, respectively, per 100 admissions in our cardiac surgery ward, easily meeting the criterion for high transmission of MRSA.

The study was approved by the local ethical review committee. Informed consent was not required because we had been using both drugs for prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery before the trial. All adult patients (>=18 years) scheduled for cardiac surgery requiring sternotomy were considered eligible for the trial. Exclusion criteria included the presence of active infection, the use of antibiotics within 2 weeks before the operation, and a previous cardiac operation requiring sternotomy within 1 year of enrollment in this trial.

Random assignment and antibiotic regimens
Random assignment was performed according to the last digit of the patient's national identification number (similar to US social security number). Patients whose identification number ended in an even digit were scheduled to receive 1.0 g vancomycin intravenously at the induction of the anesthesia over a period of 60 minutes and a similar dose 12 hours later. Patients whose identification number ended in an odd digit were scheduled to receive 1 g cefazolin intravenously over a period of 20 to 30 minutes at the induction of the anesthesia and two additional similar doses at 8-hour intervals. Because the timing of administration of prophylaxis is of great importance in preventing SSIs,Go 13 we defined the antibiotic regimen as "preoperative prophylaxis" if the antibiotic drug was administered in an optimal period of 2 hours or less before the first surgical incision.

Surgical preparation and technical details
The patients showered with a 7.5% povidone-iodine scrub (Polydine Cleanser; Fisher Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Tel Aviv, Israel) the night before the scheduled operation and again on the morning of the operation. The sites of operation were depilated on the morning of the operation with a hair-removing cream (Vito; Heibel Co, Hadera, Israel). In the operating room all operative sites were scrubbed with the povidone-iodine soap solution and then painted with a 10% povidone-iodine–ethanol tincture (Polydine Tincture; Fisher Pharmaceutical Laboratories). The area of sternotomy was covered with an iodine membrane (Loban; 3M Health Care, St Paul, Minn). All operations were done under conventional cardiopulmonary bypass and moderate hypothermia (rectal temperature 28°C-30°C) with a membrane oxygenator (SpiralGold; Baxter Healthcare Corporation CardioVascular Group, Irvine, Calif). Myocardial protection was achieved with short antegrade and continuous retrograde undiluted blood cardioplegia. The internal thoracic arteries were used in 96% of the patients undergoing CABG operations and were harvested either pedicled or skeletonized according to the surgeon's preference with low-grade diathermy. The greater saphenous vein was harvested through a single skin incision by means of standard surgical procedures. All subcutaneous tissues were approximated with continuous absorbable multifilament sutures (Coated Vicryl; Ethicon, Inc, Somerville, NJ), and skin wounds were closed with stainless steel clips (Weck Closure Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC). All operations were performed by the same team headed by four experienced cardiac surgeons (Y.B., Z.A., V.K., S.M.).

Patient evaluation
During hospitalization, patients were evaluated daily by cardiac surgeons and three times a week by an infection control nurse. At the discretion of the attending physician, an infectious diseases specialist was also involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients. Cultures were obtained as clinically indicated and processed in the hospital's microbiology laboratory according to standard procedures. All patients were followed up for the appearance of postdischarge SSI with at least two visits, the first 1 week after discharge and the second 3 weeks later. Follow-up was done in the hospital's cardiac surgery outpatient clinics with the presence of an infection control nurse or infectious diseases physician. Patients receiving a cardiac implant were followed up for at least 1 year. Six patients who did not return to the outpatient clinic were contacted by telephone by the infection control nurse.

Definitions
Nosocomial SSIs were defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions.Go 14 The criteria are described here.

Superficial SSI
This was an infection involving only skin and subcutaneous tissue with at least one of the following: purulent drainage from the incision, positive results of incisional culture, and classic inflammatory signs that led to the incision being deliberately reopened by the surgeon unless results of an incisional culture were negative.

Deep incisional SSI
This was an infection involving deep soft tissues of the incision with at least one of the following: purulent drainage from the deep incision, a deep incision that spontaneously dehisced or was deliberately opened by the surgeon in the presence of fever (temperature >=38°C) or localized pain or tenderness unless results of an incisional culture were negative, and evidence of infection involving the deep incision found in direct examination or reoperation.

Mediastinitis
Mediastinitis was reported as a specific organ-space SSI and was an infection characterized by one of the following: positive results of a culture obtained from mediastinal tissue or fluid during a surgical operation, a patient fever (temperature >=38°C), chest pain or sternal instability, mediastinal involvement suggested by a computed tomographic scan, and organisms cultured from the mediastinal area.

Sternal osteomyelitis
Sternal osteomyelitis was reported as a specific organ-space SSI and was indicated by a persistent purulent drainage from the sternotomy confirmed by microbiologic and histopathologic findings.

Pericarditis
Pericarditis was reported as a specific organ-space SSI and was indicated by organisms cultured from pericardial tissue or fluid obtained by needle aspiration or during surgical operation.

Endocarditis
Endocarditis was reported as a specific organ-space SSI and was defined according to the Duke criteria.Go 15

SSI risk stratification
SSIs were stratified according to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System risk index.Go 16 Because all surgical wounds included in our study were classified as clean, the index values ranged from 0 to a maximum of 2.

Statistical analysis
Before the start of this trial, cefazolin had been used for many years as the routine prophylactic regimen for cardiovascular surgery in our institution. We estimated the number of patients that would be required for an adequate examination of the hypothesis that prophylaxis with vancomycin may result in a significant reduction in the overall rate of SSIs as follows. Because our rate of SSIs with cefazolin was not precisely known, we established this baseline rate by calculating SSI rates occurring during the first 12 months of the study. The overall SSI rate observed among 136 patients receiving cefazolin prophylaxis and included in the study during this period was 10.5%. A total of 405 operations were required in each group for the study to have the ability to show a significant reduction of the SSI rate to 5% with an {alpha} level of .20 and ß error of .05. The reduction to 5% was chosen as a maximal figure approximating the median of SSI rate reported by the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System for CABG operations (chest and leg) among patients in risk category 2.Go 17 The significance of the differences between the two groups was determined by the Student t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables and by the Fisher exact test or {chi}2 test for categoric variables. Calculation was performed with the SPSS statistical program version 9 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill).


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Characteristics of patients
Between January 1997 and December 1999 a total of 1032 patients were considered eligible and enrolled in the trial. Of these 144 were excluded, 123 because of deviations from the antibiotic regimens (110 received both drugs included in the trial and 13 did not receive the drug indicated by the random assignment) and 21 because of incomplete follow-up. Eventually 885 patients completed the trial; 452 received vancomycin and 433 received cefazolin. The two groups were similar with respect to patient characteristics, type of surgery, duration of operation, risk index categories, duration of preoperative hospitalization, and timing of prophylaxis administration(Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Characteristics of 885 patients receiving cefazolin or vancomycin for prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery
 
Outcomes
The outcomes of patients in both groups, including SSIs, are shown inTable 2. There were 43 SSIs in the vancomycin group and 39 SSIs in the cefazolin group (overall SSI rates of 9.5% and 9.0%, respectively, P = .8). The observed superficial and deep incisional SSI rates in the vancomycin group were 5.5% and 2.6%, respectively, as compared with rates of 4.6% and 1.6%, respectively, in the cefazolin group (P = .6 and P = .4, respectively). Most organ-space infections in both groups were mediastinitis. Although organ-space infections were twice as frequent in the cefazolin group as in the vancomycin group (12 cases, 2.7%, vs. 6 cases, 1.3%), this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Outcomes of 885 patients receiving vancomycin or cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiovascular operations
 
The durations of the postoperative hospitalization and mortalities were similar in the two groups. The overall infection rates were also similar according to the length of stay in the hospital before surgery. In the vancomycin group there were 35 SSIs among 385 patients hospitalized for 6 days or less before the operation and 8 SSIs among 67 patients with preoperative stays of 7 days or longer (9% vs 11.9%, P = .6). In comparison, in the cefazolin group there were 30 SSIs among 357 patients with stays of 6 days or less before the operation and 9 SSIs among 76 patients with preoperative stays of 7 days or longer (8.4% vs 11.8%, P = .4).

Table 3 summarizes the distribution of pathogens isolated in both groups of patients according to the different types and sites of SSI. Pathogens isolated from SSIs were similarly distributed in both groups, although some differences were found that did not reach statistical significance. More than 60% of SSIs were due to gram-positive cocci. S aureus was the leading pathogen, closely followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci. Gram-negative bacilli caused approximately 50% of SSIs. Nevertheless, there was a trend toward more common infections with ß-lactam–resistant gram-positive cocci (eg, MRSA and methicillin-resistant enterococci) in the cefazolin group (18 of 433 patients, 4.2%, vs 9 of 452 patients, 2%, P = .09). In contrast, SSIs due to methicillin-susceptible S aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were significantly more frequent among patients who received vancomycin prophylaxis (17 of 452 patients, 3.7%, vs 6 of 433 patients, 1.3%, P = .04). The mean preoperative stays among patients with SSIs caused by methicillin-susceptible staphylococci and by MRSA were similar (4.65 ± 5.0 days vs 5.7 ± 10.5 days, P = .7). Polymicrobial infection rates were also similar in the two groups; 8 of 43 infections (18.6%) in the vancomycin group were polymicrobial, as compared with 11 of 39 infections (28.2%) in the cefazolin group (P = .4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Microorganisms isolated according to surgical site infections and antibiotic prophylaxis*{dagger}
 
Of the 38 cases of bloodstream infection (BSI) that occurred during the study, 20 (4.4%) were observed in the vancomycin group and 18 (4.1%) were seen in the cefazolin group (P = .9). In both groups BSIs were significantly more common among patients with SSIs than among those without SSIs. In the vancomycin group 9 BSIs occurred among 43 patients with SSIs (20.9%), as compared with 11 BSIs observed in 409 patients (2.6%) without SSIs (P < .001). In the cefazolin group there were 9 BSIs among 39 patients with SSIs (23%), as compared with 9 BSIs among 394 patients (2.2%) without SSIs (P < .001). BSIs occurred only among patients with chest infections. Pathogens isolated in cases of BSI are shown inTable 4.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 4. Pathogens isolated from BSIs among 38 patients receiving vancomycin or cefazolin prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery
 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Worldwide the cephalosporin antibiotics, in particular the first- and second-generation agents, are the most widely used drugs in surgical practice, including in cardiac surgery.Go Go 18,19 Despite a relatively large number of studies, no cephalosporin drug has emerged as clearly superior to the others in reducing SSI rates. A meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis that included six studies of cefazolin versus cefamandole or cefuroximeGo 20 concluded that the second-generation cephalosporins were associated with lower prevalence of wound infection than seen with cefazolin. However, subsequent randomized double-blind trials failed to show the superiority of cefamandole or cefuroxime over first-generation cephalosporins in cardiac surgery.Go Go 10,21 The use of vancomycin for prophylaxis in cardiac surgery, although much more controversial, might be justified in the light of many observations. First, organ-space infections, although infrequent, have devastating consequences. Second, coagulase-negative staphylococci and S aureus, the most important pathogens responsible for SSIs in cardiac surgery, are frequently resistant to ß-lactam antibiotics. Third, some studies have shown that more than 80% of surgical patients who receive a first-generation cephalosporin for prophylaxis become colonized with methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci by the seventh postoperative day.Go Go 22,23 Finally, the superiority of vancomycin over cephalosporins in cardiac surgery has been suggested in two previous studies. Maki and colleaguesGo 10 showed in a prospective, double-blind trial that vancomycin, relative to cefazolin and cefuroxime, was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of thoracic surgical SSIs other than mediastinitis. In addition, the mean duration of postoperative hospitalization in the vancomycin group was significantly reduced relative to that observed in the cefazolin group. In a preliminary report, Nafziger and colleaguesGo 24 showed that prophylaxis with a first-generation cephalosporin instead of vancomycin appeared to be a risk factor for mediastinitis.

On the other hand, two major problems with the prophylactic use of vancomycin in surgery should be seriously considered. First, several studies have concluded that the use of vancomycin prophylaxis in cardiac and noncardiac surgery may result in serious untoward effects, particularly hypotension.Go Go 25,26 Second, and more important, are the alarming problems of vancomycin-resistant enterococciGo 27 and more recently glycopeptide-intermediate–resistant S aureus.Go 28 Reports of these emerging resistances have significantly altered attitudes toward the use of vancomycin prophylaxis in surgery. As a consequence, recent guidelines for prevention of SSIs strongly recommend avoiding the routine use of vancomycin for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery.Go 29 These recommendations may be strengthened by a recently published trialGo 30 that showed similar results when vancomycin and cefuroxime were used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in CABG.

The major objective of our trial was to investigate whether SSI rates associated with cardiac surgery could be reduced by the use of vancomycin prophylaxis in an institution with a high prevalence of MRSA infections. Although we observed a trend toward more serious infections occurring among patients who received cefazolin prophylaxis, this trend did not reach statistical significance. As could be expected, SSIs caused by methicillin-resistant gram-positive cocci were more common among patients who received cefazolin prophylaxis. However, the overall results were counterbalanced by the fact that infections with methicillin-susceptible staphylococci were significantly more frequent in the vancomycin group. Paradoxically, infections with gram-negative bacilli were equally common in the two groups.

Although a prolonged preoperative stay is a likely surrogate for severity of illness, it is frequently suggested as a patient characteristic associated with increased SSI risk.Go 29 Moreover, infections with resistant organisms, including MRSA, are typically hospital acquired. Therefore one could make a point in favor of the use of vancomycin as surgical prophylaxis for patients with a prolonged preoperative stay. In this study, however, SSI rates and infections with MRSA were not affected by a more prolonged preoperative stay. Thus our results do not support the use of vancomycin prophylaxis in this setting.

It appears that the random assignment achieved a good balance among the various covariates of the two groups(Table 1Go). Nevertheless, the fact that the trial could not be performed in a double-blinded fashion represents an important limitation of this study. Taking this limitation in consideration, we conclude that this study could not show any clear advantage of vancomycin over cefazolin in reducing SSI rates in cardiac surgery at our institution, where the prevalence of MRSA infections is high. Possible explanations may include the superiority of cefazolin over vancomycin in preventing infections with ß-lactam–susceptible organisms or the possibility that some serious infections complicating cardiac operations are initiated after the operation in a critical care setting, rather than being acquired during operation.Go Go 31,32 Our data appear to support the continuing efforts to restrict the prophylactic use of vancomycin in surgical practice.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Burke JP. Infections of cardiovascular prostheses. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, editors. Hospital Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998. p. 599-612.
  2. American Heart Association. Heart and stroke facts. 1995 statistical supplement. Dallas: The Association; 1995.
  3. Goodman JS, Schaffner W, Collins HA, Battersby EJ, Koenig MG. Infection after cardiovascular surgery. N Engl J Med. 1968;278:117-23.
  4. Fekety FR, Cluff LE, Sabiston DC, Seidl LG, Smith JW, Thoburn R. A study of antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1969;57:757-63.[Medline]
  5. Fong IW, Baker CB, McKee DC. The value of prophylactic antibiotics in aorta-coronary bypass operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979;78:908-13.[Abstract]
  6. Austin TW, Coles JC, Burnett R, Goldbach M. Aortocoronary bypass procedures and sternotomy infections: a study of antistaphylococcal prophylaxis. Can J Surg. 1980;23:483-5.[Medline]
  7. Curtis JJ, Boley TM, Walls JT, Hamory B, Schmaltz RA. Randomized, prospective comparison of first- and second-generation cephalosporins as infection prophylaxis for cardiac surgery. Am J Surg. 1993;166:734-7.[Medline]
  8. Kaiser AB, Petracek MR, Lea JW, Kernodle DS, Roach AC, Alford WC, et al. Efficacy of cefazolin, cefamandole, and gentamicin as prophylactic agents in cardiac surgery. Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 1030 patients. Ann Surg. 1987;206:791-7.[Medline]
  9. Dellinger EP, Gross PA, Barrett TL, Krause PJ, Martone WJ, McGowan JE, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 1994;18:422-7.[Free Full Text]
  10. Maki DG, Bohn MJ, Stolz SM, Kroncke GM, Acher CW, Myerowitz PD. Comparative study of cefazolin, cefamandole and vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in cardiac and vascular operations: double-blind randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;104:1423-34.[Abstract]
  11. Finkelstein R, Markel A, Reinherz G, Hashman N, Merzbach D. The emergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in an Israeli hospital. J Hosp Infect. 1989;14:55-61.[Medline]
  12. Wenzel RP, Reagan DR, Bertino JS Jr, Baron EJ, Arias K. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreak: a consensus panel's definition and management guidelines. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:102-10.[Medline]
  13. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Horn SD, Menlove RL, Burke JP. The timing of administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:281-6.[Medline]
  14. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions of nosocomial infections. In: Olmsted RN, editor. APIC infection control and applied epidemiology: principles and practice. St Louis: Mosby; 1996. p. A1-A20.
  15. Durack DT, Lukes AS, Bright DK. New criteria for diagnosis of infective endocarditis: utilization of specific echocardiographic findings. Duke Endocarditis Service. Am J Med. 1994;96:200-9.[Medline]
  16. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med. 1991;91 Suppl 3B:152S-7S.[Medline]
  17. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1997, issued May 1997: a report from the NNIS System. Am J Infect Control. 1997;25:477-87.[Medline]
  18. Gorbach SL. The role of cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1989;23 Suppl D:61-70.
  19. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1997;39:97-101.[Medline]
  20. Kreter B, Woods M. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiothoracic operations: metaanalysis of thirty years of clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;104:590-9.[Abstract]
  21. Townsend TR, Reitz BA, Bilker WB, Bartlett JG. Clinical trial of cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime for antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;106:664-70.[Abstract]
  22. Archer GL, Armstrong BC. Alterations of staphylococcal flora in cardiac surgery patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis. J Infect Dis. 1983;147:642-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Kernodle DS, Barg NL, Kaiser AB. Low-level colonization of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci and emergence of the organisms during surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1988;32:202-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Nafziger DA, Perl TM, Herwaldt LA, Kuhn KR, Hollis RA, Wenzel RP. Mediastinitis at a tertiary referral hospital [abstract 34]. In: Program and abstracts of the 32nd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy; 1992 Oct; Anaheim (CA). Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1992. p. 320.
  25. Romanelli VA, Howie MB, Myerowitz PD, Zvara DA, Rezaei A, Jackman DL, et al. Intraoperative and postoperative effects of vancomycin administration in cardiac surgery patients: a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 1993;21:1124-31.[Medline]
  26. Odio C, Mohs E, Sklar FH, Nelson JD, McCracken GH. Adverse reactions to vancomycin used as prophylaxis for CSF shunt procedures. Am J Dis Child. 1984;138:17-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin—United States, 1989-1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1993;42:597-9.[Medline]
  28. Smith TL, Pearson ML, Wilcox KR, Cruz C, Lancaster MV, Robinson-Dunn B, et al. Emergence of vancomycin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:493-501.[Medline]
  29. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:250-78.[Medline]
  30. Vuorisalo S, Pokela R, Syrjälä H. Comparison of vancomycin and cefuroxime for infection prophylaxis in coronary artery bypass surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1998;19:234-9.[Medline]
  31. Lowry PW, Blankenship RJ, Gridley W, Troup NJ, Tompkins LS. A cluster of Legionella sternal-wound infections due to postoperative topical exposure to contaminated tap water. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:109-13.[Medline]
  32. Ehrenkranz NJ, Pfaff SJ. Mediastinitis complicating cardiac operations: evidence of postoperative causation. Rev Infect Dis. 1991;13:803-14.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
T. Crawford, K. A. Rodvold, and J. S. Solomkin
Vancomycin for Surgical Prophylaxis?
Clinical Infectious Diseases, February 10, 2012; (2012) cis027v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J Cardiothorac SurgHome page
A. Chaudhuri, K. Shekar, and C. Coulter
Post-operative deep sternal wound infections: making an early microbiological diagnosis
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, January 12, 2012; (2012) ezr239v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
Writing Committee Members, L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Executive summary A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2012; 143(1): 4 - 34.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, A. M. Hutter Jr, et al.
Special Article: 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2012; 114(1): 11 - 45.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, A. M. Hutter Jr, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 6, 2011; 58(24): 2584 - 2614.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, A. M. Hutter Jr, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 6, 2011; 58(24): e123 - e210.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
Writing Committee Members, L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Circulation, December 6, 2011; 124(23): e652 - e735.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CirculationHome page
Writing Committee Members, L. D. Hillis, P. K. Smith, J. L. Anderson, J. A. Bittl, C. R. Bridges, J. G. Byrne, J. E. Cigarroa, V. J. DiSesa, L. F. Hiratzka, et al.
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Circulation, December 6, 2011; 124(23): 2610 - 2642.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
E. Murphy, S. J. Spencer, D. Young, B. Jones, and M. J. G. Blyth
MRSA colonisation and subsequent risk of infection despite effective eradication in orthopaedic elective surgery
J Bone Joint Surg Br, April 1, 2011; 93-B(4): 548 - 551.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur J Cardiothorac SurgHome page
P. J. A. van der Starre, M. Kolz, H. J. M. Lemmens, J. D. Faix, S. Mitchell, and C. Miller
Vancomycin plasma concentrations in cardiac surgery with the use of profound hypothermic circulatory arrest
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, December 1, 2010; 38(6): 741 - 744.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Microbiol.Home page
N. B. Shah, D. R. Osmon, H. Fadel, R. Patel, P. C. Kohner, J. M. Steckelberg, T. Mabry, and E. F. Berbari
Laboratory and Clinical Characteristics of Staphylococcus lugdunensis Prosthetic Joint Infections
J. Clin. Microbiol., May 1, 2010; 48(5): 1600 - 1603.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
A. Gupta, M. P. Hote, M. Choudhury, A. Kapil, and A. K. Bisoi
Comparison of 48 h and 72 h of prophylactic antibiotic therapy in adult cardiac surgery: a randomized double blind controlled trial
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., May 1, 2010; 65(5): 1036 - 1041.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
E. Tamayo, J. Gualis, S. Florez, J. Castrodeza, J. M. Eiros Bouza, and F. J. Alvarez
Comparative study of single-dose and 24-hour multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac surgery.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., December 1, 2008; 136(6): 1522 - 1527.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
L. Prokuski
Prophylactic Antibiotics in Orthopaedic Surgery
J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg., May 1, 2008; 16(5): 283 - 293.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.Home page
K. W. Garey, D. Lai, T. K. Dao-Tran, L. O. Gentry, L. Y. Hwang, and B. R. Davis
Interrupted Time Series Analysis of Vancomycin Compared to Cefuroxime for Surgical Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., February 1, 2008; 52(2): 446 - 451.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
HeartHome page
K. Dhadwal, S. Al-Ruzzeh, T. Athanasiou, M. Choudhury, P. Tekkis, P. Vuddamalay, H. Lyster, M. Amrani, and S. George
Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes of two antibiotic prophylaxis regimens for sternal wound infection in high-risk patients following coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a prospective randomised double-blind controlled trial
Heart, September 1, 2007; 93(9): 1126 - 1133.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
R. Engelman, D. Shahian, R. Shemin, T. S. Guy, D. Bratzler, F. Edwards, M. Jacobs, H. Fernando, and C. Bridges
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery, Part II: Antibiotic Choice
Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2007; 83(4): 1569 - 1576.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
M. Paul, A. Raz, L. Leibovici, H. Madar, R. Holinger, and B. Rubinovitch
Sternal wound infection after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Validation of existing risk scores
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2007; 133(2): 397 - 403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Antimicrob ChemotherHome page
K. W. Garey, T. Dao, H. Chen, P. Amrutkar, N. Kumar, M. Reiter, and L. O. Gentry
Timing of vancomycin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery patients and the risk of surgical site infections
J. Antimicrob. Chemother., September 1, 2006; 58(3): 645 - 650.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The Annals of PharmacotherapyHome page
S. Kachroo, T. Dao, F. Zabaneh, M. Reiter, M. T LaRocco, L. O Gentry, and K. W Garey
Tolerance of Vancomycin for Surgical Prophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery and Incidence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus Colonization
Ann. Pharmacother., March 1, 2006; 40(3): 381 - 385.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
F. H. Edwards, R. M. Engelman, P. Houck, D. M. Shahian, and C. R. Bridges
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery, Part I: Duration
Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2006; 81(1): 397 - 404.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
D. W. Bratzler and P. M. Houck
Reply to Chenoweth et al
Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 1, 2005; 41(1): 123 - 124.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
C. E. Chenoweth, D. D. DePestel, and R. L. Prager
Are Cephalosporins Adequate for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Cardiac Surgery Involving Implants?
Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 1, 2005; 41(1): 122 - 123.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
W. B. Dale, M. H. Peter, and for the Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines W
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Surgery: An Advisory Statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project
Clinical Infectious Diseases, June 15, 2004; 38(12): 1706 - 1715.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
DTBHome page
Antibacterial prophylaxis in surgery: 3 - Arterial surgery in the abdomen, pelvis and lower limbs
DTB, June 1, 2004; 42(6): 43 - 47.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
M. K. Bolon, M. Morlote, S. G. Weber, B. Koplan, Y. Carmeli, and S. B. Wright
Glycopeptides Are No More Effective than {beta}-Lactam Agents for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection after Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis
Clinical Infectious Diseases, May 15, 2004; 38(10): 1357 - 1363.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
G. Zanetti and R. Platt
Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Cardiac Surgery: Does the Past Predict the Future?
Clinical Infectious Diseases, May 15, 2004; 38(10): 1364 - 1366.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clinical Infectious DiseasesHome page
A. Combes, J.-L. Trouillet, M.-L. Joly-Guillou, J. Chastre, and C. Gibert
The Impact of Methicillin Resistance on the Outcome of Poststernotomy Mediastinitis Due to Staphylococcus aureus
Clinical Infectious Diseases, March 15, 2004; 38(6): 822 - 829.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J CARDIOVASC PHARMACOL THERHome page
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]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, R.
Right arrow Articles by Milo, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Finkelstein, R.
Right arrow Articles by Milo, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Cardiac - pharmacology


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