Prospective assessment of the frequency of and risk factors for bleeding events in patients treated with cefazolin.

PURPOSE: Major bleedings have been described with cefazolin. The objective was to determine the frequency of bleeding events in cefazolin-treated patients and to identify risk factors for these complications. METHODS: Monocenter prospective observational study of all consecutive cefazolin-treated patients. Patients benefited from a daily clinical assessment of bleedings and a twice-a-week blood sampling including hemostasis. Bleedings were classified according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis classification: major, clinically relevant non-major bleedings (CRNMB) and minor bleedings. RESULTS: From September 2019 to July 2020, 120 patients were included, with a mean age of 59.4 (± 20.7) years; 70% of them (84/120) were men. At least 1 CRNMB or major bleeding were observed in 10% of the patients (12/120). Compared to patients with no or minor bleeding, patients with CRNMB or major bleeding were, upon start of cefazolin, more frequently hospitalized in an intensive care unit (7/12, 58.3%, vs. 12/108, 11.1%, P < 0.001, respectively) and receiving vitamin K antagonists (4/12, 33.3%, vs. 8/108, 7.4%, P = 0.019, respectively). After multivariate analysis, patients receiving vitamin K antagonists the day prior bleeding and/or treated for endocarditis were factors associated with an increased risk of CRNMB or major bleeding (odd ratio 1.36, confidence interval 95%, 1.06-1.76, P = 0.020 and 1.30, 1.06-1.61, P = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding events associated with cefazolin treatment are frequent. Close clinical monitoring should be performed for patients treated for endocarditis and/or receiving vitamin K antagonists. Hemostasis work-up could be restricted to these patients.

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.

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.

Double-blind comparison of cefazolin and ceftizoxime for prophylaxis against infections following elective biliary tract surgery.

Antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence of wound infections after elective biliary tract procedures. Cefazolin and cefoxitin are among the agents most commonly promoted for this purpose. Cefoxitin has been substituted with ceftizoxime in many institutions; however, the role of ceftizoxime as a prophylactic agent in this setting has not been determined. To assess the comparative prophylactic efficacies of cefazolin and ceftizoxime in biliary tract surgery, we conducted a double-blind, randomized prospective clinical trial in a tertiary-care teaching hospital. Adult patients were randomized to one of two treatment groups and received a 30-min preoperative dose of study drug and as many as two postoperative doses at 12 and 24 h, depending on hospitalization status. Cefazolin and ceftizoxime were given as 1,000-mg doses. Patients with infections, those receiving prior antibiotics, or those with beta-lactam allergies were excluded. Over the 19-month study tenure, 167 patients were enrolled. Seventeen patients were excluded from analysis because of protocol violations. Of the 150 evaluable patients (72 and 78 receiving cefazolin and ceftizoxime doses, respectively), there was no significant difference among groups regarding sex, age, weight, preoperative Apache II score, baseline chemistry, and hematological parameters. Groups were also equivalent regarding the surgeon, type of procedure, characteristics (blood loss, drains, organ injury, and complications), and duration of hospital stay (mean, 5.6 versus 4.3 days [P = 0.31]). No clinical evidence of infection (7-day hospital stay and 30-day follow-up) was identified in 93% of cefazolin and 92% of ceftizoxime patients (P = 1.0). Microbiological confirmation was found in only 18% of primary-site infections. In conclusion, cefazolin and ceftizoxime appear to be equivalent for the prevention of infection in biliary tract surgery with the dosage regimens studied.

Randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacies, costs, and vaginal flora alterations with single-dose ceftriaxone and multidose cefazolin prophylaxis in vaginal hysterectomy.

A comparison of efficacies, costs, and effects on vaginal microflora of one preoperative and three postoperative 1-g doses of cefazolin versus those of one preoperative 1-g dose of ceftriaxone was done with 65 and 73 women, respectively, undergoing elective vaginal hysterectomy. Patient infection rates were not statistically different between the cefazolin group (six events in 6 of 73 patients [8.2%]) and the ceftriaxone group (11 events in 9 of 65 patients [13.8%]). Side effects, including diarrhea, were minimal and similar between the two groups. Significant shifts in the cervicovaginal microflora of the patients occurred postoperatively, with a marked increase in enterococci and a drop in nonenterococcal streptococci. No shifts among aerobic, facultative gram-negative rods and staphylococci were observed. Among the anaerobes, a significant decrease in the number of patients harboring nonsporulating, gram-positive rods and a less striking concomitant increase in Bacteriodes species and members of the family Peptococcaceae were noted. No qualitative differences were noted between the two groups that received prophylactic therapy. Aside from enterococci, cefazolin or ceftriaxone resistance among vaginal isolates (greater than or equal to 10(3)/ml) was minimal. Selection of resistant isolates was not different between the treatment groups. We could not detect a difference between a single 1-g dose of ceftriaxone and multidose cefazolin for infection prophylaxis in patients undergoing a vaginal hysterectomy. However, the total acquisition, preparation, and administration costs were greater for the ceftriaxone regimen than they were for the cefazolin regimen. Cefazolin should therefore remain the drug of choice for infection prophylaxis in uncomplicated vaginal hysterectomies.

Single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis in open heart surgery.

A single one-gram pre-operative dose of ceftriaxone was compared with seven one-gram doses of cefazolin administered peri-operatively with the aim of preventing infections associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ninety-four evaluable cases were analyzed; 49 patients received ceftriaxone and 45 received cefazolin. There was no significant difference in the number of infectious complications between the two groups. Ceftriaxone had a terminal half-life of approximately 15.7 hours. There was no toxicity associated with either antibiotic. Because of the reduced number of doses, single-dose prophylaxis may result in considerable savings. Single-dose prophylaxis with ceftriaxone was found to be an effective modality for prevention of infection in open heart surgery.