SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Antibiotic Prophylaxis”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

PubMed2006

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 74. Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures.

Surgical site inflection remains the most common surgical complication. Up to 5% of operative patients will develop a surgical site infection leading to a longer hospital stay and increased cost. One of the advances in infection control practices has been the selective use of antibiotic prophylaxis. However,antibiotic use, especially prophylactic antibiotic use, has been associated with the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Indiscriminate use of prophylactic antibiotics for institutions as well as for individual patients promotes this dangerous side eject. There are acknowledged consequences of prophylactic antibiotic use for institutions as well as for individual patients. It is important for clinicians to understand when antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated and when it is inappropriate. The purpose of this document is to review the evidence for surgical site infection prevention and appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures.

Abortion, Induced↗

PubMed1992

Antibiotic prophylaxis in paediatric surgery.

Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis was studied in 400 children undergoing various types of surgery. Patients were divided into different classes according to the type of operation and each was further randomized into a routine or trial group. The routine group received antibiotics for prolonged periods. In the trial group, "clean" cases (class A) did not get any antibiotics. The "clean-contaminated" (class B) and "contaminated" cases (class C) received peri-operative antibiotics only. Frankly infected cases were not included in this trial. There were 131, 213 and 56 cases in classes A, B and C respectively; of these 13 (3.25%) cases were diagnosed as infected, four in the trial group and nine in the routine group. It was found that a short course of peri-operative antibiotics was equally, if not more effective. Prolonged courses of antibiotics were not only useless and expensive but could also be harmful. For clean cases there is no need for antibiotic prophylaxis. Children behave no differently and these results may be extrapolated to adults.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed2003

A national survey of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of antibiotic prophylaxis for clean and clean-contaminated elective surgical procedures. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, country-wide survey. SETTING: Thirty-six hospitals in 12 cities in Turkey. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred thirty-nine surgeons from 6 different specialties who performed selected procedures of interest. METHODS: A random sample of surgeons from different hospitals was selected. A standardized data collection form was used to record the type of procedure, the names, doses, timing of the first doses, and duration of antibiotics, important decisive factors, and problems in the management of prophylactic antibiotic use for surgical procedures. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of surgeons addressed completed the survey. For clean-contaminated procedures, 6% of surgeons did not use antibiotic prophylaxis, whereas 88% used more than a single dose. Inappropriate antibiotics were chosen for 32% of procedures. In 39% of procedures, the first dose of antibiotics was not administered during induction of anesthesia. Duration of prophylaxis was longer than 24 hours in 80% and longer than 48 hours in 46% of all procedures. Only 112 surgeons (26%) were using definitely appropriate prophylaxis in all ways. Multivariate analysis revealed that surgeons in university hospitals (OR, 2.353; CI95, 1.426-3.884; P = .001) and general surgeons (OR, 4.986; CI95, 2.890-8.604; P < .001) used antibiotic prophylaxis more appropriately. Patients not covered by health insurance (OR, 0.417; CI95 0.225-0.772; P < .001) were associated with inappropriate prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Given the high frequency of antibiotics prescribed for surgical prophylaxis in Turkey, adherence to surgical prophylaxis guidelines is urgently needed.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed2000

Cost analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis for PEG.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting recommendations regarding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients undergoing placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes. The purpose of this decision analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. METHODS: A decision tree was modeled using the data of 7 published prospective placebo-controlled trials. Infectious complications were classified as grade I (requiring local care), grade II (requiring intravenous antibiotics), or grade III (requiring surgery). Medication costs were estimated from the United States average wholesale prices of the 1998 Red Book. Physician and facility costs were estimated based on the 1998 Medicare costs. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed by varying the probability rates of the complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and the costs of their treatment. RESULTS: The average cost of prophylactic antibiotics was $13.10. Antibiotic prophylaxis led to expected cost savings of $76.72 per percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. A sensitivity analysis suggested that antibiotic prophylaxis for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy was the preferred strategy unless the average probability of grade III complications dropped below an improbably low threshold value of 0.09%. CONCLUSION: Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy is a cost-effective strategy.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed2000

Is there a role for antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy?

PURPOSE: There are few data to guide the physician on the use of prophylactic antibiotic(s) for prostate brachytherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) rate after performing transperineal interstitial permanent prostate brachytherapy (TIPPB) in conjunction with cystoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred twenty-five patients underwent TIPPB and cystoscopy. All patients received intravenous perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. No postimplant antibiotic medication was prescribed. All patients were evaluated at 1-month follow- up for symptomatic UTI. No screening (U/A, C+S) was performed for asymptomatic patients. Any UTI within 1 month of TIPPB was considered a complication and scored as an infection. RESULTS: Of 125 patients who underwent TIPPB and cystoscopy, one patient (1%) developed a symptomatic UTI. In our study, a one-time perioperative intravenous dose of cefazolin (Ancef) without additional postoperative antibiotics resulted in an overall symptomatic UTI rate of 1%. Hence, additional postoperative antibiotics may not be warranted, thus providing a cost saving (500 mg of ciprofloxacin orally, two times a day for 5 days at a cost of $44.95) and reducing the potential risk of antibiotic resistance. CONCLUSIONS: When cystoscopy is used in conjunction with TIPPB, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended. However, due to the low infection rate expected from TIPPB, postimplant antibiotic use is not recommended. As a result of the low infection rate anticipated from TIPPB and cystoscopy, a large multiinstitutional trial is needed to determine the necessity of antibiotic prophylaxis for TIPPB and cystoscopy.

Anti-Infective Agents↗

PubMed1994

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in ORL surgery and oral medicine].

Postsurgical infection has always been a cause for major concern in ENT surgery. Papers on the topic allowed to identify indications for antibiotic prophylaxis. In ear surgery, in the absence of prior infection (stapes surgery, medium dry ear surgery), studies' results are not in favour of antibiotic prophylaxis. On the other hand, however, when the ear is inflamed or infected, the use of antibiotics is indicated, if possible after having first taken a sample. For nose and sinus surgery, antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be worthless in the absence of a prolonged packing. If a packing has to be maintained or if a transplant is used, an antibiotic administration has to be considered; the most appropriate antibiotic and its mode of use still have to be specified. In case of facial trauma, antibiotic prophylaxis using cefazolin reduces the risk of infection of paraymphysis fractures and angle fractures. The postoperative course after tonsillectomy is simplified by a prolonged antibiotic administration based on ampicillin. In clean cervico-facial surgery, without buccopharyngeal opening, the antibiotic prophylaxis seems to be worthless. In the opposite, antibiotherapy is required in case of buccopharyngeal opening. Indeed the presence of potential pathogenic bacteria in the buccopharyngeal cavity, the difficulties of mucosa closing, the importance of the tumoral extension, the length of the procedure, radiotherapy and use of myocutaneous flaps may all be the cause of a high infection rate (80%) in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis. Two types of antibiotics seem to be suitable, cefazolin and clindamycin. Antibiotics active against Gram negative bacteria seem to be useless. There is a disagreement concerning the duration of antibiotic administration. The populations studied are too small to obtain significant results. Both points of view (prolonged antibiotic administration or true antibiotic prophylaxis) can be considered. Only large scale prospective studies with an adequate methodology will provide credible data for this debate.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed2000

Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in osteosynthesis for hip fractures. A clinical multicentre study in Finland.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in open reduction and osteosynthesis of closed hip fractures is still controversial. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in osteosynthesis of these fractures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 224 patients operated on between November 1994 and February 1998 in six hospitals by internal fixation for a fresh hip fracture were prospectively and randomly allocated to either a ceftriaxone antibiotic prophylaxis or no prophylaxis group and followed for one year. RESULTS: Within 6 weeks after the operation, 2.6% wound infections were recorded in the antibiotic group and 4.7% in the control group. Two (1.9%) of the five infections in the control group were deep infections (both sensitive to ceftriaxone). There were no statistically significant differences between the infection rates in both groups. However, when analyzing all complications recorded within 6 weeks, significantly more complications were found in the control group (p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis the most important factor predicting postoperative complications was the lack of antibiotic prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: In this study the antibiotic prophylaxis group had significantly less postoperative complications than the control group within 6 weeks after the operation.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Antibiotic prophylaxis in cranial base surgery.

The role of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis was investigated in 95 patients undergoing 100 clean-contaminated cranial base surgeries. A variety of antibiotic regimens were employed. Potential risk factors for local infection were analyzed. Seven patients (7%) developed infections at the surgical site (meningitis, intracranial abscess, cellulitis/abscess, and osteomyelitis). Antibiotic prophylaxis for 24 hours or less was associated with a significantly increased risk of infection (p less than 0.04). Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis (greater than 48 hours) was not more efficacious than prophylaxis for 48 hours. The surgical approach, type of reconstruction, duration of surgery, and use of drains were not significantly correlated with wound infection. The risk of intracranial infection following cranial base surgery is low despite the presence of bacterial contamination intraoperatively. Broad-spectrum coverage of gram-positive and gram-negative organisms for at least 48 hours is recommended. Attention to surgical technique is important in preventing infectious complications.

Adolescent↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP: can we come to workable conclusions after review of the literature?

Infectious complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare and can mainly be divided into endocarditis and sepsis/cholangitis. There still remains uncertainty about the indications, antibiotic regimens, and timing for antibiotic prophylaxis. Several guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis have been published. It is the purpose of the present paper to make an extensive review of the literature and to yield general recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for patients at high risk for endocarditis, as well as for patients with a vascular graft less than 1 year old. For sepsis/cholangitis, prophylaxis is mostly recommended for patients with a bile duct obstruction or with a pancreatic pseudocyst. For other conditions, a case-by-case evaluation by the physician/endoscopist is still inevitable.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed1984

Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery: improvement after a multihospital educational program.

The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical patients was evaluated in studies before and after an educational program designed to improve the appropriateness of surgical prophylaxis. The first study included 1,021 patients hospitalized in 27 institutions. The repeat study involved 949 patients hospitalized in 24 of these 27 hospitals. After the educational campaign, there was no change in the proportion of patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis for clean operative procedures. However, the proportion of patients in whom antibiotic prophylaxis was initiated within four hours of skin incision (41% vs 65%, P less than .001), the mean duration of of antibiotic prophylaxis (2.5 days vs 3.4 days, P less than .01), and the proportion of patients who met both of these study criteria (31% vs 53%, P less than .001) all had significantly improved. Multihospital educational programs may, at relatively low cost, result in modification of physicians' antibiotic prescribing.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed2003

[Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis at the Clinic of Reconstructive Surgery of the Zurich University Hospital].

With the goal of ensuring maximal safety, surgeons tend to apply antibiotic prophylaxis generously to patients undergoing selective operative procedures. However, the indiscriminate or inappropriate use of prophylactic antibiotics i) leads to the selection of resistant microbial organisms and ii) results in an increase in general medical treatment costs. Given this controversy, the clinic of reconstructive surgery implemented in 1999 a set of guidelines for the proper use of antibiotics. Antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a pre- or perioperative application of antibiotics as a single to maximum triple-shot dose. It was recommended only for operations involving special risk factors or the implantation of alloplastic material. The recommended medication of choice was the widely-accepted standard first-generation cephalosporin product Cefazolin. We have carried out a quality control trial to analyse prospectively our own experience with the implementation of these guidelines and to compare results with a retrospective group of patients. A total of 792 patients (441 in the retrospective group, 351 in the prospective group) were enrolled in the study. About one third of all patients received an antibiotic prophylaxis. Of these, about 3/4 received the antibiotic prophylaxis without having one of the above-mentioned indications. We observed that 35% of all prophylaxis were given for breast surgery, followed by surgery for scar revisions and lipodystrophy. The most commonly used antibiotic was Cefuroxim rather than Cefazolin. There was no significant reduction in the general application of antibiotic prophylaxis yet apparent in the prospective group. However, there was a clear increase in the use of Cefazolin from 0.2% to 13.2%. We conclude that guidelines can be created to reduce the incidence of uninformed and inappropriate decisions, but their implementation requires time, motivation, and thorough and repeated information campaigns.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Antibiotic prophylaxis for endocarditis: time to reconsider.

Some cardiac conditions require antibiotic prophylaxis for some types of dental treatment to reduce the risk of infective endocarditis (IE). All medical and dental practitioners are familiar with this practice but tend to use different regimens in apparently similar circumstances. Generally, the trend has been to prescribe antibiotics if in doubt. This review explores the evidence for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent IE: does it work and is it safe? The changing nature of IE, the role of bacteraemia of oral origin and the safety of antibiotics are also reviewed. Most developed countries have national guidelines and their points of similarity and difference are discussed. One can only agree with the authority who describes antibiotic guidelines for endocarditis as being 'like the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are fragmentary, imperfect, capable of various interpretations and (mainly) missing!' Clinical case-controlled studies show that the more widely antibiotics are used, the greater the risk of adverse reactions exceeding the risk of IE. However, the consensus is that antibiotic prophylaxis is mandatory for a small number of high-risk cardiac and high-risk dental procedures. There are a large number of low-risk cardiac and dental procedures in which the risk of adverse reactions to the antibiotics exceeds the risk of IE, where prophylaxis should not be provided. There is an intermediate group of cardiac and dental procedures for which careful individual evaluation should be made to determine whether IE or antibiotics pose the greater risk. These categories are presented. All medical and dental practitioners need to reconsider their approach in light of these current findings.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed1995

Postoperative T-tube cholangiography: is routine antibiotic prophylaxis necessary? A prospective, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the value of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infection following postoperative T-tube cholangiography. DESIGN: A prospective, controlled study. SETTING: A tertiary care center. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: The role of antibiotic prophylaxis during postoperative T-tube cholangiography was prospectively evaluated in 164 patients. INTERVENTION: Sixty-two patients were administered antibiotic prophylaxis treatment (1 g of cephalothin sodium was infused intravenously 30 minutes before the procedure and 500 mg of cephalexin was given orally every 6 hours for 3 days after the procedure). Seventy-one patients were in the control group and did not receive antibiotic therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Complications and adverse reactions following postoperative T-tube cholangiography were recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in regard to age, sex, serum amylase level before T-tube cholangiography, white blood cell count, and liver function. The results of the bacteriologic culture specimens of the bile were also comparable between the groups. One patient who had received antibiotic therapy and one patient in the control group had fever (temperature, > 38 degrees C) and chills after the procedure. Two patients who had received antibiotic therapy and one patient in the control group had mild abdominal pain. These complications were treated conservatively without any event. No significant difference was found in the rates of complications and the success of postoperative T-tube cholangiography between the groups. CONCLUSION: Routine antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infection following postoperative T-tube cholangiography is not necessary under selected conditions.

Bacterial Infections↗

PubMed1984

A quantitative assessment of pre-dental antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with mitral-valve prolapse.

Because antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures in patients with mitral-valve prolapse (MVP) has been controversial, we performed a decision analysis to assess the costs and effects of the oral and parenteral penicillin regimens currently recommended for patients at high risk for bacterial endocarditis. The analysis suggests that there is a very small risk of post-dental endocarditis in MVP (4.1 cases per 10(6) procedures) which is outweighed by a greater risk of fatal reactions to parenteral penicillin (15 deaths per 10(6) courses). Parenteral penicillin prophylaxis therefore causes a net loss of life. For oral penicillin the risk of a fatal reaction is lower (0.9 deaths per 10(6) courses). However, oral penicillin prophylaxis appears to spare life only in older adults with MVP and at an extremely high cost: Over +1 million must be spent to spare one year of life. Personal preferences may still make antibiotic prophylaxis desirable for individual MVP patients. However, from a societal perspective, routine predental antibiotic prophylaxis for MVP is a very expensive preventive strategy.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed1980

Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in neurological surgery.

The clinical and experimental bases for antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery are reviewed briefly. The evidence regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in five specific neurosurgical situations (clean surgical procedures, cerebrospinal fluid shunts, external venticulostomies, basilar skull fractures, and compound skull fractures) is examined. There are no unequivocal indications for antibiotic prophylaxis in neurological surgery. Large scale randomized clinical trials will be required to settle the controversy in some of these areas.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗

PubMed1999

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.

In cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the incidence of infections but most randomized trials have not shown an increase in survival. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of infections and its effect on survival rate in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Four end points were assessed: infection, bacteremia and/or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), incidence of SBP, and death. For each end point, heterogeneity and treatment efficacy were assessed by Der Simonian and Peto methods. Five trials including 534 patients, 264 treated with antibiotic prophylaxis for 4 to 10 days and 270 without, were identified. Mean follow-up was 12 days. Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly increased the mean percentage of patients free of infection (32% mean improvement rate, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-42, P <.001), bacteremia and/or SBP (19% mean improvement rate, 95% CI: 11-26, P <.001), and SBP (7% mean improvement rate, 95% CI: 2.1-12.6, P =.006). Antibiotic prophylaxis also significantly increased the mean survival rate (9. 1% mean improvement rate, 95 % CI: 2.9-15.3, P =.004), without significant heterogeneity. In cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, short-term antibiotic prophylaxis significantly increases the mean percentage of patients free of infection and significantly increases short-term survival rate.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed2005

Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis reduces mortality in neutropenic patients.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infections are a major cause of illness and death in patients who are neutropenic after chemotherapy treatment for cancer. Trials have shown the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in decreasing the incidence of bacterial infections but not in reducing mortality rates. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients reduces mortality and incidence of infection and to assess related adverse events. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Cancer Network register of trials (2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), MEDLINE (1966-2004), and references of identified studies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo or no intervention or another antibiotic in afebrile neutropenic patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ninety-five trials performed between 1973 and 2004 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-two trials addressed quinolone prophylaxis. Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly decreased the risk for death when compared with placebo or no treatment (relative risk, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.81]). All prophylactic antibiotics were associated with an increased risk for adverse events (relative risk, 1.69 [CI, 1.14 to 2.50]). Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis reduced the risk for all-cause mortality (relative risk, 0.52 [CI, 0.35 to 0.77]), as well as infection-related mortality, fever, clinically documented infections, and microbiologically documented infections. Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis increased the risk for harboring bacilli resistant to the specific drug after treatment and adverse events, but these results were not statistically significant (relative risks, 1.69 [CI, 0.73 to 3.92]) and 1.30 [CI, 0.61 to 2.76], respectively). LIMITATIONS: Most trials involved patients with hematologic cancer. Data on all-cause mortality were missing in 10 of 50 trials comparing prophylaxis with no prophylaxis. Effect estimates were larger in trials of unclear methodologic quality compared with trials of adequate methodologic quality. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis for neutropenic patients undergoing cytotoxic therapy reduces mortality. Mortality was substantially reduced when analysis was limited to fluoroquinolones. Antibiotic prophylaxis, preferably with a fluoroquinolone, should be considered for neutropenic patients.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗

PubMed2000

Antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry: a review and practice recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association, or AHA, and the American Dental Association recently changed their recommended protocols for antibiotic prophylaxis against bacterial endocarditis. A new recommendation also has been issued by the ADA and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, or AAOS, against routine antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with prosthetic joint replacements. These changes reflect increasing scientific evidence and professional experience in opposition to widespread use of antibiotic prophylaxis in these specific situations and others faced in dentistry. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical and dental literature for scientific evidence regarding the use of antibiotics to prevent local and systemic infections associated with dental treatment. Situations commonly considered by dentists for potential use of prophylactic antibiotics were reviewed to determine current evidence with regard to use of antimicrobial agents. This included prevention of distant spread of oral organisms to susceptible sites elsewhere in the body and the reduction of local infections associated with oral procedures. RESULTS: There are relatively few situations in which antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated. Aside from the clearly defined instances of endocarditis and late prosthetic joint infections, there is no consensus among experts on the need for prophylaxis. There is wide variation in recommended protocols, but little scientific basis for the recommendations. The emerging trend seems to be to avoid the prophylactic use of antibiotics in conjunction with dental treatment unless there is a clear indication. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from the specific situations described, there is little or no scientific basis for the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dentistry. The risk of inappropriate used of antibiotics and widespread antibiotic resistance appear to be far more important than any possible perceived benefit. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentists are wise to use antibiotic prophylaxis in only those specific situations in which there is a valid scientific basis for it. Whenever possible, dentists should follow the standard protocols recommended by the ADA, AHA or AAOS.

American Dental Association↗