Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis

Cost-effectiveness and risk factors

William H. Edwards, Allen B. Kaiser, Scott Tapper, William Edwards, Raymond S. Martin, Joseph L. Mulherin, Judith M. Jenkins, Albert C. Roach

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    18 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Purpose: Recent studies of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis have indicated an improved efficacy of β-lactamase-stable cephalosporins compared with cefazolin, the most commonly used prophylactic agent. Previous studies in our institution have revealed a superiority of cefamandole to cefazolin in patients undergoing heart surgery, although there was no difference between cefazolin and cefuroxime in patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. This study was therefore designed to compare cefamandole with cefazolin in wound infection prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery. Methods: The study was conducted from August 1990 through May 1992 and consisted of 893 patients with aortic or infrainguinal arterial procedures randomized to receive either cefamandole or cefazolin. Results: The difference in infection rates associated with cefamandole versus cefazolin prophylaxis (3.2% vs 1.9%, respectively) was not significant (p = 0.42). A cost savings of approximately $95,000 per year at our institution favors the continued use of cefazolin over cefamandole. Risk factor analysis was carried out for preoperative and postoperative events that might have predisposed to infection. Only preoperative use of aspirin and the postoperative finding of a lymphocele correlated with a higher infection rate. Conclusions: Cefazolin continues to be the most cost-effective antibiotic for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgical procedures.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)470-476
    Number of pages7
    JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
    Volume18
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 1993

    Fingerprint

    Cefamandole
    Surgical Wound Infection
    Cefazolin
    Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Blood Vessels
    Vascular Surgical Procedures
    Infection
    Lymphocele
    Cefuroxime
    Antibiotic Prophylaxis
    Cost Savings
    Wound Infection
    Cephalosporins
    Aspirin
    Thoracic Surgery
    Statistical Factor Analysis
    Costs and Cost Analysis

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Surgery
    • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

    Cite this

    Edwards, W. H., Kaiser, A. B., Tapper, S., Edwards, W., Martin, R. S., Mulherin, J. L., ... Roach, A. C. (1993). Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis: Cost-effectiveness and risk factors. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 18(3), 470-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(93)90265-N

    Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis : Cost-effectiveness and risk factors. / Edwards, William H.; Kaiser, Allen B.; Tapper, Scott; Edwards, William; Martin, Raymond S.; Mulherin, Joseph L.; Jenkins, Judith M.; Roach, Albert C.

    In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 18, No. 3, 01.01.1993, p. 470-476.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Edwards, WH, Kaiser, AB, Tapper, S, Edwards, W, Martin, RS, Mulherin, JL, Jenkins, JM & Roach, AC 1993, 'Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis: Cost-effectiveness and risk factors', Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 470-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(93)90265-N
    Edwards, William H. ; Kaiser, Allen B. ; Tapper, Scott ; Edwards, William ; Martin, Raymond S. ; Mulherin, Joseph L. ; Jenkins, Judith M. ; Roach, Albert C. / Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis : Cost-effectiveness and risk factors. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1993 ; Vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 470-476.
    @article{edd0f065855f4017a7a0330419b1eea8,
    title = "Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis: Cost-effectiveness and risk factors",
    abstract = "Purpose: Recent studies of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis have indicated an improved efficacy of β-lactamase-stable cephalosporins compared with cefazolin, the most commonly used prophylactic agent. Previous studies in our institution have revealed a superiority of cefamandole to cefazolin in patients undergoing heart surgery, although there was no difference between cefazolin and cefuroxime in patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. This study was therefore designed to compare cefamandole with cefazolin in wound infection prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery. Methods: The study was conducted from August 1990 through May 1992 and consisted of 893 patients with aortic or infrainguinal arterial procedures randomized to receive either cefamandole or cefazolin. Results: The difference in infection rates associated with cefamandole versus cefazolin prophylaxis (3.2{\%} vs 1.9{\%}, respectively) was not significant (p = 0.42). A cost savings of approximately $95,000 per year at our institution favors the continued use of cefazolin over cefamandole. Risk factor analysis was carried out for preoperative and postoperative events that might have predisposed to infection. Only preoperative use of aspirin and the postoperative finding of a lymphocele correlated with a higher infection rate. Conclusions: Cefazolin continues to be the most cost-effective antibiotic for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgical procedures.",
    author = "Edwards, {William H.} and Kaiser, {Allen B.} and Scott Tapper and William Edwards and Martin, {Raymond S.} and Mulherin, {Joseph L.} and Jenkins, {Judith M.} and Roach, {Albert C.}",
    year = "1993",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/0741-5214(93)90265-N",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "18",
    pages = "470--476",
    journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
    issn = "0741-5214",
    publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis

    T2 - Cost-effectiveness and risk factors

    AU - Edwards, William H.

    AU - Kaiser, Allen B.

    AU - Tapper, Scott

    AU - Edwards, William

    AU - Martin, Raymond S.

    AU - Mulherin, Joseph L.

    AU - Jenkins, Judith M.

    AU - Roach, Albert C.

    PY - 1993/1/1

    Y1 - 1993/1/1

    N2 - Purpose: Recent studies of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis have indicated an improved efficacy of β-lactamase-stable cephalosporins compared with cefazolin, the most commonly used prophylactic agent. Previous studies in our institution have revealed a superiority of cefamandole to cefazolin in patients undergoing heart surgery, although there was no difference between cefazolin and cefuroxime in patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. This study was therefore designed to compare cefamandole with cefazolin in wound infection prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery. Methods: The study was conducted from August 1990 through May 1992 and consisted of 893 patients with aortic or infrainguinal arterial procedures randomized to receive either cefamandole or cefazolin. Results: The difference in infection rates associated with cefamandole versus cefazolin prophylaxis (3.2% vs 1.9%, respectively) was not significant (p = 0.42). A cost savings of approximately $95,000 per year at our institution favors the continued use of cefazolin over cefamandole. Risk factor analysis was carried out for preoperative and postoperative events that might have predisposed to infection. Only preoperative use of aspirin and the postoperative finding of a lymphocele correlated with a higher infection rate. Conclusions: Cefazolin continues to be the most cost-effective antibiotic for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgical procedures.

    AB - Purpose: Recent studies of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis have indicated an improved efficacy of β-lactamase-stable cephalosporins compared with cefazolin, the most commonly used prophylactic agent. Previous studies in our institution have revealed a superiority of cefamandole to cefazolin in patients undergoing heart surgery, although there was no difference between cefazolin and cefuroxime in patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. This study was therefore designed to compare cefamandole with cefazolin in wound infection prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery. Methods: The study was conducted from August 1990 through May 1992 and consisted of 893 patients with aortic or infrainguinal arterial procedures randomized to receive either cefamandole or cefazolin. Results: The difference in infection rates associated with cefamandole versus cefazolin prophylaxis (3.2% vs 1.9%, respectively) was not significant (p = 0.42). A cost savings of approximately $95,000 per year at our institution favors the continued use of cefazolin over cefamandole. Risk factor analysis was carried out for preoperative and postoperative events that might have predisposed to infection. Only preoperative use of aspirin and the postoperative finding of a lymphocele correlated with a higher infection rate. Conclusions: Cefazolin continues to be the most cost-effective antibiotic for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgical procedures.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027385409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027385409&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/0741-5214(93)90265-N

    DO - 10.1016/0741-5214(93)90265-N

    M3 - Article

    VL - 18

    SP - 470

    EP - 476

    JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    SN - 0741-5214

    IS - 3

    ER -