Objective: Cefazolin (1-2 g bolus at induction possibly repeated after cardiopulmonary bypass) remains the standard for antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. Data indicate, however, that it is underdosed with this dosing schedule. A prospective, randomized study comparing intermittent versus loading dose plus continuous infusion for the same total dose of cefazolin was performed to assess which modality is pharmacokinetically and pharmacodynamically advantageous. Methods: Patients received 2 g cefazolin as a starting dose and then were divided into an intermittent group (receiving another 1 g at 3, 9, and 15 hours after the first dose) and a continuous group (continuous infusion started after the first dose, providing 1 g every 6 hours for 18 hours). Cefazolin levels were measured in blood and atria. Results: Mean total and calculated free trough concentrations in blood varied greatly among patients in the intermittent group and were lower than those in the continuous group (P < .05 at 15, 18 and 24 hours). For 9 of 10 (90%) patients in the continuous infusion group, the targeted pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic goal (time above minimal inhibitory concentration >90%) was achieved, whereas the goal was met for only 3 of 10 (30%) in the intermittent group (P < .05). The mean atrial tissue concentration was also higher with continuous infusion (P < .05). Conclusions: Administration of cefazolin as bolus plus continuous infusion has pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages relative to intermittent administration. It provides more stable serum levels, lower interpatient variability, and higher myocardial tissue penetration. Copyright © 2010 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.
Cefazolin bolus and continuous administration for elective cardiac surgery: Improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters
Chelazzi C.;
2010-01-01
Abstract
Objective: Cefazolin (1-2 g bolus at induction possibly repeated after cardiopulmonary bypass) remains the standard for antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. Data indicate, however, that it is underdosed with this dosing schedule. A prospective, randomized study comparing intermittent versus loading dose plus continuous infusion for the same total dose of cefazolin was performed to assess which modality is pharmacokinetically and pharmacodynamically advantageous. Methods: Patients received 2 g cefazolin as a starting dose and then were divided into an intermittent group (receiving another 1 g at 3, 9, and 15 hours after the first dose) and a continuous group (continuous infusion started after the first dose, providing 1 g every 6 hours for 18 hours). Cefazolin levels were measured in blood and atria. Results: Mean total and calculated free trough concentrations in blood varied greatly among patients in the intermittent group and were lower than those in the continuous group (P < .05 at 15, 18 and 24 hours). For 9 of 10 (90%) patients in the continuous infusion group, the targeted pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic goal (time above minimal inhibitory concentration >90%) was achieved, whereas the goal was met for only 3 of 10 (30%) in the intermittent group (P < .05). The mean atrial tissue concentration was also higher with continuous infusion (P < .05). Conclusions: Administration of cefazolin as bolus plus continuous infusion has pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic advantages relative to intermittent administration. It provides more stable serum levels, lower interpatient variability, and higher myocardial tissue penetration. Copyright © 2010 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
