TY - JOUR
T1 - Benefit-Cost Analysis of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Abdominal and Vaginal Hysterectomy
AU - Shapiro, Mervyn
AU - Schoenbaum, Stephen C.
AU - Tager, Ira B.
AU - Muñoz, Alvaro
AU - Polk, B. Frank
PY - 1983/3/11
Y1 - 1983/3/11
N2 - We performed a benefit-cost analysis of antimicrobial prophylaxis for hysterectomy using data from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of three doses of cefazolin sodium. The excess cost per patient with either operative site or urinary tract infection, or febrile morbidity diagnosed during hospitalization, was $1,777 for vaginal and $716 for abdominal hysterectomy. In patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy, prophylactic cefazolin reduced in-hospital infectious morbidity from 52% to 23% (preventive fraction, 56%), resulting in an average net benefit of $492 per patient. In abdominal hysterectomy, cefazolin decreased in-hospital morbidity from 43% to 25% (preventive fraction, 42%), resulting in an average net savings of $102 per patient. These benefits would be eroded by use of newer, more expensive cephalosporins unless they were considerably more effective than cefazolin. The benefits also would be diminished by inappropriate prolongation of the duration of prophylaxis.
AB - We performed a benefit-cost analysis of antimicrobial prophylaxis for hysterectomy using data from a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy of three doses of cefazolin sodium. The excess cost per patient with either operative site or urinary tract infection, or febrile morbidity diagnosed during hospitalization, was $1,777 for vaginal and $716 for abdominal hysterectomy. In patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy, prophylactic cefazolin reduced in-hospital infectious morbidity from 52% to 23% (preventive fraction, 56%), resulting in an average net benefit of $492 per patient. In abdominal hysterectomy, cefazolin decreased in-hospital morbidity from 43% to 25% (preventive fraction, 42%), resulting in an average net savings of $102 per patient. These benefits would be eroded by use of newer, more expensive cephalosporins unless they were considerably more effective than cefazolin. The benefits also would be diminished by inappropriate prolongation of the duration of prophylaxis.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84910530026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84910530026&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jama.1983.03330340032026
DO - 10.1001/jama.1983.03330340032026
M3 - Article
C2 - 6402612
AN - SCOPUS:84910530026
SN - 0098-7484
VL - 249
SP - 1290
EP - 1294
JO - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
JF - JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
IS - 10
ER -