Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Texas Heart Institute Journal logoLink to The Texas Heart Institute Journal
. 1992;19(1):21–25.

Cefuroxime Prophylaxis in Cardiovascular Surgery

Clinical, Microbiological, and Ecological Impact

Layne O Gentry 1,2,3, Sinisa M Birovljev 1,2,3, Branislav Radovančević 1,2,3, Denton A Cooley 1,2,3
PMCID: PMC325013  PMID: 15227466

Abstract

To determine the efficacy of cefuroxime as a prophylactic agent against infection, we retrospectively evaluated patients who had undergone cefuroxime therapy for cardiovascular surgery procedures in the years 1987 and 1990. In the 403 evaluable patients (203 in 1987 and 200 in 1990), we noted a postoperative surgical wound infection rate of 3% and a nosocomial infection rate of 3%. These rates have remained constant in 1987 and 1990. Despite more than a 6-fold increase in cefuroxime consumption during this same period, we have not observed a selection for staphylococcal infections in cardiovascular surgery patients, nor have we detected a selection for resistant staphylococci in our institution. Our original criteria that caused us to select cefuroxime for routine prophylaxis—notably its equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with other cephalosporins, and its lack of an adverse impact on the hospital flora—remain valid. (Texas Heart Institute Journal 1992;19:21-5)

Keywords: Bacteria, aerobic/drug effects

Keywords: cefuroxime/therapeutic use

Keywords: cephalosporins/therapeutic use

Keywords: costs and cost analysis

Keywords: drug resistance, microbial

Keywords: surgical wound infection, prevention and control

Full text

PDF
21

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brun-Buisson C., Legrand P., Philippon A., Montravers F., Ansquer M., Duval J. Transferable enzymatic resistance to third-generation cephalosporins during nosocomial outbreak of multiresistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Lancet. 1987 Aug 8;2(8554):302–306. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)90891-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Chenoweth C., Schaberg D. The epidemiology of enterococci. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 1990 Feb;9(2):80–89. doi: 10.1007/BF01963631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Delgado-Rodríguez M., Bueno-Cavanillas A., López-Gigosos R., de Dios Luna-Castillo J., Guillén-Solvas J., Moreno-Abril O., Rodríguez-Tuñas B., Cueto-Espinar A., Rodríguez-Contreras R., Gálvez-Vargas R. Hospital stay length as an effect modifier of other risk factors for nosocomial infection. Eur J Epidemiol. 1990 Mar;6(1):34–39. doi: 10.1007/BF00155546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doebbeling B. N., Pfaller M. A., Kuhns K. R., Massanari R. M., Behrendt D. M., Wenzel R. P. Cardiovascular surgery prophylaxis. A randomized, controlled comparison of cefazolin and cefuroxime. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990 Jun;99(6):981–989. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fong I. W., Baker C. B., McKee D. C. The value of prophylactic antibiotics in aorat-coronary bypass operations: a double-blind randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1979 Dec;78(6):908–913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gentry L. O., Zeluff B. J., Cooley D. A. Antibiotic prophylaxis in open-heart surgery: a comparison of cefamandole, cefuroxime, and cefazolin. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988 Aug;46(2):167–171. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(10)65890-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Geroulanos S., Oxelbark S., Turina M. Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery. A prospective randomized trial comparing two day cefuroxime prophylaxis with four day cefazolin prophylaxis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1986 May-Jun;27(3):300–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kernodle D. S., Classen D. C., Burke J. P., Kaiser A. B. Failure of cephalosporins to prevent Staphylococcus aureus surgical wound infections. JAMA. 1990 Feb 16;263(7):961–966. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kling P. A., Ostensson R., Granström S., Burman L. G. A 7-year survey of drug resistance in aerobic and anaerobic fecal bacteria of surgical inpatients: clinical relevance and relation to local antibiotic consumption. Scand J Infect Dis. 1989;21(6):589–596. doi: 10.3109/00365548909021685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Pechère J. C. Emergence of resistance during beta-lactam therapy of gram-negative infections. Bacterial mechanisms and medical responses. Drugs. 1988;35 (Suppl 2):22–28. doi: 10.2165/00003495-198800352-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Penketh A. R., Wansbrough-Jones M. H., Wright E., Imrie F., Pepper J. R., Parker D. J. Antibiotic prophylaxis for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Lancet. 1985 Jun 29;1(8444):1500–1500. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92267-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Peterson C. D., Lake K. D., Arom K. V., Love K. R. Antibiotic prophylaxis in open-heart surgery patients: comparison of cefamandole and cefuroxime. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1987 Sep;21(9):728–732. doi: 10.1177/106002808702100912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Slama T. G., Sklar S. J., Misinski J., Fess S. W. Randomized comparison of cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime prophylaxis in open-heart surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1986 May;29(5):744–747. doi: 10.1128/aac.29.5.744. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tartaglione T. A., Polk R. E. Review of the new second-generation cephalosporins: cefonicid, ceforanide, and cefuroxime. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1985 Mar;19(3):188–198. doi: 10.1177/106002808501900304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Yourassowsky E., van der Linden M. P., Crokaert F. Inoculum effect on growth-delay time of oxacillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis exposed to cefamandole, cefazolin, and cefuroxime. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1990 Apr;34(4):505–509. doi: 10.1128/aac.34.4.505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Texas Heart Institute Journal are provided here courtesy of Texas Heart Institute

RESOURCES