Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-11T20:54:55.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Vancomycin and Cefuroxime for Infection Prophylaxis in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Sailaritta Vuorisalo ,
Risto Pokela  and
Hannu Syrjälä
Sailaritta Vuorisalo*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Oulu
Risto Pokela
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Oulu
Hannu Syrjälä
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Control, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
*
Department of Surgery, Central Hospital of Pori, Sairaalantie 3, FIN-28500 PORI, Finland; e-mail:, Sailaritta.Vuorisalo@fimnet.fi.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate clinically significant differences between vancomycin and cefuroxime for perioperative infection prophylaxis in coronary artery bypass surgery.

DESIGN: A total of 884 patients were randomized prospectively to receive either cefuroxime (444) or van-comycin (440) and were assessed for infectious complications during hospitalization and 1 month postoperatively.

SETTING: A university hospital.

RESULTS: The overall immediate surgical-site infection rate was 3.2% in the cefuroxime group and 3.5% in the vancomycin group (difference, −0.3; 95% confidence interval, −2.6-2.1).

CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that vancomycin has no clinically significant advantages over cephalosporin in terms of antimicrobial prophylaxis. We suggest that cefuroxime (or first-generation cephalosporins, which were not studied here) is a good choice for infection prophylaxis in connection with coronary artery bypass surgery in institutions without methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus problems. In addition to the increasing vancomycin-resistant enterococci problem, the easier administration and usually lower price of cefuroxime make it preferable to vancomycin.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , April 1998 , pp. 234 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1998 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1993;35:91–94.Google Scholar
2. Nichols, RL. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. Med Clin North Am 1995;79:509–522.Google Scholar
3. Kreter, B, Woods, M. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiothoracic operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;104:590–599.Google Scholar
4. Boyce, JM. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: pervasive and persistent pathogens. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:676–679.Google Scholar
5. Edmond, MB, Ober, JF, Weinbaum, DL, Pfaller, MA, Hwang, T, Sanford, MD, et al. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia: risk factors for infection. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1126–1133.Google Scholar
6. Hospital Infection Control Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:105–113.Google Scholar
7. Lam, S, Singer, C, Tucci, V, Morthland, VH, Pfaller, MA, Isenberg, HD. The challenge of vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a clinical and epidemiologic study. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:170–180.Google Scholar
8. Montecalvo, MA, de Lencastre, H, Carraher, M, Gedris, C, Chung, M, VanHorn, K, et al. Natural history of colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium . Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:680–685.Google Scholar
9. Morris, JG Jr, Shay, DK, Hebden, JN, McCarter, RJ Jr, Perdue, BE, Jarvis, W, et al. Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, including vancomycin. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:250–259.Google Scholar
10. Murray, BE. Editorial response: what can we do about van-comycin-resistant enterococci? Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1134–1136.Google Scholar
11. Waldvogel, FA, Vaudaux, PE, Pittet, D, Lew, PD. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis of wound and foreign body infections: microbial factors affecting efficacy. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 10):S782–S789.Google Scholar
12. Ehrenkranz, NJ. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: mechanisms, misconceptions, and mischief. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:99–106.Google Scholar
13. Koot, MJ, Ijdenberg, FN, Stuurman, RM, Poell, J, Bras, LJ, Langemeijer, JJM, et al. High pressure liquid chromatographic analysis of the serum concentration of cefuroxime after an intravenous bolus injection of cefuroxime in patients with a coronary artery bypass grafting. Pharm Weekbl Sci 1992;14:360–364.Google Scholar
14. Nooyen, SMH, Overbeek, BP, Brutel de la Rivière, Storm, AJ, Langemeyer, JJM. Prospective randomised comparison of single-dose versus multiple-dose cefuroxime for prophylaxis in coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994;13:1033–1037.Google Scholar
15. Levy, JH, Kettlekamp, N, Goertz, P, Hermens, J, Hirshman, CA. Histamine release by vancomycin: a mechanism for hypotension in man. Anesthesiology 1987;67:122–125.Google Scholar
16. Southorn, PA, Plevak, DJ, Wright, AJ, Wilson, WR. Adverse effects of vancomycin administered in the perioperative period. Mayo Clin Proc 1986;61:721–724.Google Scholar
17. 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;13:606–608.Google Scholar
18. Garner, JS, Jarvis, WR, Emori, TG, Horan, TC, Hughes, JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128–140.Google Scholar
19. Vuorisalo, S, Pokela, R, Syrjälä, H. Is single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis sufficient for coronary artery bypass surgery? An analysis of peri- and postoperative serum cefuroxime and van-comycin levels. J Hosp Infect In press.Google Scholar
20. Brown, GW. Sample size. Am J Dis Child 1988;142:1213–1215.Google Scholar
21. Gaynes, R, Marosok, R, Mowry-Hanley, J, Laughlin, C, Foley, K, Friedman, C, et al. Mediastinitis following coronary artery bypass surgery: a 3-year review. J Infect Dis 1991;163:117–121.Google Scholar
22. Sisto, T, Laurikka, J, Tarkka, MR. Ceftriaxone vs cefuroxime for infection prophylaxis in coronary bypass surgery. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;28:143–148.Google Scholar
23. Slaughter, MS, Olson, MM, Lee, JT Jr, Ward, HB. A fifteen-year wound surveillance study after coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:1063–1068.Google Scholar
24. Nishida, H, Grooters, RK, Soltanzadeh, H, Thieman, KC, Schneider, RF, Kim, W-P. Discriminate use of electrocautery on the median sternotomy incision. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991;101:488–494.Google Scholar
25. Dineen, P. The effect of suture material on the development of vascular infections. Vascular Surgery 1977;11:29–33.Google Scholar
26. Katz, SV, Izhar, M, Mirelman, D. Bacterial adherence to surgical sutures: a possible factor in suture-induced infection. Ann Surg 1981;194:35–41.Google Scholar
27. Wilson, APR. Surveillance of wound infections. J Hosp Infect 1995;29:81–86.Google Scholar
28. Byrne, DJ, Lynch, W, Napier, A, Davey, P, Malek, M, Cuschieri, A. Wound infection rates: the importance of definition and postdischarge wound surveillance. J Hosp Infect 1994;26:37–43.Google Scholar
29. Peterson, CD, Lake, KD, Arom, KV, Love, KR. Antibiotic prophylaxis in open-heart surgery patients: comparison of cefaman-dole and cefuroxime. Drug Intelligence and Clinical Pharmacy 1987;21:728–732.Google Scholar
30. Conklin, CM, Gray, RJ, Neilson, D, Wong, P, Tomita, DK, Matloff, JM. Determinants of wound infection incidence after isolated coronary artery bypass surgery in patients randomized to receive prophylactic cefuroxime or cefazolin. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;46:172–177.Google Scholar
31. Ehrenkranz, NJ, Richter, EI, Phillips, PM, Schultz, JM. An apparent excess of operative site infections: analyses to evaluate false-positive diagnoses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:712–716.Google Scholar
32. Taylor, G, McKenzie, M, Kirkland, T, Wiens, R. Effect of surgeon's diagnosis on surgical wound infection rates. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:295–299.Google Scholar
33. L'Ecuyer, PB, Murphy, D, Little, JR, Fraser, VJ. The epidemiology of chest and leg wound infections following cardiothoracic surgery. Clin Infect Dis 1996;22:424–429.Google Scholar
34. Brown, RB, Bradley, S, Opitz, E, Cipriani, D, Pieczarka, R, Sands, M. Surgical wound infections documented after hospital discharge. Am J Infect Control 1987;15:54–58.Google Scholar
35. Olson, MM, Lee, JT Jr. Continuous, 10-year wound infection surveillance. Arch Surg 1990;125:794–803.Google Scholar
36. Holtz, TH, Wenzel, RP. Postdischarge surveillance for nosocomial wound infection: a brief review and commentary. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:206–213.Google Scholar
37. Sands, K, Vineyard, G, Platt, R. Surgical site infections occurring after hospital discharge. Surgical site infections occurring after hospital discharge. J Infect Dis 1996;173:963–970.Google Scholar
38. Hirschhorn, LR, Currier, JS, Platt, R. Electronic surveillance of antibiotic exposure and coded discharge diagnoses as indicators of postoperative infection and other quality assurance measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:21–28.Google Scholar
39. Yokoe, DS, Platt, R. Surveillance for surgical site infections: the uses of antibiotic exposure. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:717–723.Google Scholar