Examining cefazolin utilization and perioperative anaphylaxis in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label: A cross-sectional study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the occurrence of cefazolin perioperative anaphylaxis (POA) in patients with and without a penicillin allergy label (PAL) to determine whether the prevalence of cefazolin POA differs based on the presence of a PAL. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large U.S. healthcare system in the Baltimore-D.C. region, July 2017 to July 2020. PATIENTS: 112,817 surgical encounters across inpatient and outpatient settings in various specialties, involving 90,089 patients. Of these, 4876 (4.3%) encounters had a PAL. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative cefazolin administration within 4 h before surgery to 4 h after the procedure began. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was cefazolin POA in patients with and without PALs. Potential POA cases were identified based on tryptase orders or diphenhydramine administrations within the initial cefazolin administration to 6 h postoperatively. Verification included two validation steps. The first checked for hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) documentation, and the second, led by Allergy specialists, identified POA and the probable culprit. The secondary outcome looked at cefazolin use trends in patients with a PAL, stratified by setting and specialty. MAIN RESULTS: Of 112,817 encounters, 1421 (1.3%) had possible cefazolin HSRs. Of these, 22 (1.5%) had POA, resulting in a 0.02% prevalence. Of these, 13 (59.1%) were linked to cefazolin and 9 (40.9%) attributed to other drugs. Only one cefazolin POA case had a PAL, indicating no significant difference in cefazolin POA prevalence between patients with and without PALs (p = 0.437). Perioperative cefazolin use in patients with PALs steadily increased from 2.6% to 6.0% between 2017 and 2020, specifically in academic settings. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of cefazolin POA does not exhibit significant differences between patients with and without PALs, and notably, the incidence remains remarkably low. Based on these findings, it is advisable to view cefazolin as an acceptable choice for prophylaxis in patients carrying a PAL.

Are changes in antibiotic prophylaxis recommendations responsible for an increased risk of cefazolin allergy?

BACKGROUND: The first line of prevention of surgical site infection relies on the timely administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. First- and second-generation cephalosporins are the most recommended antibiotics in elective surgery. The incidence of cefazolin allergy has increased worldwide over the years. The sensitization mechanism of cefazolin is currently unknown, and data supporting cross-reactivity between penicillins and cephalosporins are lacking. Sensitization could occur through previous exposure either to cefazolin or to structurally related chemical agents. The objective of this study was to evaluate sensitization agents towards cefazolin. METHODS: The OpenBabel chemoinformatics toolbox was used to search for similarities between cefazolin and other molecules in an extensive drug database. Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold, we selected drugs with the most similar structure to that of cefazolin. Exposure to those drugs and cefazolin was assessed in a cohort of patients with skin test-proven cefazolin allergy at a specialized allergy centre via a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Using the pholcodine-rocuronium similarity score as a threshold (score≥0.7), 42 molecules were found to be similar to cefazolin (all cephalosporins). Only 8 were marketed in France. None of the 14 cefazolin-allergic patients who answered the questionnaire (65% female, median age 56 years) reported exposure to any identified antibiotics. In contrast, 11 (78%) had at least one previous surgery requiring cefazolin before the index case. CONCLUSION: Direct previous cefazolin exposure was identified in 78% of cefazolin-allergic patients. Cefazolin started to take a central place in antibiotic prophylaxis after 2010, when cefamandole usage decreased drastically. Changes in antibiotic prophylaxis over the past 14 years in France could have been the turning point for the increased incidence of cefazolin allergy.

Trial of Vancomycin and Cefazolin as Surgical Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The addition of vancomycin to beta-lactam prophylaxis in arthroplasty may reduce surgical-site infections; however, the efficacy and safety are unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, superiority, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients without known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization who were undergoing arthroplasty to receive 1.5 g of vancomycin or normal saline placebo, in addition to cefazolin prophylaxis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 4239 patients underwent randomization. Among 4113 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (2233 undergoing knee arthroplasty, 1850 undergoing hip arthroplasty, and 30 undergoing shoulder arthroplasty), surgical-site infections occurred in 91 of 2044 patients (4.5%) in the vancomycin group and in 72 of 2069 patients (3.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.73; P = 0.11). Among patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 63 of 1109 patients (5.7%) in the vancomyin group and in 42 of 1124 patients (3.7%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23). Among patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, surgical-site infections occurred in 28 of 920 patients (3.0%) in the vancomyin group and in 29 of 930 patients (3.1%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.63). Adverse events occurred in 35 of 2010 patients (1.7%) in the vancomycin group and in 35 of 2030 patients (1.7%) in the placebo group, including hypersensitivity reactions in 24 of 2010 patients (1.2%) and 11 of 2030 patients (0.5%), respectively (relative risk, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08 to 4.49), and acute kidney injury in 42 of 2010 patients (2.1%) and 74 of 2030 patients (3.6%), respectively (relative risk, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of vancomycin to cefazolin prophylaxis was not superior to placebo for the prevention of surgical-site infections in arthroplasty among patients without known MRSA colonization. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12618000642280.).

Pharmacist adjustment of preoperative antibiotic orders to the preferred preoperative antibiotic cefazolin for patients with penicillin allergy labeling.

PURPOSE: Emerging literature has detailed the safe use of cefazolin in patients with immunoglobulin E-mediated penicillin allergy labeling (PAL) such as hives and anaphylaxis. The purpose of this article is to detail efforts led by an antimicrobial stewardship pharmacist working with an interdisciplinary team to optimize preoperative antimicrobials in patients with PAL. METHODS: A pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary collaborative practice agreement (CPA) was activated in January 2020 to permit pharmacists to independently optimize preoperative antibiotics to the preferred cefazolin in patients with PAL if nonsevere or severe reactions had been reported. A patient registry was established covering the timeframe between January 8, 2020, and January 6, 2022. Reaction during surgery was assessed via 2-provider documentation, which included surgeon and anesthesiology staff documentation of any complications during the procedure related to a suspected allergic safety event. Utilization of cefazolin, clindamycin, and vancomycin for preoperative prophylaxis was monitored before and after implementation of the CPA. RESULTS: During the stated timeframe, 10,182 procedures and/or surgeries were completed on 1,572 (15.4%) patients with PAL and 659 (41.9%) patients previously reporting at least one reaction categorized as a severe reaction, which was hives for 71.2% of these patients. Of the 659 patients with PAL reporting a severe reaction, 356 received a preoperative cephalosporin (cefazolin, 98.8%; ceftriaxone, 1.2%) and tolerated it without a reported safety event, including 52 patients with PAL previously reporting anaphylaxis. An increase in preferred preoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis utilization was noted (cefazolin: 86% to 96.3%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021) with reductions noted in the use of nonpreferred preoperative antibiotics (clindamycin: 2.1% to 0.2%, P < 0.001; vancomycin: 3.2% to 0.4%, P < 0.001; 2019 to 2021). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary CPA increased preferred preoperative antimicrobial use in patients with PAL reporting severe allergic reactions, including hives and anaphylaxis, without reported safety events.

A case series of perioperative anaphylaxis to cefazolin during kidney transplant and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative anaphylaxis is a life threatening and multiorgan system hypersensitivity reaction that frequently leads to cessation of operations. Despite the incidence of Cefazolin allergy being on the rise, the cases of anaphylaxis to Cefazolin during surgeries and its management are seldom reported. CASE PRESENTATION: We present two patients with no known beta-lactam allergy and end stage kidney disease who received perioperative intravenous Cefazolin for planned deceased kidney transplant surgery at our academic medical center. Both patients developed anaphylaxes approximately three minutes following the administration of the antibiotic and experienced severe, refractory hypotension that required the use of vasopressors. The severity of the anaphylactic reactions resulted in the cessation of the transplant operation and multiple days of intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION: Peri-or intraoperative anaphylaxis to Cefazolin is on the rise and its consequences in transplant candidates are even more dire given the pre-existing end organ failure, financial burden for health care system, potential loss of donor organs, and emotional burden for recipients and their families. These are the first two cases of reported Cefazolin-induced anaphylaxis that actually resulted in aborting the kidney transplant operation. In addition, cases of previously reported Type 1 hypersensitivity to Cefazolin as prophylaxis for operations were reviewed and the allergy workups were discussed.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous renal biopsy: study protocol for a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The major complication of renal biopsy is bleeding. Infection is an extremely rare complication of percutaneous renal biopsy, providing sterile techniques are used and bowel perforation does not occur. However, the questionnaire included in the Kidney Biopsy Guidebook 2020 in Japan reported that antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to patients undergoing percutaneous renal biopsy at 61% of 170 adult institutions and 57% of 54 pediatric institutions. The objective of this study is to show the non-inferiority of not administering antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous renal biopsy. METHODS: Patients aged ≥15 years who are scheduled to undergo percutaneous renal biopsy are eligible for inclusion in the study. Three hundred and sixty-four patients will be recruited at 6 hospitals. The patients will be randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive either a single dose of intravenous cefazolin (1 g) or no antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary outcome is the number of patients that exhibit positive urine cultures (>105 colony-forming units/ml) 3 or 4 days after the renal biopsy, or at which point the patients are diagnosed with pyelonephritis until 3 or 4 days after the renal biopsy. The secondary outcomes are the number of patients who are diagnosed with pyelonephritis within 30 days after the renal biopsy, the number of patients who are diagnosed with puncture site infections within 30 days after the renal biopsy, the number of patients who are diagnosed with an infection other than pyelonephritis or a puncture site infection within 30 days after the renal biopsy, and the number of patients who experience cefazolin-induced side effects. DISCUSSION: This randomized controlled trial aims to show the non-inferiority of not administering antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous renal biopsy. If this study shows that antibiotic prophylaxis is not needed, it would help to ensure patient safety and prevent the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) UMIN000042378 . Registered on 7 Nov 2020.

Cefazolin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in a Patient with Polycythemia Vera Following Coronary Artery Bypass.

Cefazolin is an antibiotic that is commonly administered perioperatively to reduce the risk of surgical site infections. Cephalosporins have a well-established safety profile, but have been associated with thrombocytopenia and neutropenia due to their myelosuppressive effects. While this effect may be benign in healthy patients undergoing minor surgery, it can be detrimental in patients with underlying hematologic disorders presenting for open-heart surgery. Herein, we discuss the first case in the literature of cefazolin-induced thrombocytopenia and severe coagulopathy in a patient with polycythemia vera (PCV) during a coronary artery bypass-grafting surgery.

The Effect of Beta-lactam Allergy Status on the Rate of Surgical Site Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients with reported BL allergies have increased odds of developing SSI compared to reported NBL allergic patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SSI represent a significant risk of morbidity and mortality for patients. Cefazolin-based perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is the guideline-recommended drug-of-choice for most procedures. Due to over-reporting of BL allergies, many patients may not receive guideline-directed cephalosporin-based prophylaxis, which may result in an increased SSI rate. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort design study was performed. Data was collected on all targeted surgical procedures: cesarean section, vaginal, and abdominal hysterectomy, colon, laminectomy, and spinal fusion surgeries. RESULTS: During the study period, 2676 procedures were analyzed with 454 (17%) and 2222 (83%) in reported BL and NBL allergic cohorts, respectively. Significantly more SSI developed in the BL cohort versus NBL cohort (3.1% vs 1.5%, odds ratio 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 1.090-3.724; P = 0.023). Through a multivariate logistic regression, receipt of a NBL antibiotic regimen was the only variable to have a significant effect on SSI rate (adjusted odds ratio, 3.815; 95% confidence interval, 1.142-12.749; P = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Reported BL allergic patients have an increased odds of developing SSI in comparison to NBL allergic patients. The increased risk is likely related to administration of NBL antibiotic regimens in comparison to BL-based regimens. Thorough antibiotic allergy history collection can be a valuable SSI prevention tool to safely increase the proportion of patients receiving BL regimen.

Cefazolin-induced hemolytic anemia: a case report and systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Cefazolin is a first-generation cephalosporin commonly used for skin and soft tissue infections, abdominal and orthopedic surgery prophylaxis, and methicillin-sensitive staph aureus. Cephalosporins as a whole are known potential inducers of hemolytic anemia; however, mechanism of action is primarily autoimmune, and compared to other drugs, cefazolin is the least common. METHODS: A rare case report of cefazolin-induced hemolytic anemia "CIHA" and a systematic review of CIHA articles in English literature. Two authors performed review of publications and articles were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. A systematic search of the literature yielded 768 entries with five case reports on cefazolin-induced hemolytic anemia. CASE PRESENTATION/RESULTS: An 80-year-old female with methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus "MSSA" endocarditis. The patient was started on intravenous "IV" cefazolin that that resulted in hemolytic anemia and eosinophilia. Switching to vancomycin improved hemoglobin level and resolved eosinophilia. Four cefazolin-induced hemolytic anemia case reports and one population-based article with a case reported were analyzed with respect to direct antiglobulin test "DAT" (also known as the direct Coombs test) results, prior penicillin sensitivity, and acute anemia causes exclusion. CONCLUSIONS: CIHA is a rare cause of clinically significant anemia. The diagnosis of drug-induced anemia is one of exclusion. It is important to consider DAT results and prior penicillin sensitivity when evaluating a patient for cefazolin-induced hemolytic anemia. However, the frequency of cefazolin use and resultant anemia necessitates early recognition of hemolytic anemia and prompt discontinuation of cefazolin, especially with long-term use.

Comparison of immediate hypersensitivity reactions to preoperative antibiotics in patients labeled as penicillin allergic.

BACKGROUND: Cefazolin is routinely recommended as the first-line agent for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis because it prevents more surgical site infections than second-line antibiotics. Clinicians often avoid administering cefazolin to patients who are labeled as penicillin allergic due to concerns of cross-reactivity. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions between cefazolin and the second-line antibiotics vancomycin and clindamycin. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who were labeled as penicillin allergic and received either cefazolin, clindamycin, or vancomycin as preoperative antibiotics. The primary outcome was intraoperative hypersensitivity reactions. RESULTS: A total of 734 surgical procedures in 690 patients were included. Fifteen immediate hypersensitivity reactions were identified. Probable hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 3 (0.9%) patients in the cefazolin group, 4 (1.4%) in the clindamycin group, and 1 (1.1%) in the vancomycin group. Seven of 8 patients reported allergies to additional medications beyond penicillin. There were seven cases of possible hypersensitivity reactions, 3 (0.9%) in the cefazolin group, 1 (1.1%) in the vancomycin group, and 3 (1.0%) in the clindamycin group. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that perioperative hypersensitivity reactions are uncommon in patients labeled as penicillin allergic. The frequency of immediate hypersensitivity reactions was not different between patients receiving cefazolin, clindamycin, or vancomycin. Avoiding cefazolin in patients labeled as penicillin allergic may not be warranted.

Safety of administering cefazolin versus other antibiotics in penicillin-allergic patients for surgical prophylaxis at a major Canadian teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Cefazolin surgical prophylaxis is associated with better patient outcomes; however, its use in penicillin-allergic patients is controversial. We evaluated the safety of cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in penicillin-allergic patients, including those with anaphylaxis histories. METHODS: We conducted a pre and postintervention quality improvement evaluation of an institution-wide policy change at a tertiary-care hospital, before (October 2017-January 2018), during (February 2018-September 2018), and after (October 2018-October 2019) transition to routine cefazolin prophylaxis for penicillin-allergic patients, including those with anaphylaxis histories but excluding severe delayed reactions (eg, Stevens-Johnson syndrome). Retrospective data was collected on all surgical prophylaxis patients with penicillin-anaphylactic histories between October 2017 and September 2018. From October 2018, we prospectively reviewed adverse events with cefazolin. Primary outcome was adverse events in penicillin-allergic patients receiving cefazolin perioperatively. RESULTS: From October 2017 to October 2019, 27,467 operations were performed. Of 220 patients with penicillin-anaphylactic histories reviewed prior to the full policy change, no statistically significant differences were reported in allergic reactions (P = .70), surgical site infections (P = 1.00), or adverse events (P = .32) with cefazolin compared to other antibiotics. Postpolicy implementation, cefazolin usage increased 18.2%, while vancomycin and clindamycin decreased by 11.4% and 62.0%, respectively. No anaphylaxis was documented in penicillin-allergic patients receiving cefazolin in either the review or quality assurance follow-up after the change. Of 3 patients developing reactions to cefazolin, none had histories of penicillin allergy. Surgical site infection rates were similar between pre and postpolicy time periods (P = .842). CONCLUSION: Administration of cefazolin in penicillin-anaphylactic patients for surgical prophylaxis appears to be safe.

Assessment of the Frequency of Dual Allergy to Penicillins and Cefazolin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Cefazolin is the preoperative antibiotic of choice because it is safer and more efficacious than second-line alternatives. Surgical patients labeled as having penicillin allergy are less likely to prophylactically receive cefazolin and more likely to receive clindamycin or vancomycin, which results in higher rates of surgical site infections. Objective: To examine the incidence of dual allergy to cefazolin and natural penicillins. Data Sources: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched without language restrictions for relevant articles published from database inception until July 31, 2020. Study Selection: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed for articles published from database inception to July 31, 2020, for studies that included patients who had index allergies to a natural penicillin and were tested for tolerability to cefazolin or that included patients who had index allergies to cefazolin and were tested for tolerability to a natural penicillin. A total of 3228 studies were identified and 2911 were screened for inclusion. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were independently extracted by 2 authors. Bayesian meta-analysis was used to estimate the frequency of allergic reactions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dual allergy to cefazolin and a natural penicillin. Results: Seventy-seven unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding 6147 patients. Cefazolin allergy was identified in 44 participants with a history of penicillin allergy, resulting in a dual allergy meta-analytical frequency of 0.7% (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.1%-1.7%; I2 = 74.9%). Such frequency was lower for participants with unconfirmed (0.6%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-1.3%; I2 = 54.3%) than for those with confirmed penicillin allergy (3.0%; 95% CrI, 0.01%-17.0%; I2 = 88.2%). Thirteen studies exclusively assessed surgical patients (n = 3884), among whom 0.7% (95% CrI, 0%-3.3%; I2 = 85.5%) had confirmed allergy to cefazolin. Low heterogeneity was observed for studies of patients with unconfirmed penicillin allergy who had been exposed to perioperative cefazolin (0.1%; 95% CrI, 0.1%-0.3%; I2 = 13.1%). Penicillin allergy was confirmed in 16 participants with a history of cefazolin allergy, resulting in a meta-analytical frequency of 3.7% (95% CrI, 0.03%-13.3%; I2 = 64.4%). The frequency of penicillin allergy was 4.4% (95% CrI, 0%-23.0%; I2 = 75%) for the 8 studies that exclusively assessed surgical patients allergic to cefazolin. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that most patients with a penicillin allergy history may safely receive cefazolin. The exception is patients with confirmed penicillin allergy in whom additional care is warranted.

Relationship of perioperative anaphylaxis to neuromuscular blocking agents, obesity, and pholcodine consumption: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The observation that patients presenting for bariatric surgery had a high incidence of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) anaphylaxis prompted this restricted case-control study to test the hypothesis that obesity is a risk factor for NMBA anaphylaxis, independent of differences in pholcodine consumption. METHODS: We compared 145 patients diagnosed with intraoperative NMBA anaphylaxis in Western Australia between 2012 and 2020 with 61 patients with cefazolin anaphylaxis with respect to BMI grade, history of pholcodine consumption, sex, age, comorbid disease, and NMBA type and dose. Confounding was assessed by stratification and binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Obesity (odds ratio [OR]=2.96, χ2=11.7, P=0.001), 'definite' pholcodine consumption (OR=14.0, χ2=2.6, P<0.001), and female sex (OR=2.70, χ2=9.61, P=0.002) were statistically significant risk factors for NMBA anaphylaxis on univariate analysis. The risk of NMBA anaphylaxis increased with BMI grade. Confounding analysis indicated that both obesity and pholcodine consumption remained important risk factors after correction for confounding, but that sex did not. The relative rate of rocuronium anaphylaxis was estimated to be 3.0 times that of vecuronium using controls as an estimate of market share, and the risk of NMBA anaphylaxis in patients presenting for bariatric surgery was 8.8 times the expected rate (74.9 vs 8.5 per 100 000 anaesthetic procedures). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is a risk factor for NMBA anaphylaxis, the risk increasing with BMI grade. Pholcodine consumption is also a risk factor, and this is consistent with the pholcodine hypothesis. Rocuronium use is associated with an increased risk of anaphylaxis compared with vecuronium in this population.

Pharmacokinetics and Optimal Dose Selection of Cefazolin for Surgical Prophylaxis of Pediatric Patients.

Cefazolin is an antibiotic frequently used for perioperative prophylaxis. Data from healthy adults and pediatric surgery patients were pooled to refine a previously developed population pharmacokinetic (PK) model and to determine the optimal body weight cutoff for selecting fixed doses of either 1 or 2 g cefazolin to produce exposures in pediatric surgery patients similar to a single 2-g dose in adults. Regardless of dose used, cefazolin was well tolerated in pediatric patients. A total of 1102 plasma samples from 62 patients from 3 studies were available to assess the previous model. The pooled data set allowed for simplification of the model such that allometrically scaled clearance and volume parameters were found to provide a robust fit while removing unnecessary covariate relationships. Monte Carlo simulations using the final cefazolin population PK model suggested an optimal weight cutoff of 50 kg, in contrast to the previously suggested 60 kg for a single 2-g dose. Patients at or above this 50-kg cutoff would receive a 2-g dose of cefazolin, and those below 50 kg but ≥25 kg would receive a 1-g dose of cefazolin.

Effect of probiotics on gut microbiome in patients with administration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: A randomized controlled study.

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is recommended for the prevention of surgical site infections. However, there is a concern about adverse effects of SAP, such as antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). To prevent AAD, administration of probiotics has been investigated. Although recent advances in next-generation sequencing makes it possible to analyze the gut microbiome, the effect of probiotics on the gut microbiome in the patients with SAP remains unknown. To test a hypothesis that SAP influences the gut microbiome and probiotics prevent the influence, a randomized controlled study was conducted with patients who underwent spinal surgery at Nagasaki University Hospital. After obtaining informed consent, the patients were automatically classified into the non-probiotics group and the probiotics group. In the probiotics group, the patients took 1 g of Enterococcus faecium 129 BIO 3B-R, 3 times a day on postoperative days (PODs) 1-5. The feces of all patients were sampled before administration of SAP and on PODs 5 and 10. We compared alpha and beta diversity and differential abundance analysis of the gut microbiome before and after SAP. During the study period, a total of 33 patients were evaluated, comprising 17 patients in the non-probiotics group and 16 in the probiotics group. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding patient characteristics. In alpha and beta diversity, there were no significant differences among all combinations. In differential abundance analysis at operational taxonomic unit level, Streptococcus gallolyticus and Roseburia were significantly increased in the non-probiotics group and significantly decreased in the probiotics group.

Early Antibiotic Prophylaxis Prior to Bypass Surgery Improves Tissue Penetration.

BACKGROUND: We previously identified preparation of the internal mammary artery as a risk factor significantly impairing antibiotic tissue penetration into the presternal subcutaneous tissue. We, therefore, adapted our dosing schema regarding preoperative timing to overcome this risk factor. METHODS: Eight patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with a left internal mammary artery and vein grafts were included in this clinical trial. Cefazolin (4 g) was administered twice (3 hours and 1 hour) prior to skin incision and once during skin closure (2 g). Antibiotic concentrations were measured with subcutaneous microdialysis probes on both sternal sides. Results were directly compared with the previously published patient cohort receiving the standard schema (4 g cefazolin prior to skin incision and 2 g during closure). RESULTS: All patients (7 male, 1 female, 69 ± 7 years, 26.3 ± 3.9 kg/m2) survived the perioperative period. Mean area under the curve on the right and left sternal side was 117.0 ± 92.5 µg/mL and 114.5 ± 83.2 µg/mL, respectively (p = 0.95). This was well above the previously measured mean peak tissue concentrations without early preoperative antibiotic administration on the side of mammary artery harvesting (52.4 ± 48.5 µg/mL vs. 13.1 ± 5.8 µg/mL; p = 0.039). The %fT > minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) for Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus aureus during the first 10 hours in presternal tissue was ≥ 70% but did not differ compared with standard schema. CONCLUSIONS: Early, additional preoperative administration of cefazolin was able to significantly increase peak tissue concentrations during surgery compared with the standard protocol. No difference, however, could be achieved in the percentage of time during which the concentration exceeded the MIC.

Dual prophylaxis with teicoplanin and cefazolin in the prevention of prosthetic joint infection. / Profilaxis dual con teicoplanina añadida a cefazolina en la prevención de la infección de prótesis articular.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing increase in prosthetic joint infection (PJI) incidence due to cephalosporin-resistant bacteria, used in surgical prophylaxis. The replacement of these with glycopeptides has not been shown to improve the results, but they have been shown to improve with their combination. METHODS: Comparative study of combination of teicoplanin and cefazolin before arthroplasty surgery against cefazolin alone from a previous control group. RESULTS: During the control period, there were 16 PJIs from 585 surgeries, while in the intervention group there were 6 from 579 (incidence 2.7% vs. 1.03%, RR 0.4, P=.04). In control group, 11 of the infections were caused by Gram-positive bacteria versus 4 in the intervention group (1.8% vs. 0.7%, P=.08). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of teicoplanin to cefazolin in the prophylaxis of arthroplasty surgery was associated with a reduction in the incidence of PJI, thanks to a decrease in infections caused by Gram-positive bacteria.