To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g surgical prophylaxis in patients weighing ≥120 kg that undergo elective colorectal surgery.

A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing a validated database of elective colorectal surgeries in Michigan acute care hospitals. Adults weighing ≥120 kg who received cefazolin and metronidazole for surgical prophylaxis between 7/2012 and 6/2021 were included. The primary outcome was SSI, which was defined as an infection diagnosed within 30 days following the principal operative procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with SSI; the exposure of interest was cefazolin 3 g surgical prophylaxis.

A total of 581 patients were included; of these, 367 (63.1%) received cefazolin 3 g, while 214 (36.8%) received 2 g. Patients who received cefazolin 3 g had less optimal antibiotic timing (324 [88.3%] vs 200 [93.5%]; P = .043) and a higher receipt of at least 1 of the prophylaxis antibiotics after incision (22 [6%] vs 5 [2.3%]; P = .043). There was no SSI difference between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g cohorts (23 [6.3%] vs 16 [7.5%], P = .574). When accounting for age, smoking status, and surgical duration, cefazolin 3 g was not associated with a reduction in SSI (adjOR, .64; 95%CI, .32–1.29).

Surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin 3 g, in combination with metronidazole, was not associated with decreased SSI compared to 2 g dosing in obese patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Procalcitonin has emerged as a promising biomarker of bacterial infection. Published literature demonstrates that use of procalcitonin testing and an associated treatment pathway reduces duration of antibiotic therapy without impacting mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the financial impact of utilizing a procalcitonin-guided treatment algorithm in hospitalized patients with sepsis.

Cost-minimization and cost-utility analysis.

Hypothetical cohort of adult ICU patients with suspected bacterial infection and sepsis.

Utilizing published clinical and economic data, a decision analytic model was developed from the U.S. hospital perspective. Effectiveness and utility measures were defined using cost-per-clinical episode and cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Upper and lower sensitivity ranges were determined for all inputs. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of our model and variables. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared to predetermined willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Base-case results predicted the use of a procalcitonin-guided treatment algorithm dominated standard care with improved quality (0.0002 QALYs) and decreased overall treatment costs ($65). The model was sensitive to a number of key variables that had the potential to impact results, including algorithm adherence (<42.3%), number and cost of procalcitonin tests ordered (≥9 and >$46), days of antimicrobial reduction (<1.6 d), incidence of nephrotoxicity and rate of nephrotoxicity reduction.

The combination of procalcitonin testing with an evidence-based treatment algorithm may improve patients’ quality of life while decreasing costs in ICU patients with suspected bacterial infection and sepsis; however, results were highly dependent on a number of variables and assumptions.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–8