Evaluation of cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Although clinical practice guidelines recommend standard cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) dosing for cardiac surgery, limited data exist as to whether adequate concentrations are achieved in this patient population. The goal of our study was to characterize intraoperative cefazolin concentrations particularly at wound closure with regards to maintaining target cefazolin closure concentrations ≥40 mg/L. Methods: Adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and receiving cefazolin AP according to protocol were studied. Blood samples were collected after the preoperative cefazolin dose, prior to intraoperative cefazolin doses and at wound closure. Intraoperative trough and closure concentrations were characterized and evaluated against a target threshold of ≥ 40 mg/L (≥8 mg/L unbound, assuming 80% protein binding). Results: Fifty-five subjects (64.9 ± 10.4 years, 89.7 ± 16.5 kg, CLCR >50 mL/min/72 kg) completed the study. Total cefazolin concentrations were <40 mg/L in 40% (12 of 30) of intraoperative trough samples and 9.8% (5 of 51) of closure samples. Below-target concentrations at some time during surgery were documented in 30.9% (17 of 55) of subjects. In multivariate analyses, lower body weight (P = 0.027) and shorter duration of surgery (P = 0.045) were significant predictors of closure concentrations <40 mg/L. A total cefazolin exposure (preoperative and intraoperative doses) of ≥ 7.6 mg/kgdosing weight for every hour of surgery (intermittent dosing) was required to achieve target closure concentrations. Conclusions: The standard cefazolin AP regimen was not reliable in maintaining target closure concentrations ≥40 mg/L in patients with normal renal function undergoing elective cardiac surgery with CPB. The findings supported a cefazolin AP regimen consisting of at least 2 g preoperatively and every 3 h during surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".