This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (36)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joseph T. DiPiro, PharmD; Joseph J. Vallner, PhD; Talmadge A. Bowden, Jr, MD; Bradley A. Clark; John F. Sisley, MD

Arch Surg. 1985;120(7):829-832.

Abstract
• We determined the intraoperative serum and wound-muscle concentrations of cefazolin and cefoxitin in 40 patients who were undergoing cholecystectomies. The study employed an open-label design in which all of the patients randomly received cefazolin sodium (20 mg/kg) or cefoxitin sodium (30 mg/kg) intravenously while the patient was in the ward ("on call") or with the induction of anesthesia. Multiple blood and wound-muscle samples were collected intraoperatively and assayed for their cephalosporin concentrations. Considerable differences in intraoperative serum and tissue concentrations between antibiotics were apparent; there were usually higher levels of cefazolin. In all of the patients who received cefazolin sodium, the antimicrobial was detectable in wound tissue at wound closure, while it was detectable in 86% and 38% of patients who received cefoxitin sodium with anesthesia and on call, respectively. Because cefoxitin has a much shorter elimination half-life than cefazolin it seems prudent to administer the agent as close to the start of the operation as possible, and readminister the agent every two to three hours until the wound is closed. For cefazolin, on-call administration appears to be acceptable, with readministration not required for at least four hours.

(Arch Surg 1985;120:829-832)

Author Affiliations
From the College of Pharmacy, University of Georgia, Athens (Drs DiPiro and Vallner and Mr Clark), and the Department of Surgery, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta (Drs Bowden and Sisley).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 12, 1984.

Reprint requests to Room CJ-112, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912 (Dr DiPiro).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Non-compliance with recommendations for the practice of antibiotic prophylaxis and risk of surgical site infection: results of a multilevel analysis from the INCISO Surveillance Network
Miliani et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;64:1307-1315.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Clinical and economic outcomes of pharmacist-managed antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical patients
Bond and Raehl
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007;64:1935-1942.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery, Part II: Antibiotic Choice
Engelman et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2007;83:1569-1576.
FULL TEXT  

Use of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Major Surgery: Baseline Results From the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project
Bratzler et al.
Arch Surg 2005;140:174-182.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Serum levels of prophylactic cefazolin during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery
Fellinger et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2002;74:1187-1190.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Does Intraoperative Blood Loss Affect Antibiotic Serum and Tissue Concentrations?
Swoboda et al.
Arch Surg 1996;131:1165-1172.
ABSTRACT