These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Vancomycin and teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: pharmacoeconomic study].
    Author: Codina C, Miró JM, Tuset M, Claramonte J, Gomar C, Gotsens R, Gómez B, Suárez S, Abellana R, Ascaso C, Cartaña R, Rodríguez E, Asenjo M, Carné X, Trilla A, Marco F, Gómez J, Brunet M, Pomar JL, Gatell JM, Ribas J.
    Journal: Med Clin (Barc); 2000; 114 Suppl 3():54-61. PubMed ID: 10994565.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: To assess the economical impact of vancomycin use versus teicoplanin use as antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing cardiac surgery for valve replacement (VR) and coronary artery by-pass (CABS) procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is an ancillary cost minimization analysis of a double blinded, parallel groups, randomised clinical trial (RCT), with the main objective of comparing the safety and efficacy of these antibiotics. 500 patients were included in the study; 267 in the CABS group and 233 in the VR group. The CABS patients received 1 g vancomicin or 400 mg teicoplanin, plus 150 mg netilmicin. The VR group received a second dose of each drug after extracorporeal circulation. In order to calculate the costs we considered the direct cost of the drug, the i.v. mix and the administration costs, together with personnel and structure costs. We considered two different situations: the administration of drugs within the surgical room theatre and in the medical ward. RESULTS: The demographic data of both groups were comparable. The frequency of severe adverse drug reactions (ADR) were similar (0.4%) in both groups, as well as the post-operative infection rates (8.6%). Differences were seen in the frequencies of low severity ADRs: 20.4% in the vancomycin group and 1.6% in the teicoplanin group. When the antibiotics were administered in the surgical room, among CABS patients the costs were 8,265 pts. for the teicoplanin group and 12,005 pts. for the vancomycin group; while among VR patients, costs were respectively 11,661 pts. and 14,528 pts. Administration costs of teicoplanin and vancomycin within a medical ward setting, however, the costs were 6,740 pts. and 2,809 pts. for CABS patients, and 5,308 pts. and 10,140 pts. for VR patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of antibiotic prophylaxis among cardiac surgery patients heavily depends on the setting and circumstances of drug administration. The minimization cost analysis indicates that teicoplanin is the most cost-effective option if the drug is administered within the surgical area, while vancomycin is the less costly option when administered within the medical ward. However, if the second option is to be chosen, it is necessary to assure the right plasmatic drug levels of the antibiotic at the beginning of the surgical procedure.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]