Abstract
The acquisition, administration, and infection-related expenses associated with the use of cefazolin or cefamandole during a prospective randomized comparison of antimicrobial prophylaxis in cardiac surgery were compared. Although the acquisition cost and administration charges related to the use of cefamandole were in excess of those incurred with cefazolin, differences in the charges associated with treating the wound infections that failed prophylaxis with each regimen made cefamandole the more cost-effective prophylactic agent (mean total of $766 per cefazolin recipient vs. $315 per cefamandole recipient). Analysis of prophylactic antimicrobials should include the expenses associated with “prophylactic failures.” The agent that is least expensive for the pharmacy may not be the most cost-effective choice for the institution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.