Cefamandole versus cefazolin in vascular surgical wound infection prophylaxis: cost-effectiveness and risk factors.

PURPOSE

Recent studies of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis have indicated an improved efficacy of beta-lactamase-stable cephalosporins compared with cefazolin, the most commonly used prophylactic agent. Previous studies in our institution have revealed a superiority of cefamandole to cefazolin in patients undergoing heart surgery, although there was no difference between cefazolin and cefuroxime in patients undergoing peripheral vascular surgery. This study was therefore designed to compare cefamandole with cefazolin in wound infection prophylaxis in clean vascular surgery.

METHODS

The study was conducted from August 1990 through May 1992 and consisted of 893 patients with aortic or infrainguinal arterial procedures randomized to receive either cefamandole or cefazolin.

RESULTS

The difference in infection rates associated with cefamandole versus cefazolin prophylaxis (3.2% vs 1.9%, respectively) was not significant (p = 0.42). A cost savings of approximately $95,000 per year at our institution favors the continued use of cefazolin over cefamandole. Risk factor analysis was carried out for preoperative and postoperative events that might have predisposed to infection. Only preoperative use of aspirin and the postoperative finding of a lymphocele correlated with a higher infection rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Cefazolin continues to be the most cost-effective antibiotic for prophylaxis in clean vascular surgical procedures.