- Visibility 136 Views
- Downloads 23 Downloads
- DOI 10.18231/j.jsas.2021.015
-
CrossMark
- Citation
Role of cefuroxime as antibiotic prophylaxis for general surgery: An expert opinion
- Author Details:
-
G Laxmana Sastry
-
Mrinmay Nandi
-
Mrityunjoy Mukhopadhyay
-
Ramesh Dumbre
-
Sanjoy Bhattacharjee
-
Gabriel Sukumar
-
Abhijit Trailokya *
-
Roshan Pawar
Introduction
A surgical site provides easy access to exogenous organisms increasing the risk of local or systemic infections and posing serious threat to patients’ lives. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are serious postoperative complications that significantly impacts morbidity and mortality rate.[1] According to the type of surgical procedures, rates of SSIs vary from 2.5% to 41.9% globally.[2], [3], [4] Approximately 2% of general surgical procedures result in patients contracting SSIs.[4] The SSIs rate for surgeries on ‘contaminated’ or ‘dirty’ sites is up to 10%, which is higher than the surgeries on sterile/clean sites (<2%).[5]
Globally, more than one-third of postoperative mortalities are related to SSIs. In India the SSI-related postoperative mortality rate is approximately 5%.[6], [7] Patients who develop SSIs are 60% more likely to spend more time in an intensive care unit and are 5 times more likely to be readmitted. The mortality rate in patients with SSIs is twice than that in non-infected patients.[1] Patients with SSIs have to bear additional treatment-related cost.[4]
Despite improvements in hospital practices, surgical instrument sterilization methods, surgical techniques and meticulous efforts in infection prevention strategies, SSIs still remain a major cause of hospital acquired infections (HAIs).[2] Therefore, use of perioperative antibiotics has become a routine practice in surgical procedures. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is defined as the administration of antibiotics prior to performing surgery to help minimize the risk of postoperative infections. Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of SSIs post-surgery; thus reduces morbidity, length of hospitalization, post-surgical antibiotic usage, and mortality due to sepsis.[8] Commonly recommended class of antibiotics for prophylaxis in general surgeries are penicillin, fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside and cephalosporins.[9] However, benefits of the prophylactic use of antibiotics for surgical procedures must be assessed in the light of risk for toxicity, allergic drug reactions, adverse drug interactions, emergence of drug-resistant bacteria, and super infections.[9] Selection of appropriate antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis is therefore vital for the prevention of SSIs. The goal when determining the appropriate antibiotic is to achieve a relatively narrow spectrum of activity while ensuring that most common organisms that cause SSIs are effectively targeted.[10] Major factors influencing the selection of antibiotic are: bactericidal activity, safety, ease of administration, pharmacokinetic profile, hospital antibiotic resistance patterns, and cost.[10]
Cephalosporins are globally considered to be the drugs of choice for surgical prophylaxis owing to good safety, potent antibacterial activity against the organisms that cause postoperative infection, penetration to critical / deeper tissues, and proven efficacy in clinical trials.[11], [12] There are 3 generations of cephalosporins available for surgical prophylaxis. However, the bactericidal activity against bacteria causing SSIs, the availability as step-down antibiotic for specific cases, and the ability to cross the blood−brain barrier vary among individual agents across the cephalosporin classes. Therefore, it is clinically important for physicians to select the appropriate cephalosporin antibiotic among the multiple variants currently available.[8] Since the introduction of 3rd generation cephalosporins in the mid-1980s, they have been more commonly used for surgical prophylaxis.[13] However, caution must be exercised in selecting an extended-spectrum antibiotic due to the risk of antibiotic resistance.
Materials and Methods
In the quest of widening therapy knowledge of cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis for general surgeries, with special emphasis on cefuroxime, an expert discussion was sought. This work was supported by Alkem Laboratories Ltd, India. The views expressed in this article are solely for an educational purpose and constitute the views of the authors exclusively. Medical practitioners are advised to make decisions based on their own clinical acumen.
The panel comprised of 10 surgeons each having a minimum experience of 15 years in the field of surgery. This article was formulated based on the experts’ discussions held on July 14, 2018; September 08, 2018; and November 17, 2018 at Pune, Hyderabad and Kolkata; and a review of the available evidence in the scientific literature. A literature search was performed on scientific databases such as PubMed, Google scholar, etc. Randomized clinical trials, narrative reviews, meta-analysis, retrospective and prospective studies were included in the literature search. Literature available in the English language was included. Experts reviewed the contents of the literature search and shared their suggestions, following which a manuscript draft was finalized. [Table 1] summarizes the literature search strategy used in this article.
|
Database for search |
|
Results |
Remarks |
|
PubMed, Google scholar and Google search |
Cefuroxime in surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, cephalosporin in surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site infection and cefuroxime, cefuroxime in gastrointestinal surgeries, cefuroxime in abdominal surgeries, cefuroxime in surgical prophylaxis of urological surgeries, second generation cephalosporins in surgical site infection |
Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies, guidelines, narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis |
Literature in English language related to clinical studies including cefuroxime as surgical antibiotic prophylaxis only are included in this article |
General Recommendations
Overall incidence in India
The SSIs rate has been reported to range from 1.7% to 8.3% in India in a study by International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC).[14] A study by Subramanian et al. at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences estimated SSIs rate of 24.8%.[15], [16] A similar study by Ganguly et al. in Aligarh reported an SSI rate of 38.8%.[15], [17] According to a prospective, multicenter cohort study, approximately 14% and 23% of patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery in the middle and low Human Development Index (HDI) countries had SSIs after surgery, respectively.[18] In India, urological surgeries have approximately a 5% chance of developing SSIs post-surgery.[1] In a systematic review of SSIs in low and middle Human Development Index countries including India for inguinal hernia repair surgeries, SSIs was estimated to be 4.1% in cases of open hernia repairs and 0.4% in laparoscopic hernia repairs.[19] Moreover, factors such as diabetes mellitus, prolonged preoperative hospital stay, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >3, emergency surgery, prolonged duration of surgery (more than 75th percentile of National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance NNIS duration cut point), and contaminated and dirty surgical sites were found to be associated with a higher rate of SSI.[20] The incidence of SSIs is higher in rural populations compared to urban populations.[21]
Common organisms causing SSIs
Among the pathogens causing SSIs, Staphylococcus aureus is a commonly cultured organism. Further, the incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus is rising globally.[22], [23], [24] Other organisms causing SSIs include gram-negative bacilli, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus spp., and Escherichia coli.[22], [25] Similarly in India, S. aureus is the most common organism isolated from SSIs followed by E. coli. The pattern of other organisms causing SSIs in India was also similar to that reported globally.[26], [27]
Time and dosage of antibiotic prophylaxis
Postoperative administration of prophylactic antibiotic is usually unnecessary and is harmful. If prophylaxis is continued for more than 24 hours, the risk of emergence of drug resistant bacteria increases. Therefore, a single-dose prophylaxis administered directly after the induction of anesthesia is sufficient to achieve therapeutic drug levels at the time of maximal endogenous or exogenous contamination risk, but not sufficient to allow selection of bacteria resistant to the drug.[28] Prophylactic antibiotics are in general not recommended for clean surgeries except in the following: 1) prolonged surgical procedures with a high risk of infection; 2) surgeries involving vital organs: heart, lungs, brain; 3) surgeries with foreign body implantation; 4) surgeries in patients with high risk of infection chances: diabetes, malnutrition, immune dysfunction.[29] An expert panel in India recommends administration of the first dose of antimicrobial agent approximately 60 minutes before surgical incision. The administration of fluoroquinolones and vancomycin should begin 120 minutes before surgical incision because of the prolonged infusion times required for these drugs. Cefuroxime is given 30 minutes to 60 minutes before surgery via the intravenous (i.v.) route, which can be followed by oral cefuroxime being administered postoperatively according to patient’s conditions. The recommended dose is 1.5 g cefuroxime i.v. before surgery.[30] If surgery is delayed or prolonged, a second dose of an antimicrobial drug with a shorter half-life is required. Therefore, a long-acting antimicrobial agent with good protein binding is preferred.[28]
|
1. |
SSIs are a predominant contributor to HAIs in India. There is an urgent need for optimal surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis to reduce SSIs in hospitals where general surgeries are practiced in India. |
|
2. |
The most common organisms causing SSIs are Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Enterococcus spp., Escherichia coli, and Proteus spp |
|
3. |
Injectable antibiotics used for prophylaxis are to be given 30 minutes to 60 minutes before surgery and prophylactic management may extend to postoperative day 1 or day 2, and in certain cases of high risk, patients may be discharged with prescription for oral antibiotics |
|
4. |
Selection of antibiotics depends on various factors, such as type of surgery − clean or contaminated; risk of contamination during the surgery by instrumentation; bowel preparation; spillage in the peritoneal cavity during the surgery; and patients’ characteristics − old age, smoking, immune compromised states, obesity, and uncontrolled diabetes. These factors also affect the overall outcomes of surgeries and post-surgical infections. |
|
5. |
Clean surgeries either require no antibiotics or only single-dose preoperatively, while contaminated surgeries, such as gall bladder surgery, require antibiotic prophylaxis preoperatively and postoperatively extended for 5 days. |
Introduction of Cefuroxime
Cefuroxime is a 2nd generation cephalosporin with high ß-lactamase stability.[31] It is effective in the management of infections caused by ß-lactamase-producing strains of Haemophilus influenzae, Branhamell catarrhalis, and S. aureus. It also shows activity against the common urinary tract pathogen Escherichia coli, with mean minimum inhibitory concentration for 90% of strains (MIC90) values of 4 mg/L and 8 mg/L.[32] It has an average oral bioavailability of 67.9%. Cefuroxime is detectable in therapeutic concentrations in plasma (66.8±18.9 mcg/mL), muscle (60.1±15.2 mcg/mL), and in adipose tissue (39.2±26.4 mcg/mL).[33] It distributes into interstitial fluid of subcutaneous tissue of morbidly obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery.
|
Author |
Study design and duration |
Treatment arms |
Results and conclusion |
|
Gastrointestinal surgery |
|||
|
Hares MM et al. 1981 [34] |
Prospective randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing gastric surgery; 2 weeks |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. before surgery, N=27; Cefuroxime 1.5 g intra-incisional after surgery, N=26; or Control, N=28 |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g iv: wound sepsis: 2(7%); abscess: 0(0%); septicemia: 0(0%) Intra-incisional cefuroxime 1.5 g: wound sepsis: 1(4%); abscess: 5(19%); septicemia: 1(4%) Control: wound sepsis: 10(35%); abscess: 8(29%); septicemia: 6(21%)Systemic Cefuroxime was superior (p<0.05) to intra-incisional administration. |
|
Mitchell NJ et al. 1980 [35] |
Randomized trial in patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery; 2 weeks |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v., N=52; Cefuroxime 1.5 g + metronidazole 0.5 g i.v., N=48; or Control, N=56 |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v.: sepsis: 5(9.6%) Cefuroxime 1.5 g + metronidazole 0.5 g i.v.: sepsis: 3(6.7%) Control: sepsis: 18(32.2%) Cefuroxime showed good efficacy when used alone or in combination with metronidazole to prevent SSIs in patients compared to control group (p<0.001). |
|
Croton RS et al. 1981 [36] |
Randomized trial in patients undergoing biliary surgery; 5 days |
Cefuroxime 750 mg intramuscular (i.m.) premedication and 8 hourly for 3 days, N=35; Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v.,N=40; or Control, N=39 |
Cefuroxime 750 mg i.m.: wound infection: 3(9%) Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v.: wound infection: 1 (2%) Control: wound infection: 11(28%) Cefuroxime showed higher efficacy via i.v. route compared to the i.m. route in patients. Significant reduction (p<0.05) in wound infection post-surgery was seen in patients with prophylactic cefuroxime i.v. compared to those in control group. |
|
Agrawal CS et al. 1999 [37] |
Prospective, randomized double-blind study in patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy; 14 days |
Cefuroxime 700 mg i.v. before surgery, N=45; or Control, N=30; or Ciprofloxacin 200 mg i.v. before surgery, N=45; or Ciprofloxacin 200 mg i.v after surgery, N=35 |
Cefuroxime 700 mg i.v.: wound infection: 3 Control: wound infection: 8 Ciprofloxacin i.v. before surgery: wound infection: 2Ciprofloxacin after surgery: wound infection: 9 Cefuroxime i.v. was more effective in preventing wound infections compared to ciprofloxacin i.v. |
|
Meijer WS et al. 1993 [38] |
Randomized controlled double-blind multi-center trial in patients undergoing biliary tract surgery; 6 weeks |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. one dose regimen before surgery, N=501; or Cefuroxime i.v. three dose regimen (1.5 g before and two doses of 0.75 g after surgery), N=503 |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. one dose regimen: wound infections: 6.6% minor wounds; 4.6% major wound Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. three dose regimen: wound infection: 6.2% minor wounds; 3.8% major wounds No significant difference was found between the two groups: p=0.78 for minor wounds; p=0.52 for major wounds. One dose of cefuroxime is as effective as a three-dose regimen in preventing major wound infection after biliary tract operation. The estimated difference in the major wound infection rate between the two groups was 0.8% (95%CI: -1.7 to 3.3%). |
|
Abdominal surgery |
|||
|
Barbour A et al. 2009 [39] |
A single centre, prospective, open-label study in patients undergoing abdominal surgeries; 6 hours post dosing |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. within 1 hour of incision |
Total peak concentration in plasma Cmax: 66.8±18.9 µg/mL Free level in the interstitial space fluid (ISF) of muscle Cmax: 60.1±15.2 µg/mL Free level in subcutaneous (s.c.) adipose tissue Cmax : 39.2±26.4 µg/mL Mean area under the free concentration–time curve ratios: muscle/total plasma:1.0±0.2; s.c. adipose tissue/total plasma: 0.6±0.5 Cefuroxime distributes into the ISF of muscle and s.c. adipose tissue and concentrations in the ISF of soft tissues following a single 1.5 g dose may be high enough to prevent SSI. |
|
Brummer THI et al. 2013 [40] |
Observational non-randomized 1-year prospective study in women undergoing hysterectomy; 6 hours post surgery |
Combination of cefuroxime and metronidazole, N=532; or Cefuroxime, N=405; or metronidazole, N=178 |
Risk reduction in total infection with cefuroxime alone: OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.22–0.39 Total infections in abdominal hysterectomy: Cefuroxime + metronidazole: 31(5.8%); cefuroxime: 28 (6.9%); metronidazole: 27 (15.2%) Total infections in laparoscopic hysterectomy: Cefuroxime + metronidazole: 50 (6.2%); cefuroxime: 37 (5.7%); metronidazole: 13 (14.4%) Total infections in vaginal hysterectomy: Cefuroxime + metronidazole: 35 (3.8%); cefuroxime: 38 (3.9%); metronidazole: 31 (12.4%) Metronidazole appeared to be ineffective, with no additional risk-reductive effect when combined with cefuroxime. Cefuroxime had higher efficacy to prevent SSI compared to metronidazole. |
|
Petignat C et al. 2008 [41] |
Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial in patients undergoing herniated disc surgery; 6 weeks |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g, N=613; or placebo, N=623 |
Cefuroxime: relative risk of SSI, 0.45, 95%CI, 0.20–1.03,p=0.07; SSI: 8(1.3%)Placebo: 18(2.9%) Cefuroxime significantly reduces the risk of SSI, notably spondylodiscitis, after surgery for herniated disc. |
|
Zhuo Y et al. 2016 [42] |
Retrospective observational study in patient undergoin elective inguinal hernia repair with mesh; 30 days |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g, N=33; or Placebo, N=222 |
Cefuroxime: SSI: 10 (2.8%), p=0.001 vs. placebo Placebo: 22(9.4%) Treatment with cefuroxime was effective for preventing SSI in patients undergoing hernia repair with mesh. |
|
Girish P et al. 2019 [43] |
Randomized control study in patient undergoing open prolene-mesh hernioplast; 3 months |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v. 30 min before incision and 1.5 g i.v. TDS for 2 days followed by 500 mg tab BD for 5 days, N=50; or Amoxicillin + clavulanate 1.2 g i.v., N=50 |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g i.v.: wound infection: 4% Amoxicillin + clavulanate 1.2 g i.v.: wound infection: 6% Cefuroxime alone was more effective in preventing wound infections compared to a combination of amoxicillin + clavulanate. |
|
Urological surgery |
|||
|
Qiang W et al. 2005 [44] |
Systematic review 28 trials, 10 placebo controlled and 18 no treatment controlled trials for antibiotic prophylaxis in men undergoing transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) |
Antibiotic prophylaxis; or placebo |
Prophylaxis antibiotic treatment: Reduction in incidence of bacteriuria, -0.17 (95% CI 0.20, -0.15); high fever, -0.11 (95%CI -0.15, -0.06), bacteremia, -0.02 (95%CI -0.04, 0.00) and additional antibiotic treatment, -0.20 (95%CI -0.28, -0.11) Better clinical outcome was achieved with antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing surgery. |
|
Seyrek et al 2012 [45] |
Randomized trial in patients undergoing nephrolithotomy |
Sulbactam-ampicillin, N=95; or Cefuroxime, N=96 |
Sulbactam-ampicillin: systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), 13 (43.3%) Cefuroxime: systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), 17 (56.7%), p=0.44 Cefuroxime was equally safe and efficacious as sulbactam-ampicillin to prevent SIRS in patients. |
|
Wikdahl AM et al. 1997[46] |
Prospective, randomized, study in patients commencing peritoneal dialysis; 10 days |
Cefuroxime 1.5 g, N=18; or Placebo: N=20 |
Cefuroxime: microbial growth in dialysis fluid, 0 (0%) Placebo: microbial growth in dialysis fluid, 6(30%), p=0.021 vs. cefuroxime Cefuroxime was effective in preventing microbial growth in dialysis fluid of patients. |
The half-life of cefuroxime is 1.5 hour for patients with normal renal function and 4.9 hours in patients with renal impairment.[32] The overall equilibrium distribution volume is approximately 0.22 L/kg and is not affected by renal insufficiency. Therefore, cefuroxime does not need dose adjustment in patients with renal insufficiency, although caution should be exercised in patients with severe uremia.[35]
Clinical evidence supporting the use of cefuroxime as surgical prophylactic agent for general surgeries
Even with the advent of advanced surgical procedures, SSIs remain a major postoperative complication. In this article, the evidence supporting use of cefuroxime is restricted to general surgery and limited to gastrointestinal, abdominal and urological surgeries ([Table 3]).
Gastrointestinal surgery
A randomized study evaluating antibiotic effect of cefuroxime in 150 patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery showed that a single preoperative dose of cefuroxime without addition of metronidazole can significantly reduce wound sepsis after surgeries involving the upper gastrointestinal tract.[35] However, the microbiological flora in the large bowel is predominantly anaerobic and in recto-colonic surgery metronidazole is undeniably more effective compared to cefuroxime.[35] In line with the above study, a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients undergoing gastric surgery compared single- dose systemic cefuroxime or intra-incisional cefuroxime versus a control group. In this study, approximately 7% of the patients who received systemic cefuroxime developed wound sepsis with no cases of abscess or septicemia compared to those with intra-incisional cefuroxime (4% wound sepsis, 19% abscess and 4% septicemia) and control (35% wound sepsis, 29% abscess and 21% septicemia).[34]
Another randomized study demonstrated that administration of 1.5 g cefuroxime i.v. was effective in reducing wound sepsis following biliary surgery.[36] Further, a randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter trial compared the prophylactic effect of a two-dose regimen of cefuroxime in patients undergoing biliary surgery who had a high risk of infection. No significant difference was found between one- and three-dose cefuroxime regimens in preventing postoperative wound infection. Overall, data showed that one dose of short-acting agent preoperatively is as effective as a three-dose regimen to prevent major wound infections after biliary surgery.[38]
A prospective, randomized, double-blind study was undertaken to compare the prophylactic efficacy of ciprofloxacin and cefuroxime in 155 patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy. In this study, patients were randomly assigned to prophylactic cefuroxime, no antibiotic, prophylactic ciprofloxacin, or postoperative ciprofloxacin. Patients who received ciprofloxacin or cefuroxime as prophylaxis had significantly reduced incidence of SSIs (4.44% and 6.67%, respectively, p<0.005 vs. 26.7% in the group who received no antibiotic) with no statistically significant difference found between ciprofloxacin vs. cefuroxime.[37] However, as expected, authors of this study advise caution on using antibiotics due to risk of antibiotic resistance.[37]
Abdominal surgery
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, RCT, the efficacy of a pre-operative single dose of cefuroxime (1.5 g) was assessed in 1234 patients for the prevention of SSIs after surgery for herniated disc over a 6-month period. Eight (1.3%) patients in the cefuroxime group and 18 patients (2.8%) in the placebo group developed SSIs (p=0.073). A diagnosis of spondylodiscitis or epidural abscess was made in 9 patients in the placebo group, but none in the cefuroxime group (p<0.01). There were no significant adverse events attributed to either cefuroxime or placebo.[41] Thus, a single preoperative dose of cefuroxime significantly reduced the risk of organ-space infection, most notably spondylodiscitis, after surgery for herniated disc. These results are consistent with a small pilot study of patients undergoing abdominal surgeries which showed that cefuroxime administered at 1.5 g yields a concentration in the interstitial space fluid (ISF) of soft tissues that is sufficient for prevention of infections against gram-positive organisms.[39] However, high frequency of dosing is required for preventing infections with gram-negative organisms.[39]
An observational, non-randomized 1-year prospective cohort study reported efficacy of cefuroxime for prophylaxis in patients undergoing hysterectomy (abdominal/vaginal/ laparoscopic hysterectomies).[40] Further, a retrospective observational study conducted in China in patients (n=605) undergoing elective inguinal hernia repair with mesh showed that SSI rates were significantly lower in patients receiving a single i.v. injection of cefuroxime (1.5 g) within 2 hours prior to surgery versus those without preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (2.8% vs. 9.4%; p<0.001).[42]
In a retrospective study in India, women (n=60) who underwent hysterectomy (abdominal/vaginal/laparoscopic hysterectomies), a clean-contaminated surgery, cefuroxime was found to be more effective for prophylaxis against SSIs compared to metronidazole.[47] Efficacy of cefuroxime to prevent wound infections was also compared with amoxicillin + clavulanate. An RCT compared the clinical efficacy of cefuroxime versus amoxicillin + clavulanate for prevention of wound infections in patients undergoing open prolene−rolenhernioplasty for inguinal hernia.[43] Patients received cefuroxime i.v. or amoxicillin + clavulanate i.v. prior to surgery, and continued for 2 days, followed by oral tablets for 5 days post-surgery. There was nonsignificant difference in overall wound infection rates between cefuroxime (4%) and amoxicillin + clavulanate group (6%), and side-effects in the cefuroxime group were less (4%). Therefore, cefuroxime was reported to be safe and effective for use as surgical prophylaxis in patients undergoing clean elective operations, such as open inguinal prolene mesh hernioplasty.[43]
Urological surgery
Prophylactic antibacterial therapy is recommended for urethral catheterization, endoscopy of the urinary tract, prostate biopsy, transurethral surgery, and selected open urologic procedures.[48] Most often, broad-spectrum cephalosporins and penicillins are used in these surgeries.[48] A systematic review including 28 trials comprising 4694 patients showed that prophylactic antibiotics significantly reduced the incidence of bacteriuria post-transurethral resection of prostate (RR: -0.17 [95% CI -0.20, -0.15]), high fever (-0.11 [-0.15, -0.06]), bacteremia (-0.02 [-0.04, 0.00]) and additional antibiotic treatment (-0.20 [-0.28, -0.11]).[44]
A RCT compared sulbactam-ampicillin and cefuroxime for prophylaxis of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and assessing optimal regimen for antibiotic maintenance to prevent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).[45] Incidence of SIRS was similar in sulbactum-ampicillin and cefuroxime groups (43.3% vs. 56.7%; p=0.44).[45] Further, a prospective randomized study in patients starting peritoneal dialysis showed no microbial growth in dialysis fluid during the postoperative period in patients who received prophylactic treatment of 1.5 g i.v. pre- and 250 mg i.p. perioperative cefuroxime compared to the control (no prophylactic antibiotic) group (30%, p=0.021).[46] In addition, the results suggest that cefuroxime prophylaxis may reduce the risk of microbial growth and peritonitis after insertion of Tenchkhoff catheter.[46]
|
1. |
Among the antibiotics indicated for prophylaxis use in surgeries, cephalosporins are a preferred choice. However, preference for which generation of cephalosporin is used varies among practicing surgeons. |
|
2. |
Cefuroxime is given preoperatively as a prophylactic antibiotic in surgery units for minimal access/laparoscopic surgeries at a standard dose of 1.5 g. [49] |
|
3. |
Cefuroxime, a 2nd generation cephalosporin, is widely used for surgical prophylaxis in general surgeries as it is active against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria and is the most stable ß-lactum antibiotic with an acceptable pharmacokinetic profile. |
|
4. |
Cefuroxime in 1.5 g dose is indicated for open surgeries specific to bowel surgery. |
|
5. |
Experts opined that prophylaxis with systemic cefuroxime is more effective compared to intra-incisional or oral cefuroxime. However, for prolonged surgeries intra-operative re-dosing of cefuroxime can provide better results for preventing postoperative infections. |
|
6. |
For the cases of upper gastrointestinal surgeries, antibiotic prophylaxis with cefuroxime is effective. In addition, in cases of transrectal core biopsy, cefuroxime is equally as effective as piperacillin/tazobactum |
|
7. |
In hernia repair surgery, cefuroxime appears to be an effective prophylactic antibiotic compared to the fixed-dose combination of amoxicillin and clavulanate. |
|
8. |
For the elective transuretheral resection and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in patients with sterile urine prior to surgery, evidence shows that antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated. However, it was reported in a systematic review that prophylaxis antibiotics significantly reduce the incidence of infection post-transurethral resection of prostate. [46] |
|
9. |
Experts also opined that for percutaneous nephrolithotomy, cefuroxime in a single-dose prophylaxis could be enough to prevent SSI with similar efficacy as that of sulbactam-ampicillin |
|
10. |
Cefuroxime with quinolones is the preferred alternative of amoxyclav (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid) in uncomplicated gall bladder surgeries. |
|
11. |
Combination of cephalosporins/penicillin group with β-lactamase inhibitor can be used against resistant organisms. |
|
12. |
Cefuroxime is the only cephalosporin available for long duration sequential prophylaxis in patients with fewer complications. |
Sequential therapy
Sequential therapy or de-escalation therapy is antibacterial treatment which is initiated as i.v. therapy (~2 to 3 days) and subsequently changed to oral therapy (~5 to 10 days).[31], [50] A large multicenter study has investigated the efficacy of sequential therapy using cefuroxime. A retrospective single-center, cost-analysis study showed that intravenous cefuroxime/oral cefuroxime axetil sequential therapy was less expensive compared to a full parenteral course of cefuroxime.[51] Sequential regimen with i.v. cefuroxime followed by oral cefuroxime axetil is effective and well tolerated as switch therapy and has the potential to reduce overall healthcare costs and improve patient satisfaction. [31], [50]
|
Type of gastrointestinal surgery |
Recommended cephalosporin |
|
|
The American Society of Health System Pharmacist [52] |
||
|
Gastroduodenal |
Bariatric, pancreaticoduodenectomy |
AOC: Cefazolin |
|
AA: Clindamycin or vancomycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Antireflux, highly selective vagotomy for high-risk patients |
AOC: Cefazolin |
|
|
AA: Clindamycin or vancomycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Biliary tract |
Open surgical procedure |
AOC: Cefazolin, cefoxitin, cefotetan, ceftriaxone, ampicillin–sulbactam |
|
AA: Clindamycin or vancomycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone; metronidazole + aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Laparoscopic procedure |
Elective, high-risk surgical procedure |
AOC: Cefazolin, cefoxitin, cefotetan, ceftriaxone, ampicillin–sulbactam |
|
AA: Clindamycin or vancomycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone; metronidazole + aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Colorectal surgery |
AOC: Cefazolin + metronidazole, cefoxitin, cefotetan, ampicillin–sulbactam, ceftriaxone + metronidazole, ertapenem |
|
|
AA: Clindamycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone, metronidazole + aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Essential Medicine Lists Guidance on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis [53] |
||
|
Upper gastrointestinal tract surgery |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) |
|
|
Colorectal surgery |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) and metronidazole |
|
|
Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List for South Africa [54] |
||
|
Upper gastrointestinal tract surgery |
Cefazolin |
|
|
Biliary surgery |
Cefazolin and metronidazole |
|
|
Colorectal and appendix surgery |
Cefazolin and metronidazole |
|
Type of surgery |
Recommended cephalosporin |
|
|
The American Society of Health System Pharmacist (ASHP guideline) [52] |
||
|
Vaginal or abdominal appendix |
Hysterectomy |
AOC: Cefazolin, cefotetan, cefoxitin, ampicillin–sulbactam |
|
AA: Clindamycin or vancomycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone; metronidazole + aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis |
AOC: Cefoxitin, cefotetan, cefazolin + metronidazole |
|
|
AA: Clindamycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone; metronidazole + aminoglycoside or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Small intestine |
Small intestine, non-obstructed |
AOC: Cefazolin |
|
AA: Clindamycin + aminoglycoside or aztreonam or fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Hernia repair |
Hernioplasty and herniorrhaphy |
AOC: Cefazolin |
|
AA: Clindamycin, vancomycin |
||
|
The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection[55] |
||
|
Colorectal surgery |
Low-risk patients |
Cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, cefoperazone–sulbactam |
|
High-risk patients |
Ceftazidime, cefepime, ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam |
|
|
Essential Medicine Lists Guidance on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis[53] |
||
|
Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery + cholecystectomy |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) |
|
|
Hernia surgery |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) |
|
|
Appendectomy |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) and metronidazole |
|
Type of surgery |
Recommended cephalosporin |
|
|
The American Society of Health System Pharmacist (ASHP guideline) [52] |
||
|
Lower tract instrumentation with risk factors for infection |
Transrectal prostate biopsy |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), cefazolin |
|
AA: Aminoglycoside with or without clindamycin |
||
|
Urologic surgery |
Clean without entry into urinary tract |
AOC: Cefazolin (the addition of a single dose of an aminoglycoside may be recommended for placement of prosthetic material [e.g., penile prosthesis]) |
|
AA: Clindamycin, vancomycin |
||
|
Urologic surgery |
Involving implanted prosthesis |
AOC: Cefazolin ± aminoglycoside, cefazolin ± aztreonam, ampicillin–sulbactam |
|
AA: Clindamycin ± aminoglycoside or aztreonam, vancomycin ± aminoglycoside or aztreonam |
||
|
Urologic surgery |
Clean with entry into urinary tract |
AOC: Cefazolin (addition of a single dose of an aminoglycoside may be recommended for placement of prosthetic material [e.g., penile prosthesis]) |
|
AA: Fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside with or without clindamycin |
||
|
Urologic surgery |
Clean-contaminated |
AOC: Cefazolin + metronidazole, cefoxitin |
|
AA: Fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside + metronidazole or clindamycin |
||
|
American Urological Association [56] |
||
|
Lower urinary tract instrumentation |
Removal of external urinary catheter |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, TMP-SMX (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) |
|
AA: Aminoglycoside (aztreonam) ± ampicillin, 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, amoxacillin/clavulanate Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Cystography, urodynamic study, or simple cystourethroscopy or with manipulation |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, TMP-SMX |
|
|
AA: Aminoglycoside (aztreonam) ± ampicillin, 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, amoxacillin/clavulanate Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Prostate brachytherapy or cryotherapy |
AOC: 1st generation cephalosporin |
|
|
AA: Clindamycin |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Transrectal prostate biopsy |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, 1st/2nd/3rd generation cephalosporin |
|
|
AA: TMP-SMX, aminoglycoside (aztreonam) |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Upper urinary tract instrumentation |
Shock-wave lithotripsy |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, TMP-SMX |
|
AA: Aminoglycoside (aztreonam) ± ampicillin, 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, amoxacillin/clavulanate |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Percutaneous renal surgery |
AOC: 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, aminoglycoside (aztreonam) + metronidazole or clindamycin |
|
|
AA: Ampicillin/sulbactam, fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Ureteroscopy |
AOC: Fluoroquinolone, TMP-SMX |
|
|
AA: Aminoglycoside (aztreonam) ± ampicillin, 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, amoxacillin/clavulanate |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Open or laparoscopic surgery |
Vaginal surgery (includes urethral sling procedures) |
AOC: 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, aminoglycoside (aztreonam) + metronidazole or clindamycin |
|
AA: Ampicillin/sulbactam, fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Without entering urinary tract |
AOC: 1st generation cephalosporin |
|
|
AA: Clindamycin |
||
|
Duration of therapy: single dose |
||
|
Involving entry into urinary tract |
AOC: 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin, aminoglycoside (aztreonam) + metronidazole or clindamycin |
|
|
AA: Ampicillin/sulbactam, fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Involving intestine |
AOC: 2nd/3rd generation cephalosporin, aminoglycoside (aztreonam) + metronidazole or clindamycin |
|
|
AA: Ampicillin/sulbactam, ticarcillin/clavulanate, pipercillin/tazobactam, fluoroquinolone |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Involving implanted prosthesis |
AOC: Aminoglycoside (aztreonam) + 1st/2nd generation cephalosporin or vancomycin |
|
|
AA: Ampicillin/sulbactam, ticarcillin/clavulanate, pipercillin/tazobactam |
||
|
Duration of therapy: ≤24 hour |
||
|
Essential Medicine Lists Guidance on surgical antibiotic prophylaxis [53] |
||
|
Prostate surgery |
Laparoscopic procedure |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) |
|
Nephrectomy |
Laparotomy nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy |
Cefazolin (or cefuroxime) |
|
Standard Treatment Guidelines and Essential Medicines List for South Africa [54] |
||
|
Nephro-urological surgery |
Nephro-urological procedure |
Cefazolin |
|
Type of surgery |
Type of common organisms |
Recommendations |
|
Class I/clean surgery |
Gram-positive cocci (S. aureus, coagulase negative Staphylococci [CoNS]) |
None or single perioperative ideal dose of 2 g cefuroxime/cephalexin |
|
Class II/clean-contaminated surgery |
Gram-negative bacilli anaerobes S. aureus |
1L AOC: Cefazolin or ampicillin sulbactam or ceftriaxone (in patients with acute cholecystitis or acute biliary tract infections) AA: If mixture of gram positive and gram negative is suspected: ceftriaxone only if not extended spectrum betalactamase (ESBL) In ß-lactum allergy: Clindamycin or vancomycin with cefazolin, aztreonam, gentamicin, or single-dose fluoroquinolone |
|
Class III/contaminated surgery |
Gram-negative bacilli anaerobes |
1L: Cefazolin + metronidazole 2L: Metronidazole + aminoglycoside/fluoroquinolone |
|
Class IV/dirty-infected surgery |
Gram-negative bacilli anaerobes may be mixed with gram-positive bacteria |
1L: Cefazolin + metronidazole Treatment for infected surgical wounds: Ertapenem + clindamycin + aminoglycoside/aztreonam, or fluoroquinolone + metronidazole + aminoglycoside/ fluoroquinolone |
|
Surgery of intestinal or genitourinary tract |
Gram-negative bacilli anaerobes |
1L: Piperacillin-tazobactam i.v. 3.375 g every 6 h or 4.5 g every 8 h or imipenem-cilastatin i.v. 500 mg every 6 h 2L (as in case of non-ESBL organisms): Ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 h + metronidazole i.v. 500 mg every 8 h |
Indian evidence
In a recent study by Sharma AP et al. 2019, single-dose intravenous cefuroxime was administered to patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated elective major urological surgeries. [58] This study showed that a protocol involving single-dose i.v. cefuroxime was effective in 89.5% (248/277) of patients. [58] The failure rate (41.7%) (Defined as patients with postoperative complications) was higher for the contaminated procedures (OR –6.43; 95% CI 1.51–27.2; p<0.001). Postoperative sepsis with or without shock (16/29, 55.2%) was the most common cause of protocol failure. Fourteen out of the 16 patients who developed sepsis had undergone endourological surgeries. It was suggested that perioperative prophylaxis with cefuroxime is effective for urological surgeries. Similar protocols should be developed and validated at major healthcare centers which can limit the unnecessary use of antibiotics and prevent the emergence of antibiotic resistance. [58] The study concluded that 2nd generation cephalosporins, as cefuroxime, could be a safe and effective choice to prevent SSIs in India. [58] Moreover, data from other studies in India show that cephalosporins, mainly the 2nd and 3rd generation, are commonly used as prophylaxis for general surgeries. [59], [60], [49]
Place of Cephalosporin in Clinical Practice Guidelines
Low incidence of side-effects and better clinical outcomes of cephalosporin make them widely used antibiotics for prophylaxis in general surgeries. The American Society of Health System Pharmacist (ASHP) and Standard Treatment Guidelines of South Africa recommend cephalosporin, alone or in combination with other antibiotics, to prevent SSIs after general surgeries. Cephalosporin is also recommended as an alternative in allergic conditions seen with other antibiotics. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recommends cephalosporin as a first-line treatment in combination with metronidazole during class III and IV surgeries to prevent SSI. The current place of cephalosporin antibiotics in the clinical practice guidelines is summarized in [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8].
Conclusion
Cefuroxime is an effective 2nd generation cephalosporin with a good tolerability and safety profile and is therefore widely recommended by various guidelines as a prophylactic antibiotic for patients undergoing general surgeries. These recommendations are based on clinical and scientific evidence supporting effectiveness of cefuroxime in prevention of postoperative infection across several general surgeries. Cefuroxime has a broad-spectrum antibiotic activity, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics profile supporting its use in sequential therapy. It can be administered alone or in combination with other classes of antibiotics based on clinical characteristics of individual patients undergoing general surgeries to reduce the risk of postoperative SSIs, abscess, septicemia, and microbial growth. To conclude, cefuroxime, a 2nd generation cephalosporin is an effective and low-cost alternative in surgical prophylaxis for general surgeries, particularly for patients who need sequential antibiotic therapy in India.
Source of Funding
This expert opinion initiative has been supported by Alkem Laboratories Limited, Mumbai, India.
Conflict of Interest
None.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
Medical writing and editorial support was provided by CBCC Global Research, Ahmedabad which was paid for by Alkem Laboratories Limited, Mumbai, India.
References
- A Kumar, A Rai. Prevalence of surgical site infection in general surgery in a tertiary care centre in India. Int Surg J 2017. [Google Scholar]
- E Halawi, T Assefa, S Hussen. Pattern of antibiotics use, incidence and predictors of surgical site infections in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital. BMC Res Notes 2018. [Google Scholar]
- RLR Carvalho, CC Campos, LMC Franco, AM Rocha, FF Ercole. Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection in general surgeries. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]
- G DeLissovoy, K Fraeman, V Hutchins, D Murphy, D Song, BB Vaughn. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control 2009. [Google Scholar]
- . National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). Surgical Site Infection: Prevention and Treatment of Surgical Site Infection. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- SS Awad. Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and post-operative surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2012. [Google Scholar]
- A Pathak, EA Saliba, S Sharma, VK Mahadik, H Shah, CS Lundborg. Incidence and factors associated with surgical site infections in a teaching hospital in Ujjain, India. Am J Infect Control 2014. [Google Scholar]
- DW Bratzler, EP Dellinger, KM Olsen, TM Perl, PG Auwaerter, MK Bolon. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013. [Google Scholar]
- I Kriaras, A Michalopoulos, M Turina, S Geroulanos. Evolution of antimicrobial prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000. [Google Scholar]
- MF Crader, M Varacallo. Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis. 2020 Mar 30. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020. . [Google Scholar]
- SL Gorbach. The role of cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989. [Google Scholar]
- RK Basant, R Kumar, VK Pandey, A Saxena, V Singh, S Madeshiyaa. A comparative study of single dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis versus five-day conventional postoperative antibiotic therapy in patient undergoing elective surgical procedure. Int Surg J 2019. [Google Scholar]
- RB Jesus, DL Paterson. A change in the epidemiology of infections due to extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing organisms. Clin Infect Dis 2006. [Google Scholar]
- S Singh, M Chakravarthy, VD Rosenthal, SN Myatra, A Dwivedy, I Bagasrawala. Surgical site infection rates in six cities of India: findings of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC). Int Health 2014. [Google Scholar]
- A Arora, P Bharadwaj, H Chaturvedi, P Chowbey, S Gupta, D Leaper. A review of prevention of surgical site infections in Indian hospitals based on global guidelines for the prevention of surgical site infection. J Patient Saf Infect Control 2016. [Google Scholar]
- KA Subramanian, A Shriniwas, RA Bhujwala. Postoperative wound infection. Indian J Surg 1973. [Google Scholar]
- P Ganguly, M Y Khan, A Malik. Nosocomial infections and hospital procedures. Indian J Community Med 2000. [Google Scholar]
- . Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2018. [Google Scholar]
- LZ Cai, D Foster, WC Kethman, TG Weiser, JD Forrester. Surgical Site Infections after Inguinal Hernia Repairs Performed in Low and Middle Human Development Index Countries: A Systematic Review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2018. [Google Scholar]
- KH Shah, SP Singh, J Rathod. Surgical site infections: incidence, bacteriological profiles and risk factors in a tertiary care teaching hospital, western India. Int J Med Sci Public Health 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mekhla, FR Borle. Determinants of superficial surgical site infections in abdominal surgeries at a Rural Teaching Hospital in Central India: A prospective study. J Family Med Prim Care 2019. [Google Scholar]
- DJ Anderson, KS Kaye. Staphylococcal surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009. [Google Scholar]
- CD Owens, K Stoessel. Surgical site infections: epidemiology, microbiology and prevention. J Hosp Infect 2008. [Google Scholar]
- KS Kaye, DJ Anderson, Y Choi, K Link, P Thacker, DJ Sexton. The deadly toll of invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in community hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 2008. [Google Scholar]
- E Korol, K Johnston, N Waser, F Sifakis, HS Jafri, M Lo. A systematic review of risk factors associated with surgical site infections among surgical patients. PLoS One 2013. [Google Scholar]
- O Sasikumari, P Sreekumary, B Jayalekha. The bacterial profile of surgical site infection occurring within one week after surgery in a tertiary care centre. J Acad Clin Microbiol 2016. [Google Scholar]
- AS Mundhada, S Tenpe. A study of organisms causing surgical site infections and their antimicrobial susceptibility in a tertiary care government hospital. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2015. [Google Scholar]
- S Geroulanos, K Marathias, J Kriaras, B Kadas. Cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis. J Chemother 2001. [Google Scholar]
- X Yang, X Xiao, L Wang, Y Ao, Y Song, H Wang. Application of antimicrobial drugs in perioperative surgical incision. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2018. [Google Scholar]
- TA Tartaglione, RE Polk. Review of the new second-generation cephalosporins: cefonicid, ceforanide, and cefuroxime. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1985. [Google Scholar]
- LJ Scott, D Ormrod, KL Goa. Cefuroxime axetil: an updated review of its use in the management of bacterial infections. Drugs 2001. [Google Scholar]
- VR Badhwar, S Ganapathy, PP Prabhudesai, NK Tulara, AY Varaiya, D Vyas. A Relook of Cefuroxime in Community Infections: An Option Still Beneficial. J Assoc Physicians India 2016. [Google Scholar]
- RW Bundtzen, RD Toothaker, OS Nielson, PO Madsen, PG Welling, WA Craig. Pharmacokinetics of cefuroxime in normal and impaired renal function: comparison of high-pressure liquid chromatography and microbiological assays. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981. [Google Scholar]
- AM Wikdahl, U Engman, BG Stegmayr, JG Sorenssen. One-dose cefuroxime i.v. and i.p. reduces microbial growth in PD patients after catheter insertion. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997. [Google Scholar]
- NJ Mitchell, DS Evans, D Pollock. Pre-operation single-dose cefuroxime antimicrobial prophylaxis with and without metronidazole in elective gastrointestinal surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1980. [Google Scholar]
- RS Croton, D Sykes, J Treanor, P Wake, HT Green, MA Knowles. The evaluation of cefuroxime in the prevention of postoperative infection. Postgrad Med J 1981. [Google Scholar]
- CS Agrawal, R Sehgal, RK Singh, AK Gupta. Antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cholecystectomy: a randomized, double blinded study comparing ciprofloxacin and cefuroxime. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1999. [Google Scholar]
- WS Meijer, PI Schmitz. Prophylactic use of cefuroxime in biliary tract surgery: randomized controlled trial of single versus multiple dose in high-risk patients. Galant Trial Study Group. Br J Surg 1993. [Google Scholar]
- A Barbour, S Schmidt, W R Rout, K Ben-David, O Burkhardt, H Derendorf. Soft tissue penetration of cefuroxime determined by clinical microdialysis in morbidly obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2009. [Google Scholar]
- TH Brummer, AM Heikkinen, J Jalkanen, J Fraser, J Makinen, E Tomas. Antibiotic prophylaxis for hysterectomy, a prospective cohort study: cefuroxime, metronidazole, or both?. Bjog 2013. [Google Scholar]
- MM Hares, MA Hegarty, J Warlow, D Malins, D Youngs, S Bentley. A controlled trial to compare systemic and intra-incisional cefuroxime prophylaxis in high risk gastric surgery. Br J Surg 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Y Zhuo, Q Zhang, D Tang, D Cai. The effectiveness of i.v. cefuroxime prophylaxis of surgical site infection after elective inguinal hernia repair with mesh: A retrospective observational study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2016. [Google Scholar]
- G Pandey. Comparison between cefuroxime and amoxicillin+ clavulanate in patients of inguinal hernia undergoing mesh hernioplasty, a randomised control study. Int J Surg 2019. [Google Scholar]
- W Qiang, W Jianchen, R Macdonald, M Monga, TJ Wilt. Antibiotic prophylaxis for transurethral prostatic resection in men with preoperative urine containing less than 100,000 bacteria per ml: a systematic review. J Urol 2005. [Google Scholar]
- M Seyrek, M Binbay, E Yuruk, T Akman, R Aslan, O Yazici. Perioperative prophylaxis for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: randomized study concerning the drug and dosage. J Endourol 2012. [Google Scholar]
- C Petignat, P Francioli, S Harbarth, L Regli, F Porchet, A Reverdin. Cefuroxime prophylaxis is effective in noninstrumented spine surgery: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Spine 1976. [Google Scholar]
- T Fatima, R Roya, MA Gautam, AA Vikram, F Saman, CG Divya. The outcome of cefuroxime versus metronidazole as surgical prophylaxis for hysterectomy - a retrospective study in a south Indian setup. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2017. [Google Scholar]
- M Amin. Antibacterial prophylaxis in urology: a review. Am J Med 1992. [Google Scholar]
- P Sharma, D Goel. Utilization assessment of antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical patients at tertiary care teaching hospital. Saudi J Health Sci 2018. [Google Scholar]
- CM Perry, RN Brogden. Cefuroxime axetil. A review of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetic properties and therapeutic efficacy. Drugs 1996. [Google Scholar]
- SC Malfair, L Frighetto, DM Nickoloff, SM Martinusen, PJ Jewesson. Evaluation of the Use of Cefuroxime and Cefuroxime Axetil in an Intravenous-Oral Stepdown Program. Ann Pharmacother 1996. [Google Scholar]
- . Application for the 21st Model List of Essential Medicines: Antibiotics of choice for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. 2019. [Google Scholar]
- . Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery. (2019). . [Google Scholar]
- . Standard Treatment Guidelines And Essential Medicines List For South Africa. 2017. [Google Scholar]
- JE Mazuski, JM Tessier, AK May, RG Sawyer, EP Nadler, MR Rosengart. The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2017. [Google Scholar]
- JS Wolf, CJ Bennett, RR Dmochowski, BK Hollenbeck, MS Pearle, AJ Schaeffer. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol 2008. [Google Scholar]
- . Treatment Guidelines for Antimicrobial Use in Common Syndromes ICMR. 2017. [Google Scholar]
- AP Sharma, SK Devana, GS Bora, RS Mavuduru, B Mohan, N Taneja. Protocol-based perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis in urologic surgeries: Feasibility and lessons learned. Indian J Urol 2019. [Google Scholar]
- SG Kamath, H Varun, DU Rani, S Aithal, UN Patil. Prescribing patterns of antimicrobials in surgical departments in a tertiary care hospital in south India. Orthopaedics 2014. [Google Scholar]
- S Bal, LG Reddy, R Parshad, R Guleria, L Kashyap. Feasibility and safety of day care laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a developing country. Postgrad Med J 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Introduction
- Materials and Methods
- General Recommendations
- Introduction of Cefuroxime
- Clinical evidence supporting the use of cefuroxime as surgical prophylactic agent for general surgeries
- Gastrointestinal surgery
- Abdominal surgery
- Urological surgery
- Sequential therapy
- Indian evidence
- Place of Cephalosporin in Clinical Practice Guidelines
- Conclusion
- Source of Funding
- Conflict of Interest
- Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance