Background: Cefazolin may minimize the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) following posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Cefazolin dosing recommendations vary and there is limited evidence for achieved tissue concentrations. Methods: We performed a randomized, controlled, prospective pharmacokinetic pilot study of 12 patients given cefazolin by either intermittent bolus (30 mg/kg every 3 h) or continuous infusion (30 mg/kg bolus followed by 10/mg/kg per hour) during PSF for AIS. Results: Patients were well matched for demographic and perioperative variables. While total drug exposure, measured as area-under-the-curve (AUC), was similar in plasma for bolus and infusion dosing, infusion dosing achieved greater cefazolin exposure in subcutaneous and muscle tissue. Using the pharmacodynamic metric of time spent above minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC), both bolus and infusion dosing performed well. However, when targeting a bactericidal concentration of 32 µg/mL, patients in the bolus group spent a median of 1/5 and 1/3 of the typical 6 h operative time below target in subcutaneous and muscle tissue, respectively. Conclusions: We conclude that intraoperative determination of cefazolin tissue concentrations is feasible and both bolus and infusion dosing of cefazolin achieve concentrations in excess of typical MICs. Infusion dosing appears to more consistently achieve bactericidal concentrations in subcutaneous and muscle tissues.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia is a serious clinical challenge with high mortality rates. Antibiotic combination therapy is currently used in cases of persistent infection; however, the limited development of new antibiotics will likely increase the need for combination therapy, and better methods are needed for identifying effective combinations for treating persistent bacteremia. To identify pairwise combinations with the most consistent potential for benefit compared to monotherapy with a primary anti-MRSA agent, we conducted a systematic study with an in vitro high-throughput methodology. We tested daptomycin and vancomycin each in combination with gentamicin, rifampicin, cefazolin, and oxacillin, and ceftaroline with daptomycin, gentamicin, and rifampicin. Combining cefazolin with daptomycin lowered the daptomycin concentration required to reach 95% growth inhibition (IC95) for all isolates tested and lowered daptomycin IC95 below the sensitivity breakpoint for five out of six isolates that had daptomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations at or above the sensitivity breakpoint. Similarly, vancomycin IC95s were decreased when vancomycin was combined with cefazolin for 86.7% of the isolates tested. This was a higher percentage than was achieved by adding any other secondary antibiotic to vancomycin. Adding rifampicin to daptomycin or vancomycin did not always reduce IC95s and failed to produce synergistic interaction in any of the isolates tested; the addition of rifampicin to ceftaroline was frequently synergistic and always lowered the amount of ceftaroline required to reach the IC95. These analyses rationalize further in vivo evaluation of three drug pairs for MRSA bacteremia: daptomycin+cefazolin, vancomycin+cefazolin, and ceftaroline+rifampicin.IMPORTANCEBloodstream infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have a high mortality rate despite the availability of vancomycin, daptomycin, and newer antibiotics including ceftaroline. With the slow output of the antibiotic pipeline and the serious clinical challenge posed by persistent MRSA infections, better strategies for utilizing combination therapy are becoming increasingly necessary. We demonstrated the value of a systematic high-throughput approach, adapted from prior work testing antibiotic combinations against tuberculosis and other mycobacteria, by using this approach to test antibiotic pairs against a panel of MRSA isolates with diverse patterns of antibiotic susceptibility. We identified three antibiotic pairs-daptomycin+cefazolin, vancomycin+cefazolin, and ceftaroline+rifampicin-where the addition of the second antibiotic improved the potency of the first antibiotic across all or most isolates tested. Our results indicate that these pairs warrant further evaluation in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are characterized by infections occurring in the surgical incision site, organ or cavity in the postoperative period. Adherence to surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is paramount in mitigating the occurrence of SSIs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of SAP use in patients undergoing surgical procedures in the field of general surgery according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) guideline and to determine the difference between the pre-training period (pre-TP) and the post-training period (post-TP) organized according to this guideline.
METHODS: It is a single-center prospective study conducted in general surgery wards between January 2022 and May 2023, with 404 patients pre-TP and 406 patients post-TP.
RESULTS: Cefazolin emerged as the predominant agent for SAP, favored in 86.8% (703/810) of cases. Appropriate cefazolin dosage increased significantly from 41% (129 patients) in pre-TP to 92.6% (276 patients) in post-TP (p < 0.001), along with a rise in adherence to recommended timing of administration from 42.2% (133 patients) to 62.8% (187 patients) (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients receiving antibiotics during hospitalization in the ward postoperatively decreased post-TP (21-14.3%; p = 0.012), as did antibiotic prescription at discharge (16.8-10.3%; p = 0.008). The incidence of SSI showed a slight increase from 9.9% in pre-TP to 13.3% in post-TP (p = 0.131).
CONCLUSIONS: Routine training sessions for surgeons emerged as crucial strategies to optimize patient care and enhance SAP compliance rates, particularly given the burden of clinical responsibilities faced by surgical teams.

We investigated the prevalence and characteristics of Cefazolin inoculum effect (CInE) among clinical MSSA isolates in Japan. Although 35.5 % (39 isolates) were positive for the blaZ gene, none met the phenotypic criteria for CInE. Our findings suggested a very low prevalence of CInE among MSSA isolates in our clinical setting.

Serratia marcescens, as a Gram-negative opportunistic pathogen, is a rare cause of peritonitis and has worse clinical outcomes than Gram-positive peritonitis. In this case report, we describe a case of Serratia marcescens associated peritonitis that was successfully cured without catheter removal. A 40-year-old male patient with peritoneal dialysis who worked in the catering industry was admitted to the hospital for 16 hours after the discovery of cloudy peritoneal dialysate and abdominal pain. Ceftazidime and cefazolin sodium were immediately given intravenously as an empirical antibiotic regimen. After detecting Serratia marcescens in the peritoneal diasate culture, the treatment was switched to ceftazidime and levofloxacin. The routine examination of peritoneal dialysate showed a significant decrease in white blood cells, the peritoneal dialysate became clear, and the peritoneal dialysis catheter was retained. The patient was treated for 2 weeks and treated with oral antibiotics for 1 week. It is necessary to further strengthen the hygiene of work environment to prevent Serratia marcescens infection in peritoneal dialysis patients. We recommend that patients with Serratia marcescens associated peritonitis should be treated with a combination of antibiotics as early as possible empirically, and at the same time, the peritoneal dialysis fluid culture should be improved, and the antibiotic regimen should be timely adjusted according to the drug sensitivity results. For patients with clinical symptoms for more than 3 days, considering the strong virulence of Serratia marcescens, whether to use meropenem directly or not can provide a reference for clinical decision-making. Further clinical studies are needed to achieve more precise anti-infective treatment.

BACKGROUND: intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis has significantly reduced the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in knee surgeries. However, for patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or those at risk of colonization, prophylaxis should include vancomycin. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin could enhance its effectiveness in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS: a retrospective review was conducted, including 143 patients at risk of PJI scheduled for TKA who received IO vancomycin along with intravenous (IV) cefazolin, referred to as group I (GI), between May 2021 and December 2022. The occurrence of complications in the first three postoperative months was evaluated. Results were compared with 140 patients without risk factors who received standard IV prophylaxis, designated as group II (GII).
RESULTS: in GI, 500 mg of IO vancomycin was administered, injected into the proximal tibia, in addition to standard IV prophylaxis. In GII, patients received only IV cefazolin. The incidence of complications was 1.64% in GI and 1.4% in GII. The PJI rate at 90 postoperative days was 0.69% in GI and 0.71% in GII.
CONCLUSIONS: IO vancomycin administration, along with standard IV prophylaxis, provides a safe and effective alternative for patients at risk of MRSA colonization. This approach minimizes complications associated with IV vancomycin use and addresses logistical challenges of timely administration.
UNASSIGNED: la profilaxis antibiótica intravenosa ha reducido significativamente la incidencia de infección articular periprotésica (IAP) en cirugías de rodilla. No obstante, para pacientes colonizados con Staphylococcus aureus resistente a meticilina (SARM) o aquellos con riesgo de colonización, la profilaxis debe incluir vancomicina. La administración intraósea de vancomicina podría potenciar su efectividad en la artroplastía total de rodilla.
UNASSIGNED: se realizó una revisión retrospectiva que incluyó a 143 pacientes en riesgo de IAP programados para artroplastía total de rodilla que recibieron vancomicina intraósea junto a cefazolina intravenosa (IV), a quienes denominamos grupo I (GI), entre mayo de 2021 y diciembre de 2022. Se evaluó la aparición de complicaciones en los primeros tres meses postoperatorios. Los resultados se compararon con 140 pacientes sin factores de riesgo que recibieron profilaxis intravenosa estándar, denominados grupo II (GII).
RESULTS: en el GI, se administraron 500 mg de vancomicina intraósea, inyectados en la tibia proximal, además de la profilaxis intravenosa estándar. En el GII, los pacientes recibieron sólo cefazolina intravenosa. La incidencia de complicaciones fue de 1.64% en el GI y de 1.4% en el GII. La tasa de IAP a los 90 días postoperatorios fue de 0.69% en el GI y de 0.71% en el GII.
CONCLUSIONS: la administración de vancomicina intraósea, junto con la profilaxis intravenosa estándar, ofrece una alternativa segura y eficaz para pacientes con riesgo de colonización por SARM. Este enfoque minimiza las complicaciones asociadas con el uso intravenoso de vancomicina y soluciona los desafíos logísticos de la administración oportuna.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of cefazolin versus cloxacillin for the treatment of infective endocarditis (IE) due to methicillin-sensitive Staphylococci (MSS).
METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected on patients treated for a definite MSS endocarditis who received cefazolin or cloxacillin for at least 10 consecutive days in six French hospitals between January-1 2014 and December-31 2020. The primary endpoint was treatment failure defined as a composite of death within 90 days of starting antibiotherapy, or embolic event during antibiotherapy, or relapse of IE within 90 days of stopping antibiotherapy. We used Cox regression adjusted for the inverse probability of treatment weighting of receiving cefazolin.
RESULTS: 192 patients were included (median age 67.8 years). IE was caused by S.aureus in 175 (91.1%) and by coagulase-negative staphylococci in 17 (8.9%). Ninety-four patients (48.9%) received cefazolin, and 98 (51%) received cloxacillin. 34 patients (34.7%) with cefazolin and 26 (27.7%) with cloxacillin met the composite primary endpoint, with no significant differences between groups (adjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.03). There were no significant differences in secondary efficacy endpoints or biological safety events.
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of cefazolin did not significantly differ from cloxacillin for the treatment of MSS endocarditis.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most clinically relevant complications and the use of prophylactic cefazolin is common practice. However, the knowledge about the pharmacological aspects of prophylactic cefazolin in the lower extremities remains limited. In this prospective cohort, a sub-study of the WIFI-2 randomized controlled trial, adults between 18 and 75 years of age who were scheduled for implant removal below the level of the knee and randomized for cefazolin, was included. A maximum of two venous plasma, target-site plasma, and target-site tissue samples were taken during surgery. The primary outcomes were the cefazolin concentrations in venous plasma, target-site plasma, and target-site tissue. A total of 27 patients [median (interquartile range) age, 42 (29-59) years; 17 (63%) male] with 138 samples were included in the study. A minimum of 6 weeks follow-up was available for all patients. The mean (SD) venous plasma, target-site plasma, and target-site tissue concentrations were 36 (13) µg/mL, 29 (13) µg/mL, and 28 (13) µg/g, respectively, and the cefazolin concentrations between the different locations of surgery did not differ significantly in both target-site plasma and target-site tissue (P = 0.822 and P = 0.840). In conclusion, 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin demonstrates adequacy in maintaining coverage for a duration of at least 80 minutes of surgery below the level of the knee, significantly surpassing the MIC90 required to combat the most prevalent microorganisms. This study represents the first of its kind to assess cefazolin concentrations in the lower extremities by examining both plasma and tissue samples in this magnitude.

The aim of this study was to analyze the population pharmacokinetics of total and unbound concentrations of prophylactic cefazolin (CFZ) in patients with prostatectomy or nephrectomy. We also aimed to calculate a pharmacodynamics target unbound concentration that exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), to design an effective dosing regimen. Briefly, 614 total concentration and 610 unbound concentration samples from 152 individuals were evaluated, using a nonlinear mixed-effects model. The obtained pharmacodynamics index target value reflected the probability of maintaining CFZ unbound trough concentrations exceeding MIC90, 0.5 mg/L, and MIC50, and 1.0 mg/L, to account for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or Escherichia coli. Population pharmacokinetics were estimated using a two-compartment model with nonlinear protein binding. Unbound systemic clearance (CL) was significantly associated with creatinine clearance, while the maximum protein-binding constant was significantly associated with albumin levels. The probability of achieving an unbound concentration exceeding the MIC50 for E. coli or MIC90 for MSSA in a patient with normal renal function following a 1 g CFZ infusion over 15 min was above 90% at 3 h after the initial dose. Our findings indicated that population pharmacokinetic parameters are useful for determining unbound CFZ pharmacokinetics and evaluating intraoperative CFZ redosing intervals.

BACKGROUND: In primary shoulder arthroplasty (SA), intravenous (IV) cefazolin has demonstrated lower rates of infectious complications when compared to IV vancomycin. However, previous analyses included SA cohorts with both complete and incomplete vancomycin administration. Therefore, it is currently unclear whether cefazolin still maintains a prophylactic advantage to vancomycin when it is appropriately indicated and sufficiently administered at the time of surgical incision. This study evaluated the comparative efficacy of cefazolin and complete vancomycin administration for surgical prophylaxis in primary shoulder arthroplasty with respect to infectious complications.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted utilizing a single institution total joint registry database, where all primary SA types (hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, reverse shoulder arthroplasty) performed between 2000 to 2019 for elective and trauma indications using IV cefazolin or complete vancomycin administration as the primary antibiotic prophylaxis were identified. Vancomycin was primarily indicated for patients with a severe self-reported penicillin or cephalosporin allergy and/or MRSA colonization. Complete administration was defined as at least 30 minutes of antibiotic infusion prior to incision. All included SA had at least 2 years of clinical follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate all-cause infectious complications including survival free of prosthetic joint infection (PJI).
RESULTS: The final cohort included 7,177 primary SA, 6,879 (95.8%) received IV cefazolin and 298 (4.2%) received complete vancomycin administration. Infectious complications occurred in 120 (1.7%) SA leading to 81 (1.1%) infectious reoperations. Of the infectious complications 41 (0.6%) were superficial infections and 79 were (1.1%) PJIs. When categorized by administered antibiotics, there were no differences in rates of all infectious complications (1.6% vs. 2.3%; P = .352), superficial complications (0.5% vs. 1.3%; P = .071), PJI (1.1% vs. 1.0%; P = .874), or infectious reoperations (1.1% vs. 1.0%; P = .839). On multivariable analyses, complete vancomycin infusion demonstrated no difference in rates of infectious complications compared to cefazolin administration (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70 to 3.25]; P = .297), even when other independent predictors of PJI (male sex, prior surgery, and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization) were considered.
CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to cefazolin, complete administration of vancomycin (infusion to incision time greater than 30 minutes) as the primary prophylactic agent does not adversely increase the rates of infectious complications and PJI. Prophylaxis protocols should promote appropriate indications for the use of cefazolin or vancomycin, and when necessary, ensure complete administration of vancomycin to mitigate additional infectious risks after primary SA.