Effectiveness Of Cefazolin Research Articles

Effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in endocarditis due to methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus spp.: a multicenter propensity weighted cohort study.

To compare the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococci (MSS). Data were retrospectively collected on patients treated for a definite MSS endocarditis who received cefazolin or cloxacillin for at least 10 consecutive days in six French hospitals between January-1 2014 and December-31 2020. The primary endpoint was treatment failure defined as a composite of death within 90 days of starting antibiotherapy, or embolic event during antibiotherapy, or relapse of IE within 90 days of stopping antibiotherapy. We used Cox regression adjusted for the inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving cefazolin. 192 patients were included (median age 67.8 years). IE was caused by S.aureus in 175 (91.1%) and by coagulase-negative staphylococci in 17 (8.9%). Ninety-four patients (48.9%) received cefazolin, and 98 (51%) received cloxacillin. 34 patients (34.7%) with cefazolin and 26 (27.7%) with cloxacillin met the composite primary endpoint, with no significant differences between groups (adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.03). There were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints or biological safety events. The effectiveness of cefazolin did not significantly differ from cloxacillin for the treatment of MSS endocarditis.

Uji Perbandingan Antibiotik Profilaksis Ceftriaxone versus Cefazolin pada Bedah Obstetri dan Ginekologi

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication in postoperative surgical patients which is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and cost burden. These complications can be prevented by giving proper prophylactic antibiotics. Cefazolin is a recommended prophylactic antibiotic, but in the practice in Indonesia hospital, there are still many uses of ceftriaxone. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcome and safety of cefazolin and ceftriaxone as prophylactic antibiotics in preventing SSI in obstetric and gynecological surgical patients. The study design was double-blind randomized controlled trial. The data collection was conducted from January to June 2020 at dr. Dradjat Prawiranegara Regional Hospital Serang. A total of 82 subjects who met the inclusion criteria were divided into two groups by block randomization, 41 subjects were given cefazolin and 41 subjects were given ceftriaxone. The clinical outcome was measured by preventing SSI for the effectiveness and side effects for safety outcomes in both groups. The comparison of effectiveness and side effects were analyzed using the bivariate test (chi-square or fisher’s exact test) and relative risk (RR). The study showed that the effectiveness of cefazolin was the same as ceftriaxone in preventing SSI for 30 days (RR= 0.89; p= 0.724; 95%CI: 0,193-3,133) with the number of SSI 12.2% vs 9.8%. Side effects included nausea, vomiting, and phlebitis was observed in the administration of antibiotic by intravenous push (IVP) pre-operating. Cefazolin have safetier than ceftriaxone with the incidence of side effects were 9.8% vs 29.3% ((RR = 0,33; p= 0.003; 95% CI: 0.076-0.895). Cefazolin is an antibiotic recommended by Indonesian Ministry of Health and the Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology. This study encourages the use of cefazolin to prevent resistance due to ceftriaxone to overuse.

Prescribing Patterns and Patient Outcomes for Bone and Joint Infections Treated with Cefazolin and Probenecid: A Retrospective Observational Study

Previous studies have described the use of cefazolin with probenecid to treat uncomplicated skin and soft-tissue infections. Some prescribers are extrapolating from this evidence to treat more invasive infections, which have a greater potential for poor outcomes, including treatment failure that could lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Information supporting cefazolin with probenecid as effective treatment in this context is needed. To describe prescribing patterns and outcomes for patients who received cefazolin with probenecid for the treatment of bone and joint infections. This single-centre retrospective study involved adult outpatients for whom cefazolin and probenecid were prescribed for bone and joint infections between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2017. Patient charts were reviewed, and data were collected for clinical and microbiological variables using a standardized data collection form. In a total of 80 cases, the patient received cefazolin and probenecid for treatment of a bone or joint infection, of which 69 cases met the inclusion criteria. In most cases (n = 67), the patients were treated with cefazolin 2 g IV plus probenecid 1 g PO, both given twice daily. Completion of prescribed treatment occurred in 56 patient cases (81%), resolution of signs and symptoms in 53 (77%), readmission to hospital in 11 (16%), recurrence of infection in 6 (9%), and treatment failure requiring a change in therapy in 7 (10%). The effectiveness of cefazolin and probenecid for the treatment of bone and joint infections appears to be similar to that of standard treatment, as reported in the literature. Antibiotic effectiveness is difficult to determine conclusively in a retrospective analysis, so these results should be interpreted with caution, but they may stimulate further research.

Comment: Cost Effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared with Cefamandole

Comment: Cost Effectiveness of Cefazolin Compared with Cefamandole

Prophylactic Antibiotics in Vaginal and Abdominal Hysterectomy

A double-blind, prospective study over a 12-month period evaluated the effectiveness of cefazolin and cephalexin in reducing infection and morbidity in private patients undergoing vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. Prophylactic antibiotics reduced febrile morbidity from 74.4% to 20.8% in the vaginal group and from 46.2% to 24.0% in the abdominal group. Serious postoperative infections such as pelvic abscess, pelvic cellulitis and abdominal wound infection were reduced from 11.5% to 0% in the abdominal group and from 32.6% to 2.1% in the vaginal group. The use of prophylactic antibiotics was of benefit in the perimenopausal and postmenopausal patient, as well as in the premenopausal patient, although, in some categories, the numbers were too small to be statistically significant.

Treatment of experimental Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: comparison of cephalothin, cefazolin, and methicillin.

The effectiveness of cefazolin in Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis has been questioned because of in vitro inactivation by staphylococcal beta-lactamase. Cefazolin, although inactivated in vitro by S. aureus beta-lactamase, was as effective as cephalothin in the treatment of left-sided S. aureus endocarditis in rabbits. Cefazolin (20 mg/kg every 6 or 8 h), cephalothin (40 mg/kg every 6 h), and methicillin (40 mg/kg every 6 h), administered intramuscularly, were compared in the treatment of left-sided endocarditis caused in rabbits by a highly penicillin-resistant strain of S. aureus. The three antibiotics were all effective in reducing titers in vegetations. However, at the dose used, methicillin reduced the titers more rapidly than cephalothin or cefazolin. Cefazolin concentrations in serum were about double those achieved with cephalothin or methicillin. However, cefazolin was only half as active as methicillin and one-eighth as active as cephalothin in vitro in a serum assay. The half life in serum of cefazolin, cephalothin, and methicillin were each about 30 min. Serum bactericidal activities of the three antibiotics were very similar.