SEARCH · PubMed Health
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.
Antibiotic prophylaxis has reduced the incidence of postoperative infection in the patient at risk. Although benefits have resulted from the use of antibiotic in this manner, a disadvantage is the selection of resistant bacteria. Antibiotic prophylaxis will not prevent infection if poor surgical techniques have been employed.
BACKGROUND: Twenty-five percent of all nosocomial infections are wound infections. Professional guidelines support the timely use of preoperative prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative wound infections. Barriers exist in implementing this practice. IPRO, the New York State peer review organization, as part of the Health Care Financing Administration's Health Care Quality Improvement Program, sought to determine the proportion of patients receiving timely antibiotic prophylaxis for aortic grafts, hip replacements and colon resections in 44 hospitals in New York State. METHODS: IPRO conducted a retrospective medical record review of 44 hospitals through out New York State stratified for teaching, nonteaching status. A sample was drawn of 2651 patients, 2256 from Medicare and 395 from Medicaid, undergoing either abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, partial or total hip replacement or large bowel resection. The study determined the proportion of patients who had documentation of receiving antibiotics and those who received antibiotics timely, that is less than or equal to 2 hours preoperatively. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of patients had documentation of receiving an antibiotic. Forty-six percent of aneurysm repairs and 60% of hip replacements had evidence of receiving timely antibiotic prophylaxis, that is within 2 hours prior to surgery. For colon resections, 73% of cases had either oral prophylaxis or timely parenteral therapy. An increased proportion of patients had received parenteral antibiotics prematurely as the surgical start time occurred later in the day. A total of 44 different antibiotics were recorded for prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis was performed in 81% to 94% of cases, however, anywhere from 27% to 54% of all cases did not receive antibiotics in a timely fashion. By delegating implementation of ordered antibiotic prophylaxis to the anesthesia team, timing may be improved and the incidence of postoperative wound infections may decrease.
Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis has proven to prevent infections in a variety of surgical interventions such as colorectal, biliary and vascular surgery. The antimicrobial spectrum of an antibiotic used for perioperative prophylaxis should include Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp. and Escherichia coli which are among the most frequent pathogens isolated from surgical infections. Second generation cephalosporins provide appropriate activity against these microorganisms. In colorectal surgery, combination with an anti-anaerobic agent is mandatory. During the past few years no major resistance development has been observed against second generation cephalosporins which are used at a dosage of 1.5 to 2 g. A single dose may provide sufficient serum levels for approximately three hours. Prolonged surgical procedures need an additional dose. Single dose prophylaxis with a second generation cephalosporin appears to be an appropriate strategy for infection prevention in surgery with regard to efficiency, safety and costs.
Despite antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery, gram-positive bacteria can be isolated in up to 10% of intraoperative blood cultures. During a prospective randomized trial, blood was collected from the oxygenator at the end of bypass in 58 patients given teicoplanin and in 60 others given flucloxacillin and tobramycin. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were cultured from 16 patients given teicoplanin but in only four cases after flucloxacillin and tobramycin (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.005). In contrast, Propionibacterium spp. or coryneforms were isolated from 22 patients given flucloxacillin and tobramycin and from only one patient in the teicoplanin group. There were no cases of prosthetic valve endocarditis. After 3 h exposure to 4 x MIC of teicoplanin there was only a 10-60 fold reduction in cfus of Staphylococcus epidermidis, which may partly explain the excess of these organisms.
To some, antibiotic prophylaxis has reached the level of doctrine: it is highly successful with little attendant harm to the patient. To its skeptics, antibiotic prophylaxis has rarely been proved effective in human clinical studies and possesses little present scientific justification. The truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. The use of antibiotic chemoprophylaxis to prevent infective endocarditis in high-risk patients and other bacteraemia-induced infections in individuals with orthopaedic prostheses, impaired host defences and on haemodialysis is probably justified prior to dental treatment. Yet the issue of risk-benefit needs to be properly addressed. In some situations antibiotic prophylaxis may, potentially, be more harmful to the patient than the infection that might be prevented. With antibiotic prophylaxis there is no certainty that it will work in any specific situation. The general impression that dentist-induced bacteraemias are responsible for the vast majority of infective endocarditis cases is erroneous, for these bacteraemias may cause as little as 4 per cent or less of all infective endocarditis. A minor role for dentist-induced bacteraemias in other infections is also likely.
Improvements in antibiotic prophylaxis, including the timing of initial administration, appropriate choice of antibiotic agents, and the limiting of the duration of administration, have more clearly defined the value of this technique in many clinical surgical settings. Studies of antibiotic prophylaxis designed during the next decade should strongly consider individual patient risk factors when new antibiotic agents are tested or administration techniques are refined. A concentrated effort should be made in areas of clinical surgery in which the value of antibiotic prophylaxis has not been proven. When in doubt, it appears that a one-dose systemic regimen of an appropriately chosen cephalosporin given during the immediate preoperative period is safe and the indicated practice.
Antibiotic prophylaxis for cholecystectomy, although somewhat controversial, is nevertheless a routine component of surgical care. With the advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, this routine practice of antibiotic prophylaxis needs to be reevaluated. The present investigation was undertaken to determine the incidence of postsurgical infection in patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis compared with patients receiving chlorhexidine gluconate scrub the evening before surgery. A total of 448 patients were enrolled in the study. Thirty-two of these patients were excluded because of the presence of intrinsic risk factors for infection. Two hundred twenty-eight patients received antibiotic prophylaxis, and 188 patients were enrolled in the non-antibiotic group. A total of 14 infections occurred in the antibiotic prophylaxis group, whereas no infections occurred in the chlorhexidine group. These results suggest that meticulous antiseptic skin cleansing is sufficient for prevention of postsurgical infection following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be used only in those patients exhibiting intrinsic risk factors, such as cholecystitis.
In their discussion of the problem of antibiotic prophylaxis in general surgery the authors maintain that routine-like antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated in general surgery, but is superfluous and even harmful. So-called "b ind prophylaxis" is senseless and there is no "total prophylaxis". Antibiotic prophylaxis can be successful when it is selective, aimed, adapted to the individual subject and the antibiotic reaches an effective concentration at the appropriate moment not only in the serum but also in the tissues. Infection can be of exogenous and of endogenous origin. Prevention of exogenous infections does not depend upon antibiotic treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis is contra-indicated when the operation is performed o a clean region. The problem of antibiotic prophylaxis in the course of operations of the bile duct, the stomach, the intestine and pancreas. during appendectomy and colorectal operations is discussed in detail. Post-operative infections of the respiratory tract cannot be prevented by antibiotic prophylaxis. Finally, the authors try to find an answer to the problem when and how antibiotic prophylaxis should be applied, what antibiotic should be used for how long and in what doses.
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently used for the prevention of infection at a distant site such as the heart valve or prosthetic joint. However, there are no published data describing how dermatologists manage patients "at risk". OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to document prophylactic antibiotic use by dermatologists. METHODS: A total of 211 randomly selected community dermatologists and 69 academic dermatologic surgeons were surveyed by questionnaire to determine whether they would provide antibiotic prophylaxis in 20 different clinical situations. RESULTS: This survey showed that under certain circumstances, almost all dermatologists provide antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent infection at a distant site. However, many dermatologists use antibiotics in settings with relatively little or no indication and confuse a prophylactic regimen with treatment of a superficial infection. CONCLUSION: This survey underscores the need for education and research into the prophylactic management of patients "at risk" who undergo dermatologic surgical procedures.
Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery, particularly genitourinary surgery, has been controversial for years. At best, the results have been more testimonial than scientific because of the failure to observe proper experimental design. A survey of the literature indicates that antibiotic prophylaxis in genitourinary surgery probably has little influence on postoperative fever; it appears to favorably affect the incidence of postoperative bacteriuria and bacteremia in the short term without encouraging nosocomial or resistant infections. The regimen for prophylaxis must be perioperative and continued for no longer than 24 hours postoperatively. Given that antibiotic prophylaxis in elective genitourinary surgery has merit, a comparison between cefazolin and cefotaxime was undertaken. Of 160 evaluable cases, a total of 23 patients had positive cultures within the first nine days; only two occurred within the first five days. When cefazolin and cefotaxime were administered in the same dosage regimen, the infection rate for cefazolin was 19% compared with 10% for cefotaxime.
The effect of antibiotic prophylaxis initiated one hour prior to contamination or at the time of contamination was evaluated in a randomized blind study using a guinea pig model of surgical wound infection. Would infection, defined as accumulation of pus draining spontaneously or after opening of the wound, developed in 135 guinea pigs after intraincisional contamination before wound closure with 10(7) Escherichia coli plus 10(8) Bacteroides fragilis. Antibiotic prophylaxis with gentamicin plus clindamycin significantly reduced the wound sepsis rate from 82% in the control group of 61 animals to 19% in the two treated groups of 68 and 67 animals (p less than 0.001). However, the timing of antibiotic prophylaxis did not influence wound sepsis rates, rectal temperature during the postoperative period, or bacterial recovery from wound infections.
A prospective study of surgical infections in our Department of Surgery in the years 1986-1989 is reported. 2719 patients entered the study: they represent the total number of patients operated in the above said period (628 urgent and 2091 elective operations). As suggested in 1964 by Altmeier, surgical procedures were classified in four groups according to the potential risk of intraoperative contamination. For every septic complication observed pertinent cultures were performed and responsible pathogens identified. We present our protocol of antibacterial prophylaxis which distinguishes antibiotics given as "ultra short term", "short term", "antibiotic prophylaxis". The results obtained and particularly the total number of infections (3.9%), and the percentage of infections in group 3 (4.6%) and in group 4 (23.1%) procedures validate the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis in these patients. In group 1 and group 2 patients the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis seems very doubtful.
OBJECTIVES: Antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in preventing postoperative wound infections and pelvic cellulitis for a variety of gynecologic procedures. Though frequently used, there is no uniform agreement and little data descriptive of the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis for infertility surgery. The purpose of the present study was to determine the incidence of postoperative infection-related complications after microsurgical tubal repair for infertility and to assess the possible role (if any) of antibiotic prophylaxis for tubal surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective; non-comparative; descriptive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and forty-eight tubal procedures were performed over a 3 1/2 year period and included tubal reanastomosis (n = 194), distal salpingostomy (n = 107), fimbrioplasty (n = 15), and tubal reimplantation and cornual isthmic anastomosis (n = 32). All procedures were performed under general anesthesia using standard microsurgical techniques. No prophylactic antibiotics were given. When used, the operating microscope was not draped. Patients were monitored postoperatively for any infection-related complications to include postoperative febrile morbidity, wound infections, and pelvic cellulitis. A computer search of discharge diagnoses and chart review was made to determine the postoperative outcome and hospital course. RESULTS: There were 3 cases of febrile morbidity without localizing signs (0.8%), 3 wound infections (0.8%), 2 incisional seromas (0.5%), and one case of pelvic cellulitis (0.2%). There were no cases of bacteremia, septic shock, or septic pelvic vein thrombophlebitis. All patients responded promptly to incisional drainage or combination antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSION: Data of the present study suggest that the incidence of infection-related complications after tubal surgery without antibiotic prophylaxis is very low. These data suggest that for tubal microsurgery where hemostasis is precise and tissue handling gentle, prophylactic antibiotics may not be necessary. Antimicrobials for prophylaxis, in these circumstances, may offer no advantage in reducing infectious complications that are already extremely low and may in fact cause unfavorable selective processes on endogenous flora and untoward side effects in selected individuals.
The evolution of antibiotic prophylaxis in cesarean section is traced from the discovery of sulfa compounds in the 1940s to the present. Prolonged courses of antibiotics, initiated before the surgical incision, have given way to shorter, three-dose and even single-dose regimens administered after clamping of the umbilical cord. Several factors have been proposed to help identify patients at greatest risk of infection. Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis are reviewed. The effects of antibiotics on host flora are described, and the implications of bacterial resistance for selection of a prophylactic agent, particularly with respect to induction of the Richmond-Sykes type I beta-lactamase enzyme, are discussed.
Antibiotic prophylaxis is generally administered either to prevent wound infection or to hinder the development of endocarditis. Although the use of antibiotics in certain circumstances to prevent wound infection can be straightforward, there are other circumstances in which the decision to use antibiotics is much less clear. Endocarditis prophylaxis has traditionally been based on the American Heart Association's guidelines, which do not cover dermatologic surgery. This article discusses the rationale and controversies surrounding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of both wound infection and endocarditis, reviews the few studies that pertain to dermatology, and provides recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis on a case-by-case basis for those who perform dermatologic surgery.
The introduction of antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean delivery has decreased the risk of postpartum endometritis and wound infection, but factors that contribute to prophylaxis failure are not understood. To determine factors that might contribute to postpartum infections following antibiotic prophylaxis, we cultured amniotic fluid, decidua, and chorioamniotic membrane specimens for anaerobic and facultative bacteria and for genital mycoplasmas at cesarean delivery. Women were assessed daily for the development of infections, and if endometritis developed, a protected endometrial culture was obtained. Postpartum endometritis developed in 16 and wound infection in four of 102 women. Infection rates were similar for women receiving cefotetan (N = 50) or cefoxitin (N = 52) for prophylaxis. The isolation of group B streptococcus (P less than .001) or Enterococcus faecalis (P = .03) from the upper genital tract at delivery was significantly associated with postpartum endometritis. Antibiotic-resistant organisms (other than enterococci) were recovered uncommonly at delivery or with postpartum infections. Group B streptococcus was susceptible to the prophylactic agents used, suggesting that virulence factors other than antibiotic resistance are important for the development of postpartum endometritis. Group B streptococcus, E faecalis, and bacteria associated with bacterial vaginosis were recovered from the endometrium at the time of postpartum endometritis.
Antibiotic prophylaxis is widely used in orthopaedic surgery although proof of its usefulness is lacking in some areas. The increasing use of joint replacement surgery and fracture fixation means that surgeons must examine the use of antibiotic prophylaxis very carefully. Its usefulness has been well demonstrated in joint replacement surgery although further work is required in traumatic orthopaedics. Additionally further investigation is required into the side effects and cost benefits of prophylaxis.
The appropriate use of antibiotic prophylaxis is confusing for all surgeons and it is certainly not straight-forward for dermatologists. There are no set guidelines which encompass skin surgery. This article reviews antibiotic prophylaxis both to prevent wound infections and to prevent endocarditis. Some of the issues and controversies surrounding the use of antibiotic prophylaxis are discussed, and guidelines are provided which should be of assistance to those who perform dermatologic surgery.