Intraoperative vs 24-Hour Administration of Cefamandole to Prevent Deep Sternal Wound Infection and Endocarditis after Adult Cardiac Surgery

DOI: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.39081   PDF   HTML     2,717 Downloads   3,923 Views  

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac surgery is still debated and controversial. International guidelines are vague: French guidelines recommend an intraoperative administration, while the Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ guidelines suggest that optimal postoperative prophylactic antibiotics be given for 48 hours or less. Very few studies have compared the same antibiotic with 2 different administration durations. The study was designed to compare the efficacy of 24-hour administration of cefamandole vs intraoperative cefamandole to prevent deep sternal wound infection and endocarditis after cardiac surgery. Methods: This retrospective and observational study compared the rates of severe surgical site infections (deep sternal wound infection, endocarditis) after cardiac surgery between period 1, 01/01/2008-31/08/2008, with 24-hour administration of cefamandole, and period 2, 01/09/2008-30/04/2009 with intraoperative cefamandole. Results: Among 933 patients, 14 patients (1.5%) developed surgical site infection during the 16-month study: 1.3% during the first period and 1.7% during the second (ns). The populations (470 patients in period 1 and 463 in period 2) were homogeneous and comparable for pre-, intra- and postoperative characteristics. Surgical site infection characteristics (pathogens involved, time to diagnosis) and consequences (longer hospital stay, outcomes) were comparable in the 2 groups. Conclusions: Intraoperative cefamandole was as safe as its 24-hour administration to prevent deep sternal wound infection and endocarditis after adult cardiac surgery.

Share and Cite:

J. Maillet, S. Thierry, G. Oghina, P. Besnerais, P. Mesnildrey, N. Bonnet, F. Simoneau and D. Brodaty, "Intraoperative vs 24-Hour Administration of Cefamandole to Prevent Deep Sternal Wound Infection and Endocarditis after Adult Cardiac Surgery," Open Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 3 No. 9, 2013, pp. 383-387. doi: 10.4236/ojanes.2013.39081.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] D. Mertz, J. Johnstone and M. Loeb, “Does Duration of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Matter in Cardiac Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Annals of Surgery, Vol. 254, No. 1, 2011, pp. 48-54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318214b7e4
[2] S. Habarth, M. H. Samore, D. Lichtenberg and Y. Carmeli, “Prolonged Antibiotic Prophylaxis after Cardiovascular Surgery and Its Effects on Surgical Site Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance,” Circulation, Vol. 101, No. 25, 2000, pp. 2916-2921.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.101.25.2916
[3] D. W. Bratzler, P. M. Houck, C. Richards, L. Steele, E. P. Dellinger, D. E. Fry, et al., “Use of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Major Surgery. Baseline Results from the National Surgical Prevention Project,” Archives of Surgery, Vol. 140, No. 2, 2005, pp.174-182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.2.174
[4] F. H. Edwards, R. M. Engelman, P. Houck, D. M. Shahian and C. R. Bridges, “The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery, Part I: Duration,” The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 81, No. 1, 2006, pp. 397-404.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.06.034
[5] F. Roques, S. A. Nashef, P. Micheal, E. Gauducheau, C. de Vincentis, E. Baudet, et al., “Risks Factors and Outcome in European Cardiac Surgery: Analysis of the EuroSCORE Multinational Database of 19030 Patients,” European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 15, No. 6, 1999, pp .816-822.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(99)00106-2
[6] J. S. Garner, W. R. Jarvis, T. G. Emori, T. C. Horan and J. M. Hughes, “CDC Definitions for Nosocomial Infections,” In: R. N. Olmsted, Ed., APIC Infection Control and Applied Epidemiology: Principles and Practice, Mosby, St Louis, 1996, pp. A1-A20.
[7] Antibioprophylaxie en Chirurgie et Médecine Interventionnelle. Société Française D’Anesthésie et de Réanimation, 2010.
http://www.sfar.org/article/669/antibioprophylaxie-en-chirurgie-et-medecine-interventionnelle-patients-adultes-cc-2010
[8] J. E. Conte, S. N. Cohen, B. B. Roe and R. M. Elashoff, “Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Cardiac Surgery. A Prospective Double-Blind Comparison of Single-Dose versus Multiple-Dose Regimens,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 76, No. 6, 1972, pp. 943-949.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-76-6-943
[9] E. Tamayo E. J. Gualis, S. Florez, J. Castrodeza, J. M. Eiros Bouza and J. Alvarez, “Comparative Study of Single-Dose and 24-Hour Multiple-Dose Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Cardiac Surgery,” The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 136, No. 6, 2008, pp. 1522-1527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.05.013
[10] A. Konvalinka, L. Errett and I. W. Fong, “Impact of Treating Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Carriers on Wound Infection in Cardiac Surgery,” Journal of Hospital Infection, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2006, pp. 162-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.06.010
[11] E. Bennett-Guerrero, T. B. Fergusson, M. Lin, et al., for the SWIPE-1 Trial Group, “Effect of an Implantable Gentamicin-Collagen Sponge on Sternal Wound Infection Following Cardiac Surgery. A Randomized Trial,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 304, No. 7, 2010, pp. 755-762.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1152
[12] S. Stadler and T. Fleck, “Triclosan-Coated Sutures for the Reduction of Sternal Wound Infections? A Retrospective Observational Analysis,” Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2011, pp. 296-299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2011.269001

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.