A comparison of teicoplanin versus cephradine plus metronidazole in the prophylaxis of post-operative infection in vascular surgery.
|
| Abstract |
A total of 272 patients were enrolled into this prospective, unblinded, randomized comparison of single-dose teicoplanin vs three doses of cephradine plus metronidazole as prophylaxis for vascular surgery at St James's and Seacroft Hospitals, Leeds, UK. In all, 71.3% of patients (194/272) were enrolled at St James's University Hospital. Patients received either a single dose of teicoplanin, 6 mg/kg i.v., or cephradine, 1 g i.v. with metronidazole, 1 g rectally, at induction of anaesthesia followed by two further 1 g doses of cephradine and metronidazole 8 and 16 hours later. There were 136 patients in each treatment group. The most common operations were femoropopliteal grafts (96) and aortic aneurysm repairs (47). In the 'intention-to-treat' analysis, primary wound infections were seen in 4.4% of patients (6/136) receiving teicoplanin and 5.9% of patients (8/136) receiving cephradine plus metronidazole (95% CI -6.7%, +3.8%). Other disturbances to wound healing occurred in 23 patients (11 in the teicoplanin and 12 in the cephradine plus metronidazole group). Secondary respiratory tract infections occurred in 17 patients (8 receiving teicoplanin and 9 receiving cephradine plus metronidazole). In the evaluable patients analysis, primary wound infections occurred in 3.5% of patients (4/114) receiving teicoplanin and 5.1% of patients (6/117) receiving cephradine plus metronidazole. Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus sp. were the most common pathogens in primary wound infections. Despite the absence of Gram-negative cover in the teicoplanin group, Gram-negative infections occurred more often in the cephradine plus metronidazole group. Surgery of the lower extremities carried the highest risk of post-operative infection. Rates of infection were significantly higher at Seacroft Hospital (P = 0.001), and significantly higher for cephradine plus metronidazole between the two hospitals (P = 0.0008). Adverse events occurred in 40 patients receiving teicoplanin (29.4%) and 39 patients receiving cephradine plus metronidazole (28.7%). In 19 patients receiving teicoplanin (14%) and 15 receiving cephradine plus metronidazole (11%) these events were considered to be related to the study drugs. The most often reported events were infections, cardiac events and vascular phenomena (haematoma or emboli). Marked changes in haematological parameters and liver function tests were noted seven days after operation in patients in each treatment group, but these resolved quickly as the effects of the operation subsided. ESR remained elevated in both groups at the six-month follow-up assessment. It is concluded from this two-centre study that a single dose of teicoplanin shows similar efficacy to a three-dose regimen of cephradine plus metronidazole as prophylaxis for wound infection in vascular surgery. Both regimens were well tolerated, and there was an equal incidence of adverse events in the two regimens, which reflected the poor general health status of this elderly study population.
|
|---|---|
| Authors | R C Kester, R Antrum, C A Thornton, C H Ramsden, I Harding |
| Journal | The Journal of hospital infection (J Hosp Infect) Vol. 41 Issue 3 Pg. 233-43 (Mar 1999) ISSN: 0195-6701 [Print] England |
| PMID | 10204127 (Publication Type: Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial) |
| Chemical References |
|
| Topics |
|
Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!