Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Open-Heart Surgery Patients: Comparison of Cefamandole and Cefuroxime

Abstract

The efficacy of cefamandole and cefuroxime in preventing postoperative wound infections was compared in 3037 patients undergoing open-heart surgery. Antibiotic prophylaxis in 1467 patients having coronary artery bypass and valve replacement surgery was cefamandole 2 g iv preoperatively followed by 2 g q6h for five days postoperatively; 1570 patients received cefuroxime 1.5 g iv preoperatively then 1.5 g iv q 12h for three days postoperatively. Postoperative wound infections (sternal and leg wounds) were studied in each treatment group. In the cefamandole study group, 27 patients (1.8 percent) developed postoperative wound infections (9 sternal and 18 leg wounds). In the cefuroxime treatment group, 19 patients (1.2 percent) developed postoperative wound infections (9 sternal and 10 leg wounds). Overall, no statistical difference was found between the two antibiotics in preventing postoperative wound infections. However, in patients having valve replacement surgery, cefuroxime was found statistically more effective than cefamandole prophylaxis in preventing sternal wound infections (no infections in 284 patients compared with five infections in 205 patients, respectively, p = 0.01). The most common organism isolated from infected wounds with cefamandole was Staphylococcus aureus followed by S. epidermidis compared with cefuroxime which had S. epidermidis followed by S. aureus. Cefuroxime was found to be as effective as cefamandole and considerably less expensive in preventing postoperative wound infections in patients undergoing open-heart surgery.