William J Peppard1,2, David G Eberle1, Nathan W Kugler2, Danielle M Mabrey1, John A Weigelt2. 1. 1 Department of Pharmacy, Froedtert & the Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 2. 2 Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Critical Care, The Medical College of Wisconsin , Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A fixed dose of cefazolin results in serum concentrations that decrease as body mass increases. Current national guidelines suggest a pre-operative cefazolin dose of two grams may be insufficient for patients ≥120 kg; thus a three gram dose is recommended. These recommendations, however, are based on pharmacokinetic rather than outcome data. We evaluate the efficacy of pre-operative cefazolin two gram and three gram doses as measured by the rate of surgical site infection (SSI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients ≥100 kg who were prescribed cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis between September 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013 at an academic medical center. Patients were excluded if cefazolin was prescribed but not administered, had a known infection at the site of surgery, or inappropriately received cefazolin prophylaxis based on surgical indication. The SSIs were identified by documentation of SSI in the medical record or findings consistent with the standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Inpatient and outpatient records up to 90 days post-operative were reviewed for delayed SSI. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-three surgical cases were identified in which pre-operative cefazolin was prescribed. Forty-seven patients were excluded leaving a total of 436 patients for final analysis: 152 in the cefazolin two gram group and 284 in the three gram group. Baseline demographics were similar between groups with a mean follow-up duration of 77 days for both groups. Unadjusted SSI rates were 7.2% and 7.4% (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, p = 0.95), for the two gram and three gram groups, respectively. When differences in follow-up between groups were considered and logistic regression was adjusted with propensity score, there remained no difference in SSI rates (OR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.36-2.06, p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: In otherwise similar obese surgical patients weighing ≥100 kg, the administration of a pre-operative cefazolin two gram dose is associated with a similar rate of SSI compared with patients who received a three gram dose.
BACKGROUND: A fixed dose of cefazolin results in serum concentrations that decrease as body mass increases. Current national guidelines suggest a pre-operative cefazolin dose of two grams may be insufficient for patients ≥120 kg; thus a three gram dose is recommended. These recommendations, however, are based on pharmacokinetic rather than outcome data. We evaluate the efficacy of pre-operative cefazolin two gram and three gram doses as measured by the rate of surgical site infection (SSI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients ≥100 kg who were prescribed cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis between September 1, 2012 and May 31, 2013 at an academic medical center. Patients were excluded if cefazolin was prescribed but not administered, had a known infection at the site of surgery, or inappropriately received cefazolin prophylaxis based on surgical indication. The SSIs were identified by documentation of SSI in the medical record or findings consistent with the standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Inpatient and outpatient records up to 90 days post-operative were reviewed for delayed SSI. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-three surgical cases were identified in which pre-operative cefazolin was prescribed. Forty-seven patients were excluded leaving a total of 436 patients for final analysis: 152 in the cefazolin two gram group and 284 in the three gram group. Baseline demographics were similar between groups with a mean follow-up duration of 77 days for both groups. Unadjusted SSI rates were 7.2% and 7.4% (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, p = 0.95), for the two gram and three gram groups, respectively. When differences in follow-up between groups were considered and logistic regression was adjusted with propensity score, there remained no difference in SSI rates (OR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.36-2.06, p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: In otherwise similar obese surgical patients weighing ≥100 kg, the administration of a pre-operative cefazolin two gram dose is associated with a similar rate of SSI compared with patients who received a three gram dose.
Entities:
Keywords:
cefazolin; pharmacokinetics; surgical site infection
Authors: Leo Pevzner; Morgan Swank; Candace Krepel; Deborah A Wing; Kenneth Chan; Charles E Edmiston Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Vanessa P Ho; David P Nicolau; Gregory F Dakin; Alfons Pomp; Barrie S Rich; Christopher W Towe; Philip S Barie Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Simone van Kralingen; Margot Taks; Jeroen Diepstraten; Ewoudt M van de Garde; Eric P van Dongen; Marinus J Wiezer; Bert van Ramshorst; Bart Vlaminckx; Vera H Deneer; Catherijne A Knibbe Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-04-16 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Margreke J E Brill; Aletta P I Houwink; Stephan Schmidt; Eric P A Van Dongen; Eric J Hazebroek; Bert van Ramshorst; Vera H Deneer; Johan W Mouton; Catherijne A J Knibbe Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Amy M Valent; Chris DeArmond; Judy M Houston; Srinidhi Reddy; Heather R Masters; Alison Gold; Michael Boldt; Emily DeFranco; Arthur T Evans; Carri R Warshak Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eduardo Celia Palma; Nelson Guardiola Meinhardt; Airton Tetelbom Stein; Isabela Heineck; Maria Isabel Fischer; BibianaVerlindo de Araújo; Teresa Dalla Costa Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Zahid Hussain; Colin Curtain; Corinne Mirkazemi; Karl Gadd; Gregory M Peterson; Syed Tabish R Zaidi Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: B Rodríguez de Castro; C Martínez-Múgica Barbosa; R Pampín Sánchez; B Fernández González; F J Barbazán Vázquez; C Aparicio Carreño Journal: Rev Esp Quimioter Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 1.553