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.
Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing teicoplanin and cefazolin as antibiotic prophylaxis in prosthetic vascular surgery
FIORIO, MARCO;LENTI, MATTIA;REPETTO, ADELE;Menichetti, F
1999-01-01
Abstract
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.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
