PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10838270

Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis during cesarean section.

Abstract

Objective: To compare single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis (cefotetan 1 g vs cefoxitin 2 g) in various subpopulations based upon risk factors for postsurgical infection following cesarean section.Methods: Patients undergoing cesarean section from April 1993 through March 1994 were included in a retrospective analysis if either of the above antibiotics were administered, surgery was non-emergent, gestational age was less than 32 weeks, absence of fever or prior antibiotics therapy within 72 hours, and no history of organ transplantation or HIV. Cases classified as high risk for infection: IDDM, obesity, autoimmune disease, sickle cell disease, or corticosteroid use. Cases classified as high risk for endometritis (any 2 factors): labor >12 hours, >4 vaginal examinations, ruptured membranes >9 hours, and internal fetal monitor. Cases were separated into 4 groups: elective vs non-elective, low vs high surgical risk. A chi(2) analysis was used to test for differences in infection rates between groups (P <.05).Results: Of 1383 cesarean sections, 385 met criteria for inclusion. Non-elective cases accounted for 77% of cases. Postsurgical infection rate was greater in non-elective cases, 7.4%, vs elective cases, 3.0% (P =.056) as was the rate of endometritis (3.2% vs 1.2%, P =.185). No differences were noted based on antibiotic regimen. Postsurgical infection rate was greater for 28 cases at high risk for both surgical infection and endometritis (17.9%) when compared to all 357 other cases (4.5%), P =.003. No difference was noted for endometritis. Of the 28 cases 28.6% of patients treated with cefoxitin and 7.1% of cases treated with cefotetan developed postsurgical infection (P =.13).Conclusion: Overall cefoxitin and cefotetan provided equivalent clinical outcome. A small subset of patients with multiple risk factors for infection may benefit from cefotetan.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L Gugino, M Cimino, J Wactawski-Wende. 1998-07-01. Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis during cesarean section.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1068-607x(98)00025-0

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗