Ceftriaxone versus Other Antibiotics for Surgical Prophylaxis : A Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate possible differences in prophylaxis with ceftriaxone compared with other antimicrobial agents for surgical-site infections and remote infections such as respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and urinary tract infections (UTIs).


METHODS
The efficacy of ceftriaxone was compared with that of other antibiotics in the perioperative prophylaxis of local (surgical wound) and remote (RTIs and UTIs) infections in a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials published between 1984 and 2003. The analysis was based on a 2 x 2 contingency table with classification by treatment and number of infections obtained from individual studies.


RESULTS
Evaluations were performed on 48 studies, for a total of 17 565 patients. Overall, 406 patients (4.8%) in the ceftriaxone group and 525 (6.3%) in the comparator group developed a surgical-site infection (log odds ratio [OR] -0.30 [CI -0.50 to -0.13]; p < 0.0001). RTIs were observed in 292 (6.01%) patients in the ceftriaxone group and in 369 (7.6%) patients in the comparator group, (log OR -0.30 [CI -0.55 to -0.09]; p = 0.0013). UTIs were reported for 2.2% of the ceftriaxone prophylaxis patients compared with 3.74% of the comparator group patients (log OR -0.54 [CI -1.18 to -0.16]; p < 0.0001). Overall, in clean surgery 195 (5.1%) and 234 (6.2%) patients developed a surgical site infection in the ceftriaxone and comparator groups, respectively (log OR -0.22 [CI -0.51 to 0.01]; p = 0.0476). RTIs were prevented for all but 1.57% of patients in the ceftriaxone group and 2.62% of patients in the comparator group (p = 0.01) in clean surgery, and for 9.54% of the ceftriaxone group versus 11.6% of the comparator group (p = 0.01) in clean-contaminated surgery. While results observed in clean surgery did not show statistically significant superiority of ceftriaxone in preventing UTI insurgence (log OR -0.21 [CI 0.0-0.65]; p = 0.7702), this was clearly shown in the clean-contaminated surgery. In fact, 4.47% of patients in the ceftriaxone group versus 7.52% of patients in the comparator group developed a UTI (log OR -0.56 [CI -1.25 to -0.16]; p < 0.0001). Adverse events were observed in a similar proportion in the ceftriaxone prophylaxis and the comparator groups (0.35% and 0.23%, respectively). Duration of prophylaxis did not influence outcome of infection.


CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis showed that ceftriaxone is statistically superior to other antibiotics in preventing both local and remote postoperative infections.
Esposito
Silvano
S
Dipartimento di Medicina Pubblica Clinica e Preventiva - Sezione Malattie Infettive, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli, Naples, Italy.
Noviello
Silvana
S
Vanasia
Alessandro
A
Venturino
Paola
P