Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Cefazolin as surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Aurora Pop-Vicas (a1), Stephen Johnson (a2) and Nasia Safdar (a1) (a3)

Abstract

Objective

Current practice guidelines recommend cefazolin, cefoxitin, cefotetan, or ampicillin-sulbactam as first-line antibiotic prophylaxis in hysterectomy. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether cefazolin, with limited antianaerobic spectrum, is as effective in preventing surgical site-infection (SSI) as the other first-choice antimicrobials that have more extensive antianaerobic activity.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) in any language up to January 23, 2018. We only included trials that measured SSI (our primary outcome) defined as superficial, deep, or organ space. We excluded trials of β-lactams no longer in clinical use.

Results

In terms of SSI incidence, cefazolin use was not inferior to its comparator in 12 of 13 individual RCTs included in the analysis. The meta-analysis summary estimate showed a significantly higher SSI risk with cefazolin versus cefoxitin or cefotetan (risk ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.04–2.77; P = .03). However, most studies included nonstandardized dosing and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis, had indeterminate or high risk of bias, did not include patients with gynecological malignancies, and/or were older RCTs not reflective of current clinical practices.

Conclusion

Due to inherent limitations associated with old RCTs with limited relevance to contemporary surgery, an RCT of cefazolin versus regimens with significant antianaerobic spectrum is needed to establish the optimal choice for SSI prevention in hysterectomy.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Aurora Pop-Vicas, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 1685 Highland Ave, 5th floor, Madison, WI 53705. E-mail: popvicas@medicine.wisc.edu

Footnotes

Hide All

Cite this article: Pop-Vicas A, et al. (2019). Cefazolin as surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 142–149. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.286

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1. Anderson, DJ, Podgorny, K, Berrios-Torres, SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35 Suppl 2:S66S88.
2. Berrios-Torres, SI, Umscheid, CA, Bratzler, DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg 2017;152:784791.
3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services HHS. Medicare and Medicaid programs: hospital outpatient prospective payment and ambulatory surgical center payment systems and quality reporting programs; Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program; organ procurement organizations; quality improvement organizations; Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program; provider reimbursement determinations and appeals. Final rule with comment period and final rules. Fed Regist 2013;78:7482575200.
4. Horan, TC, Gaynes, RP, Martone, WJ, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606608.
5. Dellinger, EP, Gross, PA, Barrett, TL, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:182188.
6. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250278.
7. Roy, S, Patkar, A, Daskiran, M, Levine, R, Hinoul, P, Nigam, S. Clinical and economic burden of surgical site infection in hysterectomy. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2014;15:266273.
8. Bulletins—Gynecology ACoP. ACOG practice bulletin No. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:11801189.
9. Mittendorf, R, Aronson, MP, Berry, RE, et al. Avoiding serious infections associated with abdominal hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:11191124.
10. Duff, P. Antibiotic prophylaxis for abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:2529.
11. Bratzler, DW, Dellinger, EP, Olsen, KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013;14:73156.
12. Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65W94.
13. Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:407415.
14. Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557560.
15. Sterne, JA, Egger, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:10461055.
16. Egger, M, Davey Smith, G, Schneider, M, Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629634.
17. Baldoni, A, Cosco, AG, Epicoco, G, Affronti, G, Giannone, E, Gilardi, G. Comparative study of short-term antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis in gynecologic surgery: cefotetan versus cefazolin. Minerva Ginecol 1989;41:149155.
18. Periti, P, Mazzei, T, Periti, E. Prophylaxis in gynaecological and obstetric surgery: a comparative randomised multicentre study of single-dose cefotetan versus two doses of cefazolin. Chemioterapia 1988;7:245252.
19. Periti, P, Mazzei, T, Orlandini, F, Mini, E. Comparison of the antimicrobial prophylactic efficacy of cefotaxime and cephazolin in obstetric and gynaecological surgery. A randomised multicentre study. Drugs 1988;35 Suppl 2:133138.
20. Cormio, G, Di Fazio, F, Cacciapuoti, C, Bettocchi, S, Borraccino, L, Selvaggi, L. Prospective randomized study comparing amoxicillin-clavulanic acid with cefazolin as antimicrobial prophylaxis in laparotomic gynecologic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003;82:11301134.
21. Grossman, JH 3rd, Greco, TP, Minkin, MJ, Adams, RL, Hierholzer, WJ Jr, Andriole, VT. Prophylactic antibiotics in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol 1979;53:537544.
22. Hemsell, DL, Johnson, ER, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Little, BB, Heard, MC. Cefazolin is inferior to cefotetan as single-dose prophylaxis for women undergoing elective total abdominal hysterectomy. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:677684.
23. Stiver, HG, Binns, BO, Brunham, RC, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacies, costs, and vaginal flora alterations with single-dose ceftriaxone and multidose cefazolin prophylaxis in vaginal hysterectomy. Antimicrob Agent Chemother 1990;34:11941197.
24. Jyothi, S, Vyas Neetha, M, Pratap, K, Asha, K. Antibiotic prophylaxis for hysterectomy and cesarean section: amoxicillin-clavulanic acid versus cefazolin. J Obstet Gynecol India 2010;60:419423.
25. Phoolcharoen, N, Nilgate, S, Rattanapuntamanee, O, Limpongsanurak, S, Chaithongwongwatthana, S. A randomized controlled trial comparing ceftriaxone with cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;119:1113.
26. Fagotti, A, Costantini, B, Fanfani, F, et al. Risk of postoperative pelvic abscess in major gynecologic oncology surgery: one-year single-institution experience. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17:24522458.
27. Faro, C, Faro, S. Postoperative pelvic infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2008;22:653663.
28. Lachiewicz, MP, Moulton, LJ, Jaiyeoba, O. Pelvic surgical site infections in gynecologic surgery. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2015;2015:614950.
29. Soper, DE. Bacterial vaginosis and postoperative infections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;169:467469.
30. Soper, DE, Bump, RC, Hurt, WG. Bacterial vaginosis and trichomoniasis vaginitis are risk factors for cuff cellulitis after abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:10161021.
31. Till, SR, Morgan, DM, Bazzi, AA, et al. Reducing surgical site infections after hysterectomy: metronidazole plus cefazolin compared with cephalosporin alone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:187 e181187 e187.
32. Uppal, S, Harris, J, Al-Niaimi, A, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic choice and risk of surgical site infection after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2016;127:321329.
33. Ayeleke, RO, Mourad, S, Marjoribanks, J, Calis, KA, Jordan, V. Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;6:CD004637.
34. Wttewaall-Evelaar, EW. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal hysterectomy. Pharmaceutisch weekblad Sci ed. 1990;12:296298.
35. Tanos, V, Rojansky, N. Prophylactic antibiotics in abdominal hysterectomy. J Am Coll Surg 1994;179:593600.
36. Chongsomchai, C, Lumbiganon, P, Thinkhamrop, J, Ounchai, J, Vudhikamraksa, N. Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of prophylactic antibiotics in elective abdominal hysterectomy. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:302306.
37. Hemsell, DL, Menon, MO, Friedman, AJ. Ceftriaxone or cefazolin prophylaxis for the prevention of infection after vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Surg 1984;148(4a):2226.
38. Hemsell, DL, Johnson, ER, Bawdon, RE, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Heard, ML. Ceftriaxone and cefazolin prophylaxis for hysterectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1985;161:197203.
39. Hemsell, DL, Bawdon, RE, Hemsell, PG, Nobles, BJ, Johnson, ER, Heard, MC. Single-dose cephalosporin for prevention of major pelvic infection after vaginal hysterectomy: cefazolin versus cefoxitin versus cefotaxime. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;156:12011205.
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material
Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material 1

 Unknown (7 KB)
7 KB
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material
Pop-Vicas et al. supplementary material 2

 Unknown (8 KB)
8 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed