Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing teicoplanin and cefazolin as antibiotic prophylaxis in prosthetic vascular surgery.

To compare efficacy, tolerability, and cost of antibiotic prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in clean prosthetic vascular surgery, a randomized, prospective, double-blind study was performed at the Vascular Surgery Unit of a tertiary-care university hospital. Two-hundred thirty-eight consecutive patients undergoing elective, clean, abdominal or lower-limb prosthetic vascular surgery were allocated to receive a single intravenous dose of teicoplanin (400 mg) or cefazolin (2 g) at the induction of anesthesia. Surgical-site infections occurred in 5.9% of teicoplanin recipients (4.2% wound infection, 1.7% graft infection) and 1.7% of cefazolin recipients (1.7% wound infection, 0% graft infection) (P=0.195). Other postoperative infections occurred in 10% of teicoplanin recipients (pneumonia 7%, urinary tract infection 3%) and 12% of cefazolin recipients (pneumonia 7%, urinary tract infection 2.5%, bloodstream infections 2.5%). Overall mortality rate was 3.4% in teicoplanin recipients (4 patients) and 2.5% in cefazolin recipients (3 patients). Infective deaths occurred in one patient for each group. The two prophylactic regimens were well tolerated. Cost savings of US $52,510 favoring cefazolin were related to the lower acquisition cost (US $1034 vs US $4740) and to the shorter duration of the hospital stay (1762 days vs 1928 days). Cefazolin can still be regarded as the drug of choice for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery.

Transcranial Doppler monitoring during carotid endarterectomy: is it appropriate for selecting patients in need of a shunt?

PURPOSE: This report summarizes our experience in evaluating a series of 168 patients who underwent a total of 175 carotid endarterectomy procedures under local anesthesia. Patients were monitored by stump pressure (SP) measurement and transcranial Doppler scanning (TCD). The need for shunting was compared between SP/TCD flow velocity reduction and the awake response (gold standard). METHODS: The study cohort represented 56% of all the carotid patients treated during the study period. Clamping ischemia was defined as the appearance of focal deficit (focal ischemia) or unconsciousness (global deficit) on carotid clamping. In the case of clamping ischemia, a shunt was inserted. To define the optimal value of SP and TCD flow velocity that is able to discriminate patients with clamping ischemia, a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed. Sensitivity and specificity tests, together with negative and positive predictive values (NPV and PPV), were calculated. Cutoff values were defined as the ROC curve values that correlated the highest sensitivity with the highest specificity for both SP and TCD. RESULTS: Clamping ischemia was present in 18 procedures (10%) in which a shunt was used. No perioperative deaths were recorded. Major perioperative morbidity occurred in one patient (0.6%). Two nondisabling strokes were also recorded (1.8% overall rate of neurologic morbidity). Cutoff values for both SP and TCD, using the ROC curve, were < or = 50 mm Hg and > or = 70% flow velocity reduction from baseline, respectively. SP values of < or = 50 mm Hg or less showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 83%, a PPV of 40%, and an NPV of 100%. TCD flow monitoring (> or = 70% flow reduction) revealed a lower sensitivity (83%) but a greater ability to avoid false positive results (96% specificity), resulting in increased PPV (71%) and NPV (98%). Combining SP and TCD failed to provide better results in terms of specificity (81%) and PPV (38%). CONCLUSIONS: SP measurement using a 50 mm Hg cutoff appears to be a reliable predictor of clamping ischemia but requires the use of a shunt in 17% of the patients who would otherwise not require this procedure. In contrast, TCD has greater specificity but is associated with a lower sensitivity, with 17% false negative results. In our experience, both SP and TCD show limitations, as they overestimate or underestimate carotid endarterectomy procedures in need of a shunt. We believe that sensitivity is more important than specificity in carotid endarterectomy, and thus conclude that TCD flow velocity measurement is not an optimal method for detecting clamping ischemia.