The Effect of Blood Loss on Cefazolin Levels in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery

Abstract

Objective To quantify the effects of operative blood loss during cesarean on tissue and plasma cefazolin concentrations.

Study Design This was a prospective observational study of singleton pregnancies undergoing scheduled cesarean between 34 and 40 weeks. Cefazolin administered prior to skin incision. Maternal plasma samples were obtained (Time 1[T1]: immediately, T2: 20 minutes, T3: 40 minutes, and T4: 60 minutes after cefazolin infusion). Subcutaneous adipose tissue sampled before and after fascia. Primary outcome was subcutaneous adipose cefazolin level after fascial closure. Formal quantitative blood loss (QBL) performed. Women with higher QBL, those at/above 75% of QBL in this population, were compared with those with lower QBL (QBL below 75%). Data analyzed using bivariable statistics.

Results Ninety-two women were screened, 32 were eligible, and 20 enrolled. Median QBL was 630 mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 473–818) and 1,160 mL (IQR: 1,000–1,560) in the low and high QBL groups, respectively. Demographics and operative characteristics were similar. Median adipose cefazolin level after fascial closure did not differ between the groups (3.5 vs. 3.9 μg/g, p = 0.75). No differences in maternal plasma cefazolin concentrations between the groups at any time point or in pharmacokinetic parameters were seen.

Conclusion Intraoperative maternal plasma concentrations and adipose levels of cefazolin are similar between women with high and low blood loss at the time of cesarean delivery.

Keywords

cefazolin - blood loss - surgical site infection - antibiotics - prophylaxis

Note

This project was presented as a poster presentation at 44th annual meeting of the Infectious Disease Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Deer Valley, Utah, August 2017.

• References

• 1 Tita AT, Rouse DJ, Blackwell S, Saade GR, Spong CY, Andrews WW. Emerging concepts in antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (03) 675-682
• 2 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 120: use of prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (06) 1472-1483
• 3 Sullivan SA, Smith T, Chang E, Hulsey T, Vandorsten JP, Soper D. Administration of cefazolin prior to skin incision is superior to cefazolin at cord clamping in preventing postcesarean infectious morbidity: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 196 (05) 455.e1-455 .e5
• 4 Thigpen BD, Hood WA, Chauhan S. , et al. Timing of prophylactic antibiotic administration in the uninfected laboring gravida: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192 (06) 1864-1868
• 5 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin no. 104: antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113 (05) 1180-1189
• 6 Swoboda SM, Merz C, Kostuik J, Trentler B, Lipsett PA. Does intraoperative blood loss affect antibiotic serum and tissue concentrations?. Arch Surg 1996; 131 (11) 1165-1171
• 7 Ahmadzia HK, Patel EM, Joshi D. , et al. Obstetric surgical site infections: 2 grams compared with 3 grams of cefazolin in morbidly obese women. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (04) 708-715
• 8 Ngai IM, Van Arsdale A, Govindappagari S. , et al. Skin preparation for prevention of surgical site infection after cesarean delivery: arandomized controlled trial. Obstet Gyneco l 2015; 126 (06) 1251-1257
• 9 Testing ECoAS. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Routine and extended internal quality control for MIC determination and disk diffusion as recommended by EUCAST. Quality Control Tables 2017 ; 7.0. Available at: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/QC/v_7.0_EUCAST_QC_tables_routine_and_extended_QC.pdf . Accessed April 1, 2017
• 10 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Suseptibility Testing. CLSI supplement M1000S 2016 ; 26th edition. Available at: http://ljzx.cqrmhospital.com/upfiles/201601/20160112155335884.pdf.Accessed 2016
• 11 Quantification of blood loss: AWHONN practice brief number 1. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2015; 44 (01) 158-160
• 12 Zhang Y, Huo M, Zhou J, Xie S. PKSolver: an add-in program for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis in Microsoft Excel. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2010; 99 (03) 306-314
• 13 Stitely M, Sweet M, Slain D. , et al. Plasma and tissue cefazolin concentrations in obese patients undergoing cesarean delivery and receiving differing pre-operative doses of drug. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2013; 14 (05) 455-459
• 14 Pevzner L, Swank M, Krepel C, Wing DA, Chan K, Edmiston Jr CE. Effects of maternal obesity on tissue concentrations of prophylactic cefazolin during cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (04) 877-882
• 15 Swank ML, Wing DA, Nicolau DP, McNulty JA. Increased 3-gram cefazolin dosing for cesarean delivery prophylaxis in obese women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (03) 415.e1-415 .e8
• 16 Young OM, Shaik IH, Twedt R. , et al. Pharmacokinetics of cefazolin prophylaxis in obese gravidae at time of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213 (04) 541.e1-541 .e7
• 17 Patel A, Goudar SS, Geller SE. , et al. Drape estimation vs. visual assessment for estimating postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 93 (03) 220-224
• 18 Al Kadri HM, Al Anazi BK, Tamim HM. Visual estimation versus gravimetric measurement of postpartum blood loss: a prospective cohort study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011; 283 (06) 1207-1213
• 19 Stafford I, Dildy GA, Clark SL, Belfort MA. Visually estimated and calculated blood loss in vaginal and cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (05) 519.e1-519 .e7