Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T18:13:38.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prophylactic Antibiotic Therapy with Cefamandole and Tobramycin for Patients Undergoing Renal Transplantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2016

Timothy R. Townsend ,
Leslie E. Rudolf ,
Frederic B. Westervelt Jr. ,
Gerald L. Mandeli  and
Richard P. Wenzel
Timothy R. Townsend*
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
Leslie E. Rudolf
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
Frederic B. Westervelt Jr.
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
Gerald L. Mandeli
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
Richard P. Wenzel
Affiliation:
Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
The Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, 720 Rutland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21205
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The incidence of infections among patients undergoing renal transplantation has been reported as high as 83% during the first post-transplant year. In an effort to reduce the occurrence of such infections, we evaluated the role of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics in these patients. Thirty-seven patients undergoing transplantation were assigned randomly to treatment groups (N=20, cefamandole, 1 gm IM every 6 hrs for 8 doses/tobramycin 1 mg/kg IM for 1 dose, starting 2 hrs prior to surgery) and control groups (N=17, no antibiotics). A uniform infection surveillance system was used. Eighty-one percent (30/37) of patients became infected; 70% (14/20) of treated patients and 94% (16/17) of controls (p=0.14). Since antibiotic prophylaxis might be expected to exert the greatest influence in the immediate postoperative period, we examined patient outcome data for both the first seven post-transplant days and for the entire hospitalization. Of the 38% (14/37) of patients who developed infections during the first posttransplant week, a statistically greater proportion came from the control group than from the treated group (10/17 vs. 4/20, p=0.04). These data suggest that this regimen is effective in reducing the occurrence of infections during the first week following renal transplantation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 93 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Murphy, JF, McDonald, FD, Dawson, M, et al.Factors affecting the frequency of infection in renal transplant recipients. Arch Intern Med 136:670–677, 1976.Google Scholar
2.Wenzel, RP, Osierman, CA, Hunting, KJ, et al.Hospital-acquired infections. I. Surveillance in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 103:251–260, 1976.Google Scholar
3.Meddis, R. Statistical Handbook for Non-Statisticians. Maidenhead, McGraw-Hill Book Co. (UK) Limited, 1975, pp. 60–91.Google Scholar
4.Leaverton, PE. A Review of Biostatistics. Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1978, pp. 36–44.Google Scholar
5.Chodak, GW, Plant, ME. Use of systemic antibiotics for prophylaxis in surgery: A critical review. Arch Surg 112:326–334, 1977.Google Scholar
6.Antimicrobial prophylaxis: Prevention of wound infection and sepsis after surgery. The Medical Letter 19:37–40, 1977.Google Scholar
7.Raff, MJ, Waterman, MG, Barnwell, PA, et al.Infectious diseases complicating renal transplantation: A survey and recommendations for prevention, recognition, and management. Sou Med J 69:1603–1607, 1976.Google Scholar
8.Wenzel, RP, Osterman, CA, Hunting, KJ. Hospital-acquired infections. II. Infection rates by sile, service, and common hospital procedures in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 104:645–651, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar