Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery

William H. Edwards, Allen B. Kaiser, Douglas S. Kernodle, Thomas C. Appleby, William Edwards, Raymond S. Martin, Joseph L. Mulherin, Charles A. Wood

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    20 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Although cefazolin prophylaxis has proven efficacy in vascular surgery, Staphylococcus aureus wound infections are still an important postoperative complication. In cardiac surgery, cefazolin's susceptibility to hydrolysis by staphylococcal β-lactamase has been proposed to account for some prophylaxis failures. To determine whether the incidence of vascular wound infections can be reduced by administering a more β-lactamase-stable cephalosporin, we undertook a prospective, randomized trial of cefuroxime versus cefazolin. Cefuroxime was administered as a 1.5 gm dose before operation and 750 mg every 3 hours during operation. Cefazolin was given as 1 gm before operation and 500 mg every 4 hours during operation. Both agents were continued every 6 hours after operation for 24 hours. Deep wound infections developed in seven of 272 (2.6%) cefuroxime and three of 287 (1.0%) cefazolin recipients (p = 0.2). Staphylococcus aureus wound infections occurred in five cefuroxime versus two cefazolin recipients. In vitro evaluation of six of the study isolates plus an additional eight S. aureus strains from vascular wound infections showed greater susceptibility of the strains to cefazolin than cefuroxime (median minimal inhibitory concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 μg/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). Furthermore, despite its more frequent intraoperative redosing, cefuroxime exhibited lower trough serum concentrations than cefazolin. Among cefuroxime recipients, infection-associated procedures were significantly longer than infection-free procedures (p < 0.05), suggesting that low tissue antibiotic concentrations may have contributed to the pathogenesis of these infections. In contrast, the length of the procedure was not a risk factor for infection among cefazolin recipients. These data emphasize that, despite its inferior β-lactamase stability, cefazolin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile and greater antistaphylococcal potency. These properties result in a higher ratio of intraoperative serum antibiotic concentration to bacterial inhibitory concentration despite slightly higher intraoperative doses of cefuroxime. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the trend in infection rates suggest that, at the doses used in this study, cefazolin provides more effective perioperative prophylaxis than cefuroxime. (J Vasc Surg 1992;15:35–42.)

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)35-42
    Number of pages8
    JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
    Volume15
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

    Fingerprint

    Cefazolin
    Cefuroxime
    Blood Vessels
    Wound Infection
    Staphylococcus aureus
    Infection
    Anti-Bacterial Agents
    Cephalosporins
    Serum
    Thoracic Surgery
    Hydrolysis
    Pharmacokinetics

    All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

    • Surgery
    • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

    Cite this

    Edwards, W. H., Kaiser, A. B., Kernodle, D. S., Appleby, T. C., Edwards, W., Martin, R. S., ... Wood, C. A. (1992). Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery, 15(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9

    Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery. / Edwards, William H.; Kaiser, Allen B.; Kernodle, Douglas S.; Appleby, Thomas C.; Edwards, William; Martin, Raymond S.; Mulherin, Joseph L.; Wood, Charles A.

    In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 15, No. 1, 01.01.1992, p. 35-42.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Edwards, WH, Kaiser, AB, Kernodle, DS, Appleby, TC, Edwards, W, Martin, RS, Mulherin, JL & Wood, CA 1992, 'Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery', Journal of Vascular Surgery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9
    Edwards WH, Kaiser AB, Kernodle DS, Appleby TC, Edwards W, Martin RS et al. Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1992 Jan 1;15(1):35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9
    Edwards, William H. ; Kaiser, Allen B. ; Kernodle, Douglas S. ; Appleby, Thomas C. ; Edwards, William ; Martin, Raymond S. ; Mulherin, Joseph L. ; Wood, Charles A. / Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 1992 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 35-42.
    @article{395d3c72d582446e92caed0e1db7919c,
    title = "Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery",
    abstract = "Although cefazolin prophylaxis has proven efficacy in vascular surgery, Staphylococcus aureus wound infections are still an important postoperative complication. In cardiac surgery, cefazolin's susceptibility to hydrolysis by staphylococcal β-lactamase has been proposed to account for some prophylaxis failures. To determine whether the incidence of vascular wound infections can be reduced by administering a more β-lactamase-stable cephalosporin, we undertook a prospective, randomized trial of cefuroxime versus cefazolin. Cefuroxime was administered as a 1.5 gm dose before operation and 750 mg every 3 hours during operation. Cefazolin was given as 1 gm before operation and 500 mg every 4 hours during operation. Both agents were continued every 6 hours after operation for 24 hours. Deep wound infections developed in seven of 272 (2.6{\%}) cefuroxime and three of 287 (1.0{\%}) cefazolin recipients (p = 0.2). Staphylococcus aureus wound infections occurred in five cefuroxime versus two cefazolin recipients. In vitro evaluation of six of the study isolates plus an additional eight S. aureus strains from vascular wound infections showed greater susceptibility of the strains to cefazolin than cefuroxime (median minimal inhibitory concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 μg/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). Furthermore, despite its more frequent intraoperative redosing, cefuroxime exhibited lower trough serum concentrations than cefazolin. Among cefuroxime recipients, infection-associated procedures were significantly longer than infection-free procedures (p < 0.05), suggesting that low tissue antibiotic concentrations may have contributed to the pathogenesis of these infections. In contrast, the length of the procedure was not a risk factor for infection among cefazolin recipients. These data emphasize that, despite its inferior β-lactamase stability, cefazolin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile and greater antistaphylococcal potency. These properties result in a higher ratio of intraoperative serum antibiotic concentration to bacterial inhibitory concentration despite slightly higher intraoperative doses of cefuroxime. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the trend in infection rates suggest that, at the doses used in this study, cefazolin provides more effective perioperative prophylaxis than cefuroxime. (J Vasc Surg 1992;15:35–42.)",
    author = "Edwards, {William H.} and Kaiser, {Allen B.} and Kernodle, {Douglas S.} and Appleby, {Thomas C.} and William Edwards and Martin, {Raymond S.} and Mulherin, {Joseph L.} and Wood, {Charles A.}",
    year = "1992",
    month = "1",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "15",
    pages = "35--42",
    journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
    issn = "0741-5214",
    publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cefuroxime versus cefazolin as prophylaxis in vascular surgery

    AU - Edwards, William H.

    AU - Kaiser, Allen B.

    AU - Kernodle, Douglas S.

    AU - Appleby, Thomas C.

    AU - Edwards, William

    AU - Martin, Raymond S.

    AU - Mulherin, Joseph L.

    AU - Wood, Charles A.

    PY - 1992/1/1

    Y1 - 1992/1/1

    N2 - Although cefazolin prophylaxis has proven efficacy in vascular surgery, Staphylococcus aureus wound infections are still an important postoperative complication. In cardiac surgery, cefazolin's susceptibility to hydrolysis by staphylococcal β-lactamase has been proposed to account for some prophylaxis failures. To determine whether the incidence of vascular wound infections can be reduced by administering a more β-lactamase-stable cephalosporin, we undertook a prospective, randomized trial of cefuroxime versus cefazolin. Cefuroxime was administered as a 1.5 gm dose before operation and 750 mg every 3 hours during operation. Cefazolin was given as 1 gm before operation and 500 mg every 4 hours during operation. Both agents were continued every 6 hours after operation for 24 hours. Deep wound infections developed in seven of 272 (2.6%) cefuroxime and three of 287 (1.0%) cefazolin recipients (p = 0.2). Staphylococcus aureus wound infections occurred in five cefuroxime versus two cefazolin recipients. In vitro evaluation of six of the study isolates plus an additional eight S. aureus strains from vascular wound infections showed greater susceptibility of the strains to cefazolin than cefuroxime (median minimal inhibitory concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 μg/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). Furthermore, despite its more frequent intraoperative redosing, cefuroxime exhibited lower trough serum concentrations than cefazolin. Among cefuroxime recipients, infection-associated procedures were significantly longer than infection-free procedures (p < 0.05), suggesting that low tissue antibiotic concentrations may have contributed to the pathogenesis of these infections. In contrast, the length of the procedure was not a risk factor for infection among cefazolin recipients. These data emphasize that, despite its inferior β-lactamase stability, cefazolin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile and greater antistaphylococcal potency. These properties result in a higher ratio of intraoperative serum antibiotic concentration to bacterial inhibitory concentration despite slightly higher intraoperative doses of cefuroxime. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the trend in infection rates suggest that, at the doses used in this study, cefazolin provides more effective perioperative prophylaxis than cefuroxime. (J Vasc Surg 1992;15:35–42.)

    AB - Although cefazolin prophylaxis has proven efficacy in vascular surgery, Staphylococcus aureus wound infections are still an important postoperative complication. In cardiac surgery, cefazolin's susceptibility to hydrolysis by staphylococcal β-lactamase has been proposed to account for some prophylaxis failures. To determine whether the incidence of vascular wound infections can be reduced by administering a more β-lactamase-stable cephalosporin, we undertook a prospective, randomized trial of cefuroxime versus cefazolin. Cefuroxime was administered as a 1.5 gm dose before operation and 750 mg every 3 hours during operation. Cefazolin was given as 1 gm before operation and 500 mg every 4 hours during operation. Both agents were continued every 6 hours after operation for 24 hours. Deep wound infections developed in seven of 272 (2.6%) cefuroxime and three of 287 (1.0%) cefazolin recipients (p = 0.2). Staphylococcus aureus wound infections occurred in five cefuroxime versus two cefazolin recipients. In vitro evaluation of six of the study isolates plus an additional eight S. aureus strains from vascular wound infections showed greater susceptibility of the strains to cefazolin than cefuroxime (median minimal inhibitory concentrations of 0.5 and 2.0 μg/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). Furthermore, despite its more frequent intraoperative redosing, cefuroxime exhibited lower trough serum concentrations than cefazolin. Among cefuroxime recipients, infection-associated procedures were significantly longer than infection-free procedures (p < 0.05), suggesting that low tissue antibiotic concentrations may have contributed to the pathogenesis of these infections. In contrast, the length of the procedure was not a risk factor for infection among cefazolin recipients. These data emphasize that, despite its inferior β-lactamase stability, cefazolin has a superior pharmacokinetic profile and greater antistaphylococcal potency. These properties result in a higher ratio of intraoperative serum antibiotic concentration to bacterial inhibitory concentration despite slightly higher intraoperative doses of cefuroxime. Although the difference was not statistically significant, the trend in infection rates suggest that, at the doses used in this study, cefazolin provides more effective perioperative prophylaxis than cefuroxime. (J Vasc Surg 1992;15:35–42.)

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026588477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026588477&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9

    DO - 10.1016/0741-5214(92)70011-9

    M3 - Article

    VL - 15

    SP - 35

    EP - 42

    JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

    SN - 0741-5214

    IS - 1

    ER -