Cefminox versus Cefoxitin in Hysterectomy Prophylaxis
- 21 Downloads
This phase III, prospective, randomised, open, controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy of single-dose cefminox (2g) versus triple-dose cefoxitin (2g every 4 hours) as antibiotic prophylaxis in 112 women undergoing gynaecological surgery (vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy). Peak, intraoperative and trough serum concentrations were determined for both antibiotics, as well as their concentrations in myometrial tissue in a subset of patients from the study (22 patients from the cefminox group and 18 from the cefoxitin group). Clinical response was satisfactory in all women treated with cefminox (59 of 59) and in 52 of 53 patients treated with cefoxitin. Fever-related morbidity, hospital stay and adverse reactions were similar in both groups. Peak serum concentrations were 132.3 mg/L for cefminox and 82.2 mg/L for cefoxitin. 12-hour concentrations were 2.82 mg/L for cefminox and 2.17 mg/L for cefoxitin, and were higher than the respective minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for pathogens commonly associated with this pathology. Uterine tissue concentrations were 24.5 and 41.6 mg/L for cefminox and cefoxitin, respectively, and also clearly exceeded MIC. It was shown that the use of a single preoperative dose of cefminox was similar in efficacy to 3 doses of cefoxitin administered every 4 hours, and that the serum and tissue concentrations attained provide adequate antibiotic coverage. In view of the general trend towards the use of a single dose for prophylaxis, cefminox offers a new alternative for antibiotic prophylaxis in gynaecological surgery.
KeywordsMinimum Inhibitory Concentration Adis International Limited Antibiotic Prophylaxis Drug Invest Cefoxitin
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Richards WR. An evaluation of the local use sulfonamides drugs in certain gynecological operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1943; 46: 541–5Google Scholar
- 3.Goosember J, Emich JP, Schwarts RH. Prophylactic antibiotics in vaginal hysterectomies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969; 105: 503–6Google Scholar
- 6.Davi E, Ausin J, Escofet C, et al. Cefoxitin versus placebo in the prophylaxis of postoperative infection in abdominal hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1985; 237: 377Google Scholar
- 8.Gorbach SH. Anaerobic microflora of the cervix in healthy women. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1973; 117: 1053–75Google Scholar
- 9.Sweet RL, Gibbs RS. Infectious disease of the female genital tract. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1985Google Scholar
- 14.Mandell G, Douglas G, Bennet J. Manual de terapeútica anti-microbiana. Principios y práctica de las enfermedades infecciosas. Ed Panamericana 1992; 6: 88–9Google Scholar
- 15.Martínez Beltrán J, Loza E, Ródenas E, et al. Cefminox (MT Mi). Comparative activity with other cephamycins in bacteremic isolates. In: American Society for Microbiology, Program and Abstracts of the 30th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy [abstract 875]. Atlanta, GA; Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1990; 232Google Scholar
- 19.Shinkai S, Ogawa T, Fujita M, et al. The studies on assay method of MT-141 levels in biological fluids. Chemotherapy Tokyo 1984; 32 (5 Suppl.): 59–66Google Scholar
- 27.Nakawaga K, Koyama M, Miyazaki M, et al. Phase I clinical study of MT-141. Chemotherapy Tokyo 1984; 32 (5 Suppl.): 104–13Google Scholar
- 29.Mandell GL, Bennet JE, Dolin R. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. Churchill Livingstone Inc 1995. Part IV Sec C: 2749Google Scholar