Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in acute cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10643220 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEmergency cholecystectomy is the mainstay in treating acute cholecystitis (AC). In actual practice, perioperative prophylactic antibiotics are used to prevent postoperative infectious complications (PIC), but their effectiveness lacks evidence. We aim to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in emergency cholecystectomy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus up to June 14, 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved patients diagnosed with mild to moderate AC according to Tokyo guidelines who were undergoing emergency cholecystectomy and were administered preoperative and/or postoperative antibiotics as an intervention group and compared to a placebo group. For dichotomous data, we applied the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI), while for continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.ResultsWe included seven RCTs encompassing a collective sample size of 1747 patients. Our analysis showed no significant differences regarding total PIC (RR = 0.84 with 95% CI (0.63, 1.12), P = 0.23), surgical site infection (RR = 0.79 with 95% CI (0.56, 1.12), P = 0.19), distant infections (RR = 1.01 with 95% CI (0.55, 1.88), P = 0.97), non-infectious complications (RR = 0.84 with 95% CI (0.64, 1.11), P = 0.22), mortality (RR = 0.34 with 95% CI (0.04, 3.23), P = 0.35), and readmission (RR = 0.69 with 95% CI (0.43, 1.11), P = 0.13).ConclusionPerioperative antibiotics in patients with mild to moderate acute cholecystitis did not show a significant reduction of postoperative infectious complications after emergency cholecystectomy. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023438755).
| S-EPMC11312388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEvidence supporting the value of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in surgery for acute cholecystitis is lacking. This study aimed to shed light on whether PAP in acute cholecystectomy for cholecystitis reduces the postoperative infectious complication (PIC) rate. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of bacteriobilia, CRP values and leucocyte counts.MethodsThe study was performed as a single-centre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised study. Patients with acute cholecystitis amenable for acute laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to either PAP (piperacillin/ tazobactam) or placebo, and the subsequent clinical course was followed.ResultsA total of 106 patients were enrolled, 16 of whom were excluded due to protocol violation. PIC developed in 22 of the 90 patients included with no significant difference between the PAP and placebo groups (8 patients in the PAP group and 14 in the placebo arm, p = 0.193). The PIC rate was significantly higher in patients with a raised CRP at randomisation and on the day of surgery and in cases of conversion to an open procedure (p = 0.008, 0.004 and 0.017, respectively) but with no differences between the study groups.ConclusionPAP does not affect the risk for PIC in patients with acute cholecystitis. The major risk factors determining PIC in these patients need defining, in particular, the impact of bacteriobilia.Trial registrationThe study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02619149) December 2, 2015.
| S-EPMC7686002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInfections are frequent after stroke and lead to increased mortality and neurological disability. Antibiotic prophylaxis has potential of decreasing the risk of infections and mortality and improving poor functional outcome. Several studies evaluated antibiotic prophylaxis for infections in acute stroke patients have generated conflicting results. The systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) aimed at comprehensively assessing the evidence of antibiotic prophylaxis for the treatment of acute stroke patients.Materials and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the reference lists of eligible articles were searched to identify all potential studies. We included the studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis for the treatment of acute stroke patients. The primary outcome included mortality and infection rate. The secondary outcomes included poor functional outcome and adverse events.ResultsSeven trials randomizing 4,261 patients were included. Pooled analyses showed that antibiotic prophylaxis did not improve the mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.26, p = 0.78, I2 = 25%) and poor functional outcome (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.08, p = 0.32, I2 = 80%), but reduced the incidence of infection (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84, p = 0.0007, I2 = 49%). No major side effects were reported. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of infection rate and poor functional outcome.ConclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis can be used to treat the infectious events of acute stroke patients although it has no potential of decreased mortality and improved functional outcome.
| S-EPMC5655263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent meta-analyses concluded that antibiotic prophylaxis is not warranted in low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, most trials in the meta-analyses had a relatively small sample size and were statistically underpowered. In addition, many of the trials mentioned potential cost savings owing to the elimination of prophylactic antibiotics. However, no trial has statistically estimated the cost effectiveness. To evaluate the results of meta-analyses, we conducted a randomized controlled trial on the role of prophylactic antibiotics in low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy with an adequate sample size.MethodsFrom March 2007 to May 2013, at the Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, patients who were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to one of two arms: those who were and were not administered prophylactic antibiotics. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of postoperative infections and secondary endpoints were postoperative hospital stay and medical costs.FindingsDuring the study period, 518 patients were assigned to the Antibiotics group and 519 to the No antibiotics group. Occurrences of surgical site infections, distant infections and overall infections were significantly lower in the Antibiotics group than in the No antibiotics group (0.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.001, OR: 0.205 (95%CI: 0.069 to 0.606); 0.4 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.0004, OR: 0.122 (95%CI: 0.028 to 0.533); 1.2 vs. 6.7%; p<0.0001, OR: 0.162 (95%CI: 0.068 to 0.389), respectively). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Antibiotics group (mean, SD: 3.69±1.56 vs. 4.07±3.00; p = 0.01) and the postoperative medical costs were significantly lower in the Antibiotics group (mean, SD: $766±341 vs. 832±670; p = 0.047). Multivariable analysis showed that independent risk factors for postoperative infectious complications were no prophylactic antibiotics (p<0.0001) and age 65 or older (p = 0.006).ConclusionsPerioperative administration of prophylactic antibiotics should be recommended in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to prevent postoperative infectious complications and to reduce medical costs.Trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000003749.
| S-EPMC4156368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAcute calculous cholecystitis represents one of the most common complications of cholelithiasis. While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment in mild and moderate forms, the need for antibiotic therapy after surgery remains undefined. The aim of the randomised controlled Cholecystectomy Antibiotic Randomised Trial (CHART) is therefore to assess if there are benefits in the use of postoperative antibiotics in patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis in whom a laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed.Methods and analysisA single-centre, double-blind, randomised trial. After screening for eligibility and informed consent, 300 patients admitted for acute calculus cholecystitis will be randomised into two groups of treatment, either receiving amoxicillin/clavulanic acid or placebo for 5 consecutive days. Postoperative evaluation will take place during the first 30 days. Postoperative infectious complications are the primary end point. Secondary end points are length of hospital stay, readmissions, need of reintervention (percutaneous or surgical reinterventions) and overall mortality. The results of this trial will provide strong evidence to either support or abandon the use of antibiotics after surgery, impacting directly in the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of antibiotics, the emergence of bacterial resistance and treatment costs.Ethics and disseminationThis study and informed consent sheets have been approved by the Research Projects Evaluating Committee (CEPI) of Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires (protocol N° 2111).ResultsThe results of the trial will be reported in a peer-reviewed publication.Trial registration numberNCT02057679.
| S-EPMC4654351 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPostoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is currently the standard of care for patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty. We evaluated the evidence for this practice in the reduction of surgical-site infections.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to Aug. 15, 2014. We included all RCTs that compared postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis with postoperative placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing primary total hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. We combined outcomes for surgical-site infection using a random-effects model and quantified heterogeneity using the χ2 test and the I2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsWe identified 4 RCTs (n = 4036) that met the inclusion criteria. Surgical-site infections occurred in 3.1% (63/2055) of patients in the prophylaxis group and 2.3% (45/1981) in the control group. Postoperative prophylaxis did not reduce the rate of surgical-site infections compared with placebo (risk difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.02; I2 = 26%). This result was robust to sensitivity testing for losses to follow-up. According to the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence was very low.InterpretationThe available evidence did not show efficacy of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical-site infections in patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. Multicentred RCTs are likely to have an important impact on the confidence in the effect estimate and to change the estimate itself.
| S-EPMC4596117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAccording to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).Materials and methodsOn behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447).ResultsTwenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables.ConclusionsHEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.
| S-EPMC10235147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many researchers have addressed overdosage and inappropriate use of antibiotics. Many meta-analyses have investigated antibiotic prophylaxis for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the aim of reducing unnecessary antibiotic use. Most of these meta-analyses have concluded that prophylactic antibiotics are not required for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomies. This study aimed to assess the validity of this conclusion by systematically reviewing these meta-analyses. METHODS:A systematic review was undertaken. Searches were limited to meta-analyses and systematic reviews. PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from inception until March 2016 using the following keyword combinations: 'antibiotic prophylaxis', 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' and 'systematic review or meta-analysis'. Two independent reviewers selected meta-analyses or systematic reviews evaluating prophylactic antibiotics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. All of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs) analysed in these meta-analyses were also reviewed. RESULTS:Seven meta-analyses regarding prophylactic antibiotics for low-risk laparoscopic cholecystectomy that had examined a total of 28 RCTs were included. Review of these meta-analyses revealed 48 miscounts of the number of outcomes. Six RCTs were inappropriate for the meta-analyses; one targeted patients with acute cholecystitis, another measured inappropriate outcomes, the original source of a third was not found and the study protocols of the remaining three were not appropriate for the meta-analyses. After correcting the above miscounts and excluding the six inappropriate RCTs, pooled risk ratios (RRs) were recalculated. These showed that, contrary to what had previously been concluded, antibiotics significantly reduced the risk of postoperative infections. The rates of surgical site, distant and overall infections were all significantly reduced by antibiotic administration (RR (95% CI); 0.71 (0.51 to 0.99), 0.37 (0.19 to 0.73), 0.50 (0.34 to 0.75), respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of postoperative infections after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
| S-EPMC5857705 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of the neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir and zanamivir in treatment of children with seasonal influenza and prevention of transmission to children in households.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of data from published and unpublished randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline and Embase to June 2009, trial registries, and manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. Review methods Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of neuraminidase inhibitors in children aged </=12 in the community (that is, not admitted to hospital) with confirmed or clinically suspected influenza. Primary outcome measures were time to resolution of illness and incidence of influenza in children living in households with index cases of influenza.ResultsWe identified four randomised trials of treatment of influenza (two with oseltamivir, two with zanamivir) involving 1766 children (1243 with confirmed influenza, of whom 55-69% had influenza A), and three randomised trials for postexposure prophylaxis (one with oseltamivir, two with zanamivir) involving 863 children; none of these trials tested efficacy with the current pandemic strain. Treatment trials showed reductions in median time to resolution of symptoms or return to normal activities, or both, of 0.5-1.5 days, which were significant in only two trials. A 10 day course of postexposure prophylaxis with zanamivir or oseltamivir resulted in an 8% (95% confidence interval 5% to 12%) decrease in the incidence of symptomatic influenza. Based on only one trial, oseltamivir did not reduce asthma exacerbations or improve peak flow in children with asthma. Treatment was not associated with reduction in overall use of antibiotics (risk difference -0.30, -0.13 to 0.01). Zanamivir was well tolerated, but oseltamivir was associated with an increased risk of vomiting (0.05, 0.02 to 0.09, number needed to harm=20).ConclusionsNeuraminidase inhibitors provide a small benefit by shortening the duration of illness in children with seasonal influenza and reducing household transmission. They have little effect on asthma exacerbations or the use of antibiotics. Their effects on the incidence of serious complications, and on the current A/H1N1 influenza strain remain to be determined.
| S-EPMC2724601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.
| S-EPMC8718672 | biostudies-literature