PubMed Health⌕ Search

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

[Antibiotic prophylaxis, antibiotic therapy and microbiological situation in surgical unit].

The clinical and economic efficacies of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical unit of the Hospital were confirmed by the results of the analysis of 1313 case records of the patients operated during a year for acute appendicitis and acute cholecystitis. At the same time it was shown advisable to use antibiotic therapy in the patients with various pathological processes. The dynamics of the microbial dissemination in the surgical unit and some other units of the Hospital, as well as the dynamics of antibiotic resistance of the microflora, its interrelation with the volume of the antibacterials used and their rotation are described.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

Antibiotic prophylaxis.

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.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1998

[Premature rupture of membranes: maternal and fetal outcome in the absence of antibiotic prophylaxis].

Antibiotic prophylaxis in the management of Premature Rupture of foetal Membranes (PROM) before term still remains controversial. 110 pregnant women with PROM were assigned to either group A (no treatment) or group B (treatment group). The rates of premature deliveries were similar in the two groups, 71% versus 77% (p = 0.56). Additionally, low birth weight, Apgar score, foetal distress, neonatal icterus and foetal sepsis were all observed in similar proportions in both groups. 6.5% of the subjects in group A developed endometritis as against 5.7% in group B (p = 0.69). Perinatal mortality rates were high (33.3% and 50%, in group A and B, respectively), but not statistically different in the two groups (p = 0.13). Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence maternal and foetal outcome in patients who present with PROM in this environment.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

[Optimizing antibiotics policy in the Netherlands. V. SWAB guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Foundation Antibiotics Policy Team].

The Stichting Werkgroep Antibioticabeleid (SWAB, Foundation Antibiotics Policy Team) has issued guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in Dutch hospitals. Antibiotic prophylaxis is generally recommended for surgical procedures with relatively high postoperative infection rates and those in which consequences of infection are really serious. Studies have revealed that prophylaxis given within two hours before incision is most effective. Short-term, preferably single-dose prophylaxis, is as effective as multiple-dose prophylaxis in most procedures. For reasons of cost effectiveness and prevention of induction of resistance, single-dose prophylaxis is recommended. The antimicrobial agent of choice for perioperative prophylaxis should not be widely used as a therapeutic agent, should be selectively active against micro-organisms most frequently isolated from surgical site infections, and should have a plasma-half-life that makes single-dosing possible for most operations. Therefore cefazoline is an agent that is widely used for perioperative prophylaxis.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1984

Possible savings with appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis.

Antibiotic utilization was studied for one month in 52 patients from two surgical wards and one urology ward in an 835 bed teaching hospital. The use of antibiotics was classified as prophylaxis or treatment and the cost of each regimen was determined. The appropriate antibiotic for prophylaxis was chosen according to the surgical procedure and as a result of a literature review. Using cefazolin as the drug of choice in suitable general surgery cases resulted in a justifiable cost for prophylaxis of $17.64 per patient and a possible saving of up to $67.01 per patient (possible total saving of up to $670.05 for the study population). It was concluded that appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical patients could lead to significant cost savings. Some techniques for improving antibiotic prescribing are reviewed.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2002

Antibiotic prophylaxis guideline awareness and antibiotic prophylaxis use among New York State dermatologic surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Use of antibiotic prophylaxis in dermatologic surgery patients remains controversial and several sets of guidelines exist. OBJECTIVE: We investigated dermatologic surgeon's awareness of the American Heart Association (AHA) 1997 antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines, their use of prophylactic antibiotics, and their practices as compared with the Haas and Grekin's 1995 antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines. METHODS: We mailed postage-paid questionnaires regarding AHA guideline awareness and antibiotic prophylaxis use to the 235 New York State members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS). We received 87 replies. RESULTS: Most participants recognize AHA guidelines and claim to follow them. We reiterate previous studies' findings. Most dermatologic surgeons use antibiotics appropriately. However, antibiotics are occasionally overused or dosed outside the guidelines. Many participants prescribe antibiotics based on a patient's other physicians' recommendations. Notably, erythromycin is sometimes used, an antibiotic the AHA no longer recommends. CONCLUSION: Dermatologic surgeons commonly use antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent bacterial endocarditis. Based on previous studies, though, the risk of endocarditis following cutaneous surgery is low and thus the use of antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial. Although this practice is appropriate for high-risk patients when skin is contaminated, it is not recommended for noneroded, noninfected skin. We report that dermatologists may be aware of the guidelines, but only seem to partially follow them. Further studies are still needed to establish optimal guidelines.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2000

Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion.

BACKGROUND: Concern about the risk of upper genital tract infection (pelvic inflammatory disease) often limits use of the IUD, a highly effective contraceptive. Prophylactic antibiotic administration around the time of induced abortion significantly reduces the risk of postoperative endometritis.(Sawaya, 1996) Since the risk of IUD-related infection is limited to the first few weeks to months after insertion,(Lee, 1983; Farley, 1992) contamination of the endometrial cavity at the time of insertion(Mishell, 1966) appears to be the mechanism, rather than the IUD or string itself. Thus, antibiotic administration before IUD insertion might reduce the risk of upper genital tract infection from passive introduction of bacteria at insertion. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic administration before IUD insertion in reducing IUD-related complications and discontinuations within three months of insertion. The primary outcome was pelvic inflammatory disease (four reports) or early removals of the device (two reports). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched both MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearches of journals through CENTRAL, and lists of references. We also wrote to international experts in the field to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials using any antibiotic compared with a placebo. We found four such trials; two had pilot study data available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS DATA EXTRACTION: We used searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and handsearches of journals available through CENTRAL. We also reviewed lists of references in original research and in review articles. We wrote to experts to identify unpublished trials and made telephone calls to authors to supply missing information. Two independent reviewers abstracted data. We assessed the validity of each study using methods suggested in the Cochrane Handbook. DATA SYNTHESIS: We generated 2x2 tables for the principal outcome measures. We used the Peto modified Mantel-Haenszel technique to calculate odds ratios and assessed statistical heterogeneity between studies. MAIN RESULTS: The odds ratios for pelvic inflammatory disease associated with use of prophylactic doxycycline or azithromycin compared with placebo or no treatment was 0.89 (95%CI 0.53-1.51). Use of prophylaxis was associated with a small reduction in unscheduled vists to the provider (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.98). Use of doxycycline or azithromycin had little effect on the likelihood of removal of the IUD within 90 days of insertion (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.68-1.63). Significant heterogeneity did not exist between studies. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Use of either doxycycline 200 mg or azithromycin 500 mg by mouth before IUD insertion confers little benefit. While the reduction in unscheduled visits to the provider was marginally significant, the cost-effectiveness of routine prophylaxis remains questionable. A uniform finding in these trials was the low risk of IUD-associated infection, with or without use of antibiotic prophylaxis.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2000

Antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section.

BACKGROUND: The single most important risk factor for postpartum maternal infection is Cesarean delivery. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment on infectious complications in women undergoing Cesarean delivery. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis or no treatment for both elective and non-elective Cesarean section. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-six trials were included. Use of prophylactic antibiotics in women undergoing Cesarean section substantially reduced the incidence of episodes of fever, endometritis, wound infection, urinary tract infection and serious infection after Cesarean section. The reduction in the risk of endometritis with antibiotics was similar across different patient groups. The relative risk for elective Cesarean section was 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.48. The relative risk for non-elective Cesarean section was 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.35. The relative risk for undefined or all patients together was 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.33. Despite the large number of trials, different populations and different antibiotic regimens, there was no statistically significant heterogeneity. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The reduction of endometritis by two thirds to three quarters justifies a policy of administering prophylactic antibiotics to women undergoing elective or non-elective Cesarean section.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2003

Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

We studied the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis, systemically and in bone cement, on the revision rate of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-2001. To have comparable groups, only THAs performed because of primary osteoarthritis, using cemented implants with documented good results, and high-viscosity cement were included. If systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had been given, only operations with cephalosporin or penicillin were selected. Cox-estimated survival relative revision risks (RR) are presented with adjustment for differences among groups in gender, age, cement brand, type of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, type of prosthesis, type of operating room, and duration of the operation. Of 22,170 THAs studied, 696 THAs (3.1%) were revised, 440 (2.0%) for aseptic loosening and 102 (0.5%) for deep infection. We found the lowest risk of revision when the antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the cement (15,676 THAs). Compared to this combined regime, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis only systemically (5,960 THAs) had a 1.4 times higher revision rate with all reasons for revision as endpoint (p = 0.001), 1.3 times higher with aseptic loosening (p = 0.02) and 1.8 times higher with infection as the endpoint (p = 0.01). With the combined antibiotic regime, the results were better if antibiotics were given 4 times on the day of surgery (2,194 THAs), as compared to once (1,424 THAs) (p < 0.001), twice (2,680 THAs) (p < 0.001), or 3 times (5,522 THAs) (p = 0.02). Those who received systemic prophylaxis a single day 1, 2 or 3 times, as compared to 4 times, had a revision rate 1.8-3.5 times higher with all reasons for revision as endpoint, 1.5-3.1 times higher with aseptic loosening, and 2.7-6.8 times higher with infection. When we compared systemic prophylaxis 4 times in 1 day, no further improvement resulted in those given systemic prophylaxis for 2 days (1,928 THAs) or 3 days (717 THAs). In a subset of data including only the Charnley prosthesis, we obtained similar results. This observational study shows that the best results were recorded when antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the bone cement, and if the systemic antibiotic was given 4 times on the day of surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Timeliness and use of antibiotic prophylaxis in selected inpatient surgical procedures. The Antibiotic Prophylaxis Study Group.

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.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed2000

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery for proximal femoral and other closed long bone fractures.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prophylaxis has been established policy for major surgical operations for many years. In fracture fixation, the effectiveness, and the duration of administration, have been a matter of debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the prophylactic administration of antibiotics in patients undergoing surgical management of hip or other long bone fractures. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Dissertation Abstracts, and Index to UK Theses, and bibliographies of identified articles. Trials were also obtained from the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group trials register. Date of the most recent search: end of 1997. SELECTION CRITERIA PARTICIPANTS: Any patients with a hip or other closed long bone fracture undergoing surgery for internal fixation or replacement arthroplasty. INTERVENTIONS: Any regimen of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis administered at the time of surgery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Wound infection (deep and superficial), urinary tract infection, respiratory tract infection, adverse effects of prophylaxis, economic evaluations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were pooled and Peto odds ratios and absolute risk reductions, each with 95% confidence intervals, calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty one randomised trials of only poor or moderate quality were included. The comparisons tested fell within six comparison groups, principally multiple dose or a single dose of antibiotic versus a placebo or no treatment. Antibiotic prophylaxis reduces wound, urinary and respiratory tract infections in patients undergoing surgery for closed fracture fixation. Economic modelling has indicated that this is a cost-effective intervention. There are limited data for the incidence of adverse effects, but as expected they appear to be more common in those receiving antibiotics. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prophylaxis should be offered to those undergoing surgery for closed fracture fixation. On ethical grounds, further placebo controlled randomised trials of the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in closed fracture surgery are unlikely to be justified. Trials addressing the cost-effectiveness of different effective antibiotic regimens would need to be very large and may not be feasible.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1993

[Possibilities for the use of 2nd generation cephalosporins in perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis].

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.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed1988

Contamination of blood during cardiopulmonary bypass: the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis.

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.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1989

A critical appraisal of antibiotic prophylaxis.

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.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

Antibiotic prophylaxis in cholecystectomies in a teaching hospital in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Medical literature reports that adequate prophylaxis with antibiotics can reduce the incidence of postoperative infections. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of adopting multiple practices for improving the rational use of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing cholecystectomy and evaluate, during 2 periods, compliance with the hospital Drug Committee's recommendation and guidelines published in the medical literature. METHODS: Data were collected from patients' medical records at the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Brazil, in 2003. We evaluated 222 procedures as set by guidelines published in the literature and the hospital's recommendation. RESULTS: In 24.5% of the cases, the choice of whether to use the prophylactic antibiotic was not made according to the guidelines. The choice of the antibiotic agent, prophylaxis duration, dose administered, and time for administration was appropriate in 95%, 80.5%, 100%, and 81.8% of cases, respectively. A significant improvement in guideline compliance was observed since multiple practices were adopted to improve the rational use of antibiotic prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with the guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for cholecystectomy, in combination with a greater integration among the professionals involved in the HCPA Infection Control Service, resulted in a more appropriate use of these prophylactic agents. Improving physicians' awareness of the importance of meeting guidelines is critical and will benefit patients and the hospital as a whole.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis↗
PubMed1995

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.

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.

Abdominal Injuries↗
PubMed2006

Estimated risk of endocarditis in adults with predisposing cardiac conditions undergoing dental procedures with or without antibiotic prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Although antibiotic prophylaxis for infective endocarditis (IE) has been recommended for persons with predisposing cardiac conditions (PCCs) for many years, its efficacy, which has not been demonstrated, has been recently challenged. To assess its usefulness, we estimated the risk of developing IE after undergoing a dental procedure for which subjects would be eligible for prophylaxis, both in subjects having (protected procedure) or not having (unprotected procedure) received antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: The number of French persons with PCCs, the annual number of dental procedures in which subjects would be eligible for antibiotic prophylaxis, and the number of procedures that were unprotected were estimated on the basis of a survey performed on a sample of 2805 subjects aged 25-84 years. The annual number of IE cases possibly due to an unprotected procedure was estimated on the basis of a 1-year epidemiological study of IE conducted in an area inhabited by 16 million people. RESULTS: After standardization, extrapolation of results to the age-equivalent general population (39 millions subjects) indicated the following: first, 3.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6%-4%) of the subjects had PCC, 2.7 million (95% CI, 2.3-3.2 million) of whom had undergone at least 1 at-risk dental procedures within the survey year, and the procedures were unprotected in 62% of cases; second, 37 (95% CI, 18-68; 2.7%) of the 1370 annual IE cases in France were possibly related to unprotected procedures. Thus, the risks of developing IE were estimated to be 1 in 46,000 for unprotected procedures (1 in 10,700 and 1 in 54,300 for subjects with prosthetic and native valve PCC, respectively) and 1 in 150,000 for protected procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A huge number of prophylaxis doses would be necessary to prevent a very low number of IE cases.

Adult↗