Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

Economic Evaluation of Adjunctive Azithromycin Prophylaxis for Cesarean Delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs associated with adjunctive azithromycin compared with standard cefazolin antibiotic prophylaxis alone for unscheduled and scheduled cesarean deliveries. METHODS: A decision analytic model was created to compare cefazolin alone with azithromycin plus cefazolin. Published incidences of surgical site infection after cesarean delivery were used to estimate the baseline incidence of surgical site infection in scheduled and unscheduled cesarean delivery using standard antibiotic prophylaxis. The effectiveness of adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis was obtained from published randomized controlled trials for unscheduled cesarean deliveries. No randomized study of its use in scheduled procedures has been completed. Cost estimates were obtained from published literature, hospital estimates, and the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project and considered costs of azithromycin and surgical site infections. A series of sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying parameters in the model based on observed distributions for probabilities and costs. The outcome was cost per cesarean delivery from a health system perspective. RESULTS: For unscheduled cesarean deliveries, cefazolin prophylaxis alone would cost $695 compared with $335 for adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis, resulting in a savings of $360 (95% CI $155-451) per cesarean delivery. In scheduled cesarean deliveries, cefazolin prophylaxis alone would cost $254 compared with $111 for adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis, resulting in a savings of $143 (95% CI 98-157) per cesarean delivery, if proven effective. These findings were robust to a multitude of inputs; as long as adjunctive azithromycin prevented as few as seven additional surgical site infections per 1,000 unscheduled cesarean deliveries and nine additional surgical site infections per 10,000 scheduled cesarean deliveries, adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis was cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive azithromycin prophylaxis is a cost-saving strategy in both unscheduled and scheduled cesarean deliveries.

Effects of a computerized provider order entry and a clinical decision support system to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis: a cost saving analysis

Background: Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) and Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) help practitioners to choose evidence-based decisions, regarding patients’ needs. Despite its use in developed countries, in Brazil, the impact of a CPOE/CDSS to improve cefazolin use in surgical prophylaxis was not assessed yet. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the impact of a CDSS to improve the use of prophylactic cefazolin and to assess the cost savings associated to inappropriate prescribing. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study that compared two different scenarios: one prior CPOE/CDSS versus after software implementation. We conducted twelve years of data analysis (3 years prior and 9 years after CDSS implementation), where main outcomes from this study included: cefazolin Defined Daily Doses/100 bed-days (DDD), crude costs and product of costs-DDD (cost-DDD/100 bed-days). We applied a Spearman rho non-parametric test to assess the reduction of cefazolin consumption through the years. Results: In twelve years, 84,383 vials of cefazolin were dispensed and represented 38.89 DDD/100 bed-days or USD 44,722.99. Surgical wards were the largest drug prescribers and comprised >95% of our studied sample. While in 2002, there were 6.31 DDD/100 bed-days, 9 years later there was a reduction to 2.15 (p<0.05). In a scenario without CDSS, the hospital would have consumed 75.72 DDD/100 bed-days, which is equivalent to USD 116 998.07. It is estimated that CDSS provided USD 50,433.39 of cost savings. Conclusion: The implementation of a CPOE/CDSS helped to improve prophylactic cefazolin use by reducing its consumption and estimated direct costs (AU)

No disponible

PHARMACOECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT MODES OF ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS IN CHOLECYSTECTOMY.

Pharmacoeconomic assessment of efficacy of different modes of antibiotic prophylaxis was made in 27 patients with diagnosis of acute calculous cholecystitis using method of «cost-efficacy¼. Patients have taken ampicillin/sulbactam intravenously in the dose of 1,5 g or cephazolin intravenously in the dose 2,0 g. Medicine should be taken in 30 min. before the operation. The most expensive was antibiotic prophylaxis by cephazolin. The coefficient of «cost-efficacy¼ was 774,2 rubles on 1 unit of efficacy in case of cephazolin and it was 506,1 rubles on 1 unit of efficacy in other group with antibiotic prophylaxis by ampicillin/sulbactam. The authors noted the economical and clinical advantage of antibiotic prophylaxis by ampicillin /sulbactam.

Does empiric antibiotic therapy change MRSA [corrected] hand infection outcomes? Cost analysis of a randomized prospective trial in a county hospital.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections is rising at an alarming pace. Effective treatment has historically involved early débridement and antibiotic administration. This study was designed to prospectively determine the effectiveness of empiric therapy in treating hand infections. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was conducted at a level I county hospital. Patients with a hand infection received either empiric intravenous vancomycin at admission or intravenous cefazolin. Outcomes were tracked using severity of infection, appropriate clinical response, and length of stay. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using total cost for each patient in both groups. Statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-four were randomized to cefazolin (52.2 percent) and 22 (47.8 percent) to vancomycin. There was no statistical difference between cost of treatment (p < 0.20) or mean length of stay (p < 0.18) between the groups. Patients randomized to cefazolin had higher mean costs of treatment compared with patients who were randomized to vancomycin (p < 0.05). Patients with more severe infections had more expensive mean costs of treatment (p < 0.0001) and longer mean length of stay (p = 0.0002). Near the end of the study, the incidence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant S. aureus at the authors' county hospital was discovered to be 72 percent, which caused the study to be terminated prematurely by the institutional review board because of the high incidence precluding further randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate early treatment for methicillin-resistant S. aureus has not been definitively established. No difference in outcome using cefazolin versus vancomycin as a first-line agent was identified.

Antibiotic prophylaxis at elective cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial in a low resource setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the best time to administer prophylactic antibiotics at Cesarean delivery in order to reduce the postoperative maternal infectious morbidity in a low resource setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred term primigravidae with singleton pregnancy were recruited and randomly allocated to two equal groups. Each woman received 2 g intravenous Cefazoline. Women in Group I received it prior to skin incision while those in Group II had it immediately after cord clamping. We measured the following outcome parameters: (1) Surgical site wound infection; (2) Endometritis and (3) Urinary tract infection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in any of the patients' characteristics between both groups. In Group I, three cases developed surgical site infections but four in Group II (p > 0.05). In Group I, the infected cases had Cesarean because of malpresentations while in Group II, two cases had Cesarean because of patients' request, one because of maternal heart disease and one due to intra-uterine growth restriction. Seven and nine cases had urinary tract infection in Groups I and II, respectively, (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic antibiotic administration either prior to surgery or after cord clamping is probably equally effective in reducing the postoperative infectious morbidity after Cesarean in low resource settings.

Single-dose versus multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for the surgical treatment of closed fractures.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent meta-analyses have suggested similar wound infection rates when using single- or multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in the operative management of closed long bone fractures. In order to assist clinicians in choosing the optimal prophylaxis strategy, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single- and multiple-dose prophylaxis. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the two prophylactic strategies was performed using time horizons of 60 days and 1 year. Infection probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life days (QALD) for each strategy were estimated from the literature. All costs were reported in 2007 US dollars. A base case analysis was performed for the surgical treatment of a closed ankle fracture. Sensitivity analysis was performed for all variables, including probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: Single-dose prophylaxis results in lower cost and a similar amount of quality-adjusted life days gained. The single-dose strategy had an average cost of $2,576 for an average gain of 272 QALD. Multiple doses had an average cost of $2,596 for 272 QALD gained. These results are sensitive to the incidence of surgical site infection and deep wound infection for the single-dose treatment arm. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using all model variables also demonstrated preference for the single-dose strategy. INTERPRETATION: Assuming similar infection rates between the prophylactic groups, our results suggest that single-dose prophylaxis is slightly more cost-effective than multiple-dose regimens for the treatment of closed fractures. Extensive sensitivity analysis demonstrates these results to be stable using published meta-analysis infection rates.

Successful control program to implement the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for Cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: Describe implementation of a successful program to reduce doses (cefazolin 2 to 1 g) used for antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: Evaluation of an intervention program to reduce prophylactic antimicrobial doses. The intervention included weekly staff discussions, automatic dispensation of 1g-vial of cefazolin by the pharmacy unless expressly requested by surgeon and increase in post-discharge surveillance as a strategy to reassure surgeons of the safety of the reduction. In the pre and post intervention periods, a prospective study of antimicrobial consumption and surgical site infections were measured. RESULTS: There were 5,164 and 5,204 deliveries in 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, respectively; 1,524 (29.5%) and 1,363 (26%) were cesarean sections. There was a 45% decrease in cefazolin vials used on average per cesarean section (2.29 to 1.25). Patients evaluated increased from 16% to 67% and the SSI rates in both periods were 3.34% to 2.42%, respectively. CONCLUSION: An ample intervention, including administrative and educational measures, led to high compliance with dose reduction and saved more than US$4,000 in cefazolin, considered important because government reimbursement in Brazil for cesarean section is $80.

Successful control program to implement the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section

OBJECTIVE: Describe implementation of a successful program to reduce doses (cefazolin 2 to 1 g) used for antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: Evaluation of an intervention program to reduce prophylactic antimicrobial doses. The intervention included weekly staff discussions, automatic dispensation of 1g-vial of cefazolin by the pharmacy unless expressly requested by surgeon and increase in post-discharge surveillance as a strategy to reassure surgeons of the safety of the reduction. In the pre and post intervention periods, a prospective study of antimicrobial consumption and surgical site infections were measured. RESULTS: There were 5,164 and 5,204 deliveries in 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, respectively; 1,524 (29.5 percent) and 1,363 (26 percent) were cesarean sections. There was a 45 percent decrease in cefazolin vials used on average per cesarean section (2.29 to 1.25). Patients evaluated increased from 16 percent to 67 percent and the SSI rates in both periods were 3.34 percent to 2.42 percent, respectively. CONCLUSION: An ample intervention, including administrative and educational measures, led to high compliance with dose reduction and saved more than US$4,000 in cefazolin, considered important because government reimbursement in Brazil for cesarean section is $80.

OBJETIVO: descrever a implantação de um programa de redução de doses usadas para profilaxia antimicrobiana em cesárea. MÉTODOS: Descrição a implantação de um programa de redução de profilaxia com cefazolina de 2 g para 1 g através de discussões semanais com profissionais, dispensação automática de frascos de 1 g de cefazolina pela farmácia exceto quando feito pedido expresso pelo cirurgião. Houve um trabalho para aumentar a vigilância pós alta, com o objetivo de tranquilizar os cirurgiões quanto à segurança da nova dose. Foi realizada uma avaliação prospectiva, antes e depois da implantação do programa, do consumo de cefazolina e das taxas de infecção obtidas por vigilância durante a hospitalização e após a alta. RESULTADOS: Houve 5.164 e 5.204 partos em 2001-2 e 2003-4, respectivamente, sendo que 1.524 (29,5 por cento) e 1.363 (26 por cento) foram cesáreas. Houve uma queda de consumo de frascos de cefazolina de 45 por cento (2,29 para 1,25 por cesárea). O número de pacientes avaliados para infecção hospitalar aumentou de 16 por cento para 67 por cento, e as taxas de infecção foram 3,34 por cento e 2,42 por cento, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: Uma intervenção ampla, que incluiu medidas administrativas e educacionais, levou a uma alta adesão ao programa de redução de dose profilática em cesárea e permitiu uma economia acima de US$ 4.000 apenas considerando custos com cefazolina. Esta pode ser considerada importante especialmente porque o reembolso do SUS para parto cesárea é aproximadamente US$ 80.

Quality-initiated prophylactic antibiotic use in laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: An evidence-based initiation of quality improvement activity for reducing the usage of prophylactic antibiotic in laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) in a tertiary hospital. AIMS: The authors investigated whether single or multiple doses of cefazoline were more cost-effective in preventing postoperative infection associated with LAVH. METHODS: The study groups comprised of 310 patients who had undergone LAVH continuously in a medical centre. Patients were divided into two groups on the basis of whether they received a single dose or multiple doses (range: two to four doses) of cefazoline during the perioperative period. Postoperative infections such as pelvic cellulitis or abscess, vaginal cuff abscess, wound infection and urinary tract infection that occurred either during hospitalisation or within one month after discharge were observed and recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using the mean direct drug cost and the prophylactic effect of infection in both groups. RESULTS: The prophylactic effect of infection was similar in the single-dose group and the multiple-dose group (94.6% vs 93.9%, P = 0.986). The ICER was significantly lower in the single-dose group (153.3 vs 460.4, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The result revealed that a single dose of cefazoline is more cost-effective than multiple doses in the prevention of infection associated with LAVH. It fulfils the goal of cost minimisation and quality of care in today's environment of medical cost containment.

Pharmaceutical cost comparison analysis of antimicrobial use for surgical prophylaxis on gastrectomy patients in a tertiary care hospital.

The present study investigated the clinical effects and therapeutic cost of cefazolin (CEZ) and ampicillin/sulbactam (SBT/ABPC) compared to analyze cost-effectiveness for surgical prophylaxis in gastric cancer patients. 157 inpatients who underwent surgery for gastric cancer were investigated. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to sex, age, incidence of complication, stage of cancer, operative time and blood loss, length of hospitalization, the appearance of systematic inflammatory responses syndrome and the prophylactic effect of infection. Meanwhile, decision analysis indicated that the anticipated therapeutic cost per patient in CEZ group was less than that of SBT/ABPC group (USD 142.72 and USD 187.17, respectively). In this case, CEZ use was more cost-effective, insofar as only drug cost was considered.

Prospective randomized comparison of single-dose versus 1-day cefazolin for prophylaxis in gynecologic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to compare the efficacy of single-dose versus 1-day cefazolin prophylaxis for the prevention of postoperative gynecologic infections. METHODS: From June 2001 to January 2003, 548 patients were randomized to receive either single-dose (1 g of cefazolin intravenously before surgery, 273 patients) or 1-day cefazolin (1 g intravenously before surgery and three more doses every 6 hr after surgery, 275 patients) prophylaxis. RESULTS: A total of 531 (267 patients in the single-dose group and 264 in the 1-day group) completed the study. Only one of 267 (0.37%) patients in the single-dose group developed a trocar wound infection and one of 264 (0.37%) patients in the 1-day group developed a vaginal cuff infection. Had a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics been administered to all patients, the antibiotic cost would have been reduced by 75-80%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single-dose preoperative cefazolin prophylaxis was as effective as four doses of cefazolin for preventing serious infectious morbidity among our patients. Shortening the duration of antibiotics prophylaxis also reduced medical costs and microorganism resistance.

[Comparison of the effects of prophylactic antibiotic therapy and cost-effectiveness between cefazolin (CEZ) and Sulbactam/Ampicillin (SBT/ABPC) in gastric cancer surgery employing clinical pathway].

The present study was designed to investigate the effects of prophylactic antibiotic therapy and the cost-effectiveness of Cefazolin (CEZ) and Sulbactam/Ampicillin (SBT/ABPC) in gastric cancer surgery employing clinical pathway. 157 patients (62 in the CEZ group and 95 in the SBT/ABPC group), who underwent surgery for gastric cancer at the First Department of Surgery of our hospital, were investigated. There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to sex, age, incidence of complication, stage of cancer, surgical method, operative time and blood loss, length of hospitalization, the appearance of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), changes body temperature, white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP), or clinical outcome of postoperative care by a nurse during post-operation for 7 days. The prophylactic effect of infection was also no different between the CEZ (69.4%) and SBT/ABPC (69.5%) groups. In contrast, decision analysis strongly indicated that the anticipate cost of antibiotics was higher in the latter group (yen 20402) than in the CEZ group (yen 15556), suggesting that the prophylactic effect of CEZ may be more cost-effective. Thus, evaluations of pharmacotherapy from the aspect of cost may be one of the important responsibility of hospital pharmacists in the future.

Prophylactic antibiotics for non-laboring patients with intact membranes undergoing cesarean delivery: an economic analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted an economic analysis of prophylactic antibiotic administration for elective cesarean delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We created a decision tree comparing the use of prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin 1 gm intravenous) with no antibiotic use. We modeled the potential for anaphylaxis, and included outcomes of fever and endometritis. Outcome probabilities and effectiveness of antibiotic administration were derived from published sources. Costs are 2001 estimates derived from our hospital's accounting system. Sensitivity analyses were performed over the range of actual patient costs and 95% CI of the risk and probability estimates. RESULTS: Cost of an uncomplicated elective cesarean delivery was $1638.57. Fever evaluation added $125.91. Elective procedure complicated by endometritis cost $2327.29. Cefazolin administration cost $1.01. The following estimates were used: relative risk (RR) of endometritis with antibiotics was 0.18 (95% CI 0.07-0.45), fever 0.47 (95% CI 0.32-0.68), risk of endometritis without prophylaxis 4.8% (95% CI 0.9%-43%), and fever without prophylaxis 14.4% (95% CI 4%-33%). Cost of an average case without prophylaxis was $1683.72; prophylaxis reduced this to $1653.06. Sensitivity analysis over the ranges above still yielded cost savings. CONCLUSION: Administration of prophylactic antibiotics for elective cesarean delivery reduced costs by $30.66 per case, approximately 2% of the total cost. Prophylactic antibiotic administration results in cost savings for elective cesarean delivery.

Cefazolin versus cefazolin plus metronidazole for antibiotic prophylaxis at cesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Although prophylactic antibiotic medications have been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery, the most effective regimens have not been established. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the efficacy and costs of prophylaxis with cefazolin alone with cefazolin plus metronidazole. METHODS: Women undergoing cesarean delivery were randomized to prophylaxis with 2 g cefazolin (n = 81) or 1 g cefazolin plus 500 mg metronidazole (n = 79). Postoperative infectious morbidity and the duration of hospitalization in the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (23%) of 160 patients developed endomyometritis. There was a significant reduction in the number of postoperative infections (14 versus 32%) and hospital days (3.12 versus 4.46) with cefazolin and metronidazole prophylaxis (P = 0.0064 versus P = 0.014) compared with cefazolin alone. The estimated antibiotic prophylaxis cost per person was less with cefazolin and metronidazole than with cefazolin alone (9.12 dollars versus 26.73 dollars). CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis with metronidazole and cefazolin results in fewer postoperative infections, decreased duration of hospitalization, and lower medication cost than cefazolin alone.

Low-cost antibiotic loaded systems for developing countries.

Treatment of osteomyelitis with local antibiotic delivery systems has become a common practice in orthopaedic surgery. This study attempted to show that locally produced pure or bioglass reinforced plaster of Paris, hydroxyapatite and sodium alginate are promising biomaterials and mainly because of economical reasons and availability, may be an alternative in clinical practice, especially for developing countries. A total of 32 rabbits were divided into four groups (n:8). In group A, sodium alginate + cephazoline; in group B, plaster of Paris + bioglass + cephazoline; in group C, plaster of Paris + hydroxyapatite + cephazoline and in group D, plaster of Paris + cephazoline were used. The blood serum cephazoline concentrations were analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography on days 1 to 10 everyday and then at days 13, 17, 18, 24, 25 and 30. The mean values +/- standard deviations and median values of blood serum antibiotic concentrations for groups A, B, C and D were 1.45 +/- 0.40 (1.42) mcg/ml, 1.53 +/- 0.64 (1.31) mcg/ml, 1.92 +/- 0.39 mcg/ml (1.90) and 1.41 +/- 0.65 (1.25) mcg/ml, respectively. The detected antibiotic level was constantly over the minimum inhibitory concentration for Staphylococcus aureus. In conclusion, it can be stated that these materials are promising as a antibiotic delivery system even with simple production methods.

[Comparative clinical-economic analysis of antibiotic therapy in pyogenic inflammatory diseases of the lower extremities]. / Sravnitel'nyi kliniko-ékonomicheskii analiz programm antibiotikoterapii gnoino-vospalitel'nykh zabolevanii nizhnikh konechnostei.

A randomized comparative investigation was carried out in two equal groups of patients with pyo-inflammatory diseases of lower extremities (the total number 50 patients) in order to study effectiveness and tolerance to Netilmycin (1st group) and Gentamycin (2nd group) given in combination with Cefasolin. Clinical symptoms were estimated immediately after operation, in 3, 6 and 10-12 days after it. Bacteriological investigations were fulfilled immediately after operation, in 72 h and in 6-10 days after the beginning of antibacterial therapy. Clinical and biochemical investigations of blood were fulfilled before and in 10 days after the beginning of the treatment. Effectiveness of the treatment in the first group was 100%, in the second group--80%. In the second group the antibiotics were changed in 20% of cases and the average duration of hospitalization among the patients of this group was reliably longer that in the first group. The eradication rating of Netilmycin was higher than that of Gentamycin (25 strains from 25 and 20 from 25 respectively). Gentamycin had a pronounced nephrotoxic effect (elevation of the level of creatinin and urea of blood in dynamics by 21% and 32%), as compared with Netilmycin (9% and 3%). Total expenses to antibiotic therapy in the first group made up 97,650 rub, and in the second group 106,245 rub. Netilmycin in combination with Cefasolin was more effective for acute pyo-inflammatory diseases of lower extremities than a combination of Gentamycin with Cefasolin, it more rapidly resulted in reduction of clinical signs of inflammation, was better endured and more economical.

[Comparative study of clinical effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in aseptic mouth-jaw- and facial surgery]. / Vergleichende Studie zur klinischen Effizienz der Antibiotikaprophylaxe in der aseptischen Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie.

METHODS: This study evaluates the clinical efficiency of four regimens of antibiotic prophylaxis against wound infection in aseptic oral and maxillofacial surgery that does not involve implantation of foreign material and included 140 adult patients randomly distributed into four groups. Patients from two groups received prophylactic amoxicillin/clavulanate in a single-dose regimen or a 5-day regimen, respectively. Subjects from the other two groups received cefazolin in a single-dose regimen or a 5-day regimen, respectively. RESULTS: Clinical prophylactic efficiency proved to be equal for the four types of antibiotic regimens. DISCUSSION: Single-dose regimens are more economical, easier to administer, and carry a lower risk of inducing bacterial resistance. Amoxicillin/clavulanate is more expensive than cefazolin. For aseptic maxillofacial surgery that does not involve implantation of foreign material, we recommend preoperative single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin 2 g i.v. (in adult patients).

Comparison of vancomycin versus cefazolin as initial therapy for peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients.

The incidence of peritonitis ranges from 1 episode every 24 patient treatment months to 1 episode every 60 patient treatment months [Keane WF, et al. ISPD Guidelines/Recommendations. Adult peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis treatment recommendations: 2000 update. Perit Dial Int 2000; 20:396-411.]. Gram-positive organisms account for over 80% of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (PD)-associated peritonitis. Recent fear of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) has prompted suggestions of limiting vancomycin use. Fifty-one episodes of peritonitis in 30 patients studied over 2 years were evaluated. Cloudiness of the PD fluid and/or abdominal pain were considered suggestive of peritonitis and were confirmed by cell count and culture. Baseline cell count, Gram stain, and cultures were obtained, with periodic follow-up. Patients were randomized to receive either vancomycin 1 g/L intraperitoneally (IP) as loading dose, repeated on day 5 or day 8, depending on residual renal function, for 2 weeks, or cefazolin 1 g in the first PD bag and continued with 125 mg/L every exchange for 2 or 3 weeks, depending on culture results. All patients also received gentamicin 40 mg IP every day until the culture results were available. A similar randomized trial comparing vancomycin and cefazolin in the past used a lower concentration of cefazolin 50 mg/L [Flanigan MJ, Lim VS. Initial treatment of dialysis associated peritonitis: a controlled trial of vancomycin versus cefazolin. Perit Dial /nt 1991; 11:31-7.]. Peritoneal dialysate fluid cultures revealed 31(60.7%) gram-positive organisms, 7(13.7%) gram-negative organisms, and 2 (3.9%) cultured yeast; 11 (21.5%) cultures yielded no growth. The incidence of peritonitis at our center was 1 episode every 42 patient treatment months. No case of VRE was noted. There was no statistical difference in clinical response or relapse rate for the two protocols. It was the authors' and nurses' observation that patient compliance and satisfaction was better with vancomycin, and the cost per treatment was 23% less than cefazolin. Based on these data we believe vancomycin should still be considered for first-line treatment of PD-associated peritonitis.