ISSN: 1859 - 2872
A systematic review of prophylactic cefazolin in cardiac surgery
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Antibiotic prophylaxis has been demonstrated to be beneficial in reducing surgical site infections (SSI) and has been an established practice in cardiac surgery. Cefazolin is one of the first-line prophylactic antibiotics recommended in most current guidelines. This systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies related to cefazolin prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. 20 studies were included in the systematic review comprising 10 randomized controlled trials, 05 cohort studies, and 05 retrospective studies. Meta-analysis results show that cefazolin is more effective than cefuroxime in preventing deep sternal wound infections. Additionally, continuous infusion of cefazolin reduces the incidence of SSI compared with intermittent cefazolin dosing. Results on the rate of surgical site infections showed no consistency among studies when comparing different doses and prophylaxis durations post-surgery.
Article Details
References
2. Ackah JK, Neal L, Marshall NR, Panahi P, Lloyd C, Rogers LJ (2021) Antimicrobial prophylaxis in adult cardiac surgery in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. J Infect Prev 22(2): 83-90.
3. Bratzler DW, Houck PM (2004) Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An advisory statement from the national surgical infection prevention project. Clin Infect Dis 38(12): 1706-1715.
4. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al (2013) Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Review. Surgical Infections 14(1): 73-156.
5. Bộ Y tế (2015) Hướng dẫn sử dụng kháng sinh. Nhà xuất bản Y học.
6. Sousa-Uva M, Head SJ, Milojevic M et al (2018) 2017 EACTS Guidelines on perioperative medication in adult cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 53(1): 5-33.
7. Higgins JPT, Morgan RL, Rooney AA et al (2024) A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int 186:108602.
8. Julian PT, Higgins JS, Matthew J Page, Jonathan AC Sterne (2019) Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).
9. Sterne JAC HJ, Elbers RG, Reeves BC and the development group for ROBINS-I (2016) Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): Detailed guidance.
10. Lin MH, Pan SC, Wang JL, et al (2011) Prospective randomized study of efficacy of 1-day versus 3-day antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical site infection after coronary artery bypass graft. Article. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association 110(10): 619-626.
11. Tamayo E, Gualis J, Flórez S, Castrodeza J, Eiros Bouza JM, Álvarez FJ (2008) Comparative study of single-dose and 24-hour multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac surgery. Article. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 136(6): 1522-1527.
12. Zanetti G, Giardina R, Platt R (2001) Intraoperative redosing of cefazolin and risk for surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. Article. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(5):828-831.
13. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 342(25): 1887-1892.
14. Ahmed NJ, Haseeb A, Alamer A, Almalki ZS, Alahmari AK, Khan AH (2022) Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials Comparing Cefazolin to Cefuroxime, Ceftriaxone, and Cefamandole for Surgical Site Infection Prevention. Antibiotics (Basel) 11(11).
15. Phoon PHY, Hwang NC Deep Sternal Wound Infection: Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 34(6): 1602-1613.
16. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery: A national clinical guideline. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network; 2014.
17. Lador A, Nasir H, Mansur N, et al (2011) Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 67(3):541-550.
18. Shadmehr MB, Alaeen Z, Baniasadi S (2020) Adherence to American Society of Health-System Pharmacists guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in thoracic surgery: A prospective observational study. Article. Journal of Pharmacy Practice and Research 50(1): 22-27.
19. Bộ Y tế (2022) Dược thư Quốc gia Việt Nam. Nhà xuất bản Y học.