Drug Investigation

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 63–68 | Cite as

A Comparative Study of Ceftizoxime and Cefazolin Prophylaxis in Upper Digestive Tract and Biliary Surgery

A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial
  • M. Hashizume
  • K. Sugimachi
  • The Cooperative Study Group
Original Research Article


In a prospective randomised multicentre study, the effects of cefazolin sodium and ceftizoxime on the prevention of postoperative infection were investigated in 117 patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Each drug was administered intravenously twice daily (cefazolin 4 g/day or ceftizoxime 2 g/day) for 5 days postoperatively. No statistically significant difference was noted in the incidence of infection between the 2 treated groups (cefazolin 11.5% and ceftizoxime 8.9%), and there were no serious adverse events in either group. The fever index was significantly higher in patients with postoperative infections when compared with noninfected individuals in both treatment groups, but showed no correlation with age, time of surgery or blood loss. In terms of cost, prophylactic treatment with cefazolin is recommended for such patients with a low level of anaerobic contamination.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Burke JF. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 50: 161–168, 1961PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Cruse PJE, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Archives of Surgery 107: 206–210, 1973PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hall JC, Hall JL, Christiansen K. A comparison of the roles of cefamandole and ceftriaxone in abdominal surgery. Archives of Surgery 126: 512–516, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. New England Journal of Medicine 315: 1129–1138, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kaiser AB, Petracek MR, Lea JW IV, et al. Efficacy of cefazolin, cefamandole, and gentamicin as prophylactic agents in cardiac surgery. Annals of Surgery 206: 791–797, 1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kernodle DS, Classen DC, Burke JP, Kaiser AB. Failure of cephalosporins to prevent Staphylococcus aureus surgical wound infections. Journal of the American Medical Association 263: 961–966, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. National Research Council, Ad Hoc Committee on trauma, Division of Medical Sciences. Organization, methods and physical factors. Annals of Surgery 160 (Suppl.): 19–31, 1964Google Scholar
  8. Regamy C, Libke RD, Engelking ER, Clarke JT, Kirby WMM. Inactivation of cefazolin, cefaloridine, and cephalothin by methicillin-sensitive and methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Infectious Diseases 13: 291–294, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rotman N, Hay JM, Lacaine F. Prophylactic antibiotherapy in abdominal surgery. Archives of Surgery 124: 323–327, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sakai K, Kinoshita H, Fujimoto M, Ueda T. Studies on the evaluation of the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in postoperative surgical infections. Chemotherapy 33: 1086–1094, 1985Google Scholar
  11. Slama TG, Sklar SJ, Misinski J, Fess SW. Randomized comparison of cefamandole, cefazolin, cefuroxime prophylaxis in open heart surgery. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 29: 744–747, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stone HH, Haney BB, Kolb LD, et al. Prophylactic and preventive antibiotic therapy: timing, duration and economics. Annals of Surgery 189: 691–699, 1979PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hashizume
    • 1
  • K. Sugimachi
    • 1
  • The Cooperative Study Group
  1. 1.Department of Surgery II, Faculty of MedicineKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations