Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Open-Heart Surgery Patients: Comparison of Cefamandole and Cefuroxime

Abstract

Spanish

French

The efficacy of cefamandole and cefuroxime in preventing postoperative wound infections was compared in 3037 patients undergoing open-heart surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis in 1467 patients having coronary artery bypass and valve replacement surgery was cefamandole 2 g iv preoperatively followed by 2 g q6h for five days postoperatively; 1570 patients received cefuroxime 1.5 g iv preoperatively then 1.5 g iv q12h for threedays postoperatively. Postoperative wound infections (sternal and leg wounds) were studied in each treatment group. In the cefamandole study group, 27 patients (1.8 percent) developed postoperative wound infections (9 sternal and 18 leg wounds). In the cefuroxime treatment group, 19 patients (1.2 percent) developed postoperative wound infections (9 sternal and 10 leg wounds). Overall, no statistical difference was found between the two antibiotics in preventing postoperative wound infections. However, in patients having valve replacement surgery, cefuroxime was found statistically more effective than cefamandole prophylaxis in preventing sternal wound infections (no infections in 284 patients compared with five infections in 205 patients, respectively, p = 0.01). The most common organism isolated from infected wounds with cefamandole was Staphylococcus aureus followed by S. epidermidis compared with cefuroxime which had S. epidermidis followed by S. aureus.

Cefuroxime was found to be as effective as cefamandole and considerably less expensive in preventing postoperative wound infections in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.

Keywords

antibiotic prophylaxis cefamandole cefuroxime

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gold

Rodriguez

WJ.

Cefuroxime: mechanisms of action, anti-microbial activity, pharmacokinetics, clinical applications, adverse reactions and therapeutic indications.

Pharmacotherapy 1983; 3: 82–100.

Brogden

Heel

Speight

Avery

GS.

Cefuroxime: a review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacological properties and therapeutic use.

Drugs 1979; 17: 233–66.

Barry

Jones

Thornsberry

Cefuroxime, cefamandole, cefoxitin, and cephalothin in vitro susceptibility tests: reas-sessment of the “class representative” concept, confirmation of disk interpretive criteria, and proposed quality control guidelines.

Am J Clin Pathol 1983; 80: 182–9.

Eykyn

Jenkins

King

Antibacterial activity of cefuroxime, a new cephalosporin antibiotic, compared with that of cephaloridine, cephalothin, and cefamandole.

Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1976; 9: 690–5.

Peterson

Lake

KD.

Reducing prophylactic antibiotic costs in cardiovascular surgery: the role of the clinical pharmacist.

Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1986; 20: 134–7.

Kaiser

AB.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery.

N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1129–38.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery.

Med Lett Drugs Ther 1985; 27:105–8.

Burnakis

TG.

Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: principles and guidelines.

Pharmacotherapy 1984; 4: 248–71.

Archer

GL.

Antimicrobial susceptibility and selection of resistance among Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates recovered from patients with infections of indwelling foreign devices.

Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 14: 353–9.

10.

Laverdiere

Welter

Sabath

LD.

Use of a heavy inoculum in the in vitro evaluation of the anti-staphylococcal activity of 19 cephalosporins.

Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1978; 13: 669–75.

11.

Slama

Sklar

Misinski

Fess

SW.

Randomized comparison of cefamandole, cefazolin, cefuroxime prophylaxis in open heart surgery.

Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1986; 29: 744–7.

12.

Peterson

Rosborough

TK.

Cost of intravenous antibiotic therapy: frequency of administration as a factor.

Postgrad Med 1983; 74: 304–5.

13.

Peterson

CD.

I forgot to say, “I love you, Mom,” Am J Hosp Pharm 1984; 41:2659–60.