HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wellens, F. Articles by De Somer, P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wellens, F. Articles by De Somer, P.

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol 9, 325-329, Copyright © 1995 by European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

ARTICLES

Prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. A controlled randomized comparison between cefazolin and cefuroxime

F Wellens, M Pirlet, R Larbuisson, F De Meireleire and P De Somer
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis, Aalst, Belgium.

In a prospective randomized two center trial, short-term prophylaxis with cefuroxime (CFX) in 189 patients was compared with cefazolin (CFZ) in 196 patients submitted to elective cardiac surgery. A total of 3 g was administered over 24 h in both groups. One major adverse reaction with CFX was noted. Patients were prospectively screened by infectious disease nurses for surgical wound and secondary infections. Sternal wound infections occurred in eight patients treated with CFX and all were minor. One patient from this group eventually died of infectious causes. In the CFZ-treated patients two major and six minor wound infections occurred requiring extensive debridement in two. Secondary infections occurred less frequently in the CFX group (13.2 per 100) than in the CFZ group (16.8 per 100) with two infection-related deaths in the CFX and one in the CFZ group. The most commonly identified organisms were Staphylococcus aureus and a variety of gram-negative organisms. No major differences were observed between the CFX and CFZ groups. Short-term administration of 3 g CFZ or CFX in this study could not demonstrate the advantage of one of the antibiotics used over the other in terms of clinical outcome, incidence or site of infection or organisms identified. The 24 h administration of 3 g CFZ or CFX provided suboptimal prophylaxis for wound infection or secondary infections in patients undergoing elective open heart surgery.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. Gongora and T. M. Sundt III Myocardial Revascularization with Cardiopulmonary Bypass Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 599 - 632. [Full Text]

				W. Mrowczynski, M. Wojtalik, D. Zawadzka, G. Sharma, J. Henschke, R. Bartkowski, M. Pawelec-Wojtalik, A. Wodzinski, and P. Westerski Infection Risk Factors in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, December 1, 2002; 10(4): 329 - 333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Kriaras, A. Michalopoulos, M. Turina, and S. Geroulanos Evolution of antimicrobial prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., October 1, 2000; 18(4): 440 - 446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Eagle, R. A. Guyton, R. Davidoff, G. A. Ewy, J. Fonger, T. J. Gardner, J. P. Gott, H. C. Herrmann, R. A. Marlow, W. C. Nugent, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association task force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1991 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 1999; 34(4): 1262 - 1347. [Full Text] [PDF]