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: Cardiovascular surgery prophylaxis. A randomized, controlled comparison of cefazolin and cefuroxime.
    Author: Doebbeling BN, Pfaller MA, Kuhns KR, Massanari RM, Behrendt DM, Wenzel RP.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1990 Jun; 99(6):981-9. PubMed ID: 2193200.
    Abstract:
    A prospective double-blind trial was performed at a tertiary care center to evaluate perioperative cephalosporin prophylaxis in cardiac operations. Patients were randomized to receive either cefazolin (n = 104) or cefuroxime (n = 109), the preoperative dose being given within 1 hour before the initial incision. Drugs were continued for 48 hours (cefazolin, 1 gm intravenously every 8 hours; cefuroxime, 1.5 gm intravenously every 12 hours). Postoperative infections were assessed by trained nurse clinicians, and data were analyzed by the intention-to-treat principle. Sternal wound infections or mediastinitis occurred in one of 104 patients treated with cefazolin and 10 of 109 treated with cefuroxime (p = 0.01). Deep sternal wounds (including mediastinitis and sternal osteomyelitis) occurred in none of the cefazolin-treated patients and five cefuroxime-treated patients (p = 0.06). Although overall nosocomial infection rates were similar (16.3 versus 19.3 per 100), wound infection occurred somewhat more frequently with streptococci (groups B and D) in patients receiving cefazolin (four versus zero, p = 0.110); conversely staphylococcal infections were more frequent in the cefuroxime group (seven versus one, p = 0.066). Mean and median postoperative stay was 1 day shorter in the cefazolin group. In contrast to findings of a previous report, our data indicate that cefazolin prevented more sternal wound infections than cefuroxime, a finding that supports prophylaxis with a first-generation cephalosporin.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]