Ceftriaxone versus other cephalosporins for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis: a meta-analysis of 43 randomized controlled trials.

Eva Susanne Dietrich, Ute Bieser, Uwe Frank, Guido Schwarzer, Franz D Daschner

Journal: Chemotherapy 2002;48(1):49-56

PMID: 11901257

Abstract

The efficacy of ceftriaxone versus other cephalosporins in the perioperative prophylaxis of surgical wound, urinary tract and respiratory tract infections was compared in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published between 1986 and 1996, identified from the Medline, Embase, SIGLE, ROPU, DHSS-Data and Medikat Cologne databases. Studies were grouped by type of infection, operative specialty, wound classification, study quality and other factors, and assessed for relative risk (RR). Forty-three studies with a total of 13,482 patients met our inclusion criteria. RR for surgical wound infection (n = 13,303 patients) was 30% lower in the ceftriaxone versus control groups [98.3% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-0.89; p = 0.0002]. In urinary tract infections (n = 8,865 patients), the primary analysis of all studies showed marked superiority for ceftriaxone (RR: 0.53; 98.3% CI: 0.43-0.67) but not in studies with CDC-defined infections (RR: 0.63; 98.3% CI: 0.36-1.12). In both types of infection, ceftriaxone was superior in contaminated operations. The data showed no advantage for ceftriaxone in other operations. In respiratory tract infections (n = 9,567 patients), there was no significant difference: the RR was 0.81 (98.3% CI: 0.61-1.09; p = 0.04).

Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

Address: Institute of Environmental Medicine and Hospital Epidemiology, Freiburg University Hospital, Germany.

Link outs

Subscription / membership required

Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.