Dataset Information

An observational cohort study on the effects of extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical-site infections in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Worldwide, approximately one in six inpatient antibiotic prescriptions are for surgical-infection prophylaxis, including postoperative prophylaxis. The WHO recommends against prolonged postoperative antibiotics to prevent surgical-site infection. However, in many low- and middle-income countries, postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is common due to perceptions that it protects against surgical-site infection and data informing recommendations against antibiotic administration are largely derived from high-income countries. The aim of this study was to describe postoperative antibiotic-prescribing patterns and related surgical-site infection rates in hospitals in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

Patients from 19 hospitals in Ethiopia, Madagascar, India, and Bolivia with wound class I and II operations were included. Data on antibiotic administration, indication, surgical-site infection, length of hospital stay, and adherence to perioperative infection-prevention standards were collected by trained personnel. The association between postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for greater than or equal to 24 h and surgical-site infection was analysed via modified robust Poisson regression, controlling for patient and procedural factors and degree of adherence to perioperative infection-prevention practices.

Results

Of 8714 patients, 92.9% received antibiotics for prophylaxis after surgery and 27.7% received antibiotics for greater than or equal to 24 h. Patients receiving postoperative prophylaxis for greater than or equal to 24 h did not have lower surgical-site infection rates (Relative risk 1.09 (95% c.i. 0.89 to 1.33); P = 0.399), but the length of hospital stay was 1.4 days longer (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Prolonged postoperative antibiotics did not reduce surgical-site infection, but pervasive use was associated with a longer length of hospital stay, in resource-limited healthcare systems. With the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, surgical initiatives to implement antimicrobial stewardship programmes in low- and middle-income countries are critical.

SUBMITTER: Clean Cut Investigators Group

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10782210 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An observational cohort study on the effects of extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical-site infections in low- and middle-income countries.

The British journal of surgery 20240101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Worldwide, approximately one in six inpatient antibiotic prescriptions are for surgical-infection prophylaxis, including postoperative prophylaxis. The WHO recommends against prolonged postoperative antibiotics to prevent surgical-site infection. However, in many low- and middle-income countries, postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is common due to perceptions that it protects against surgical-site infection and data informing recommendations against antibiotic administration ...[more]

PMID: 38198157

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSurgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication worldwide. WHO guidelines to prevent SSI recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and fascial closure using triclosan-coated sutures, but called for assessment of both interventions in low-resource settings. This study aimed to test both interventions in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsFALCON was a 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial stratified by whether surgery was clean-contaminated, or contaminated or dirty, including patients undergoing abdominal surgery with a skin incision of 5 cm or greater. This trial was undertaken in 54 hospitals in seven countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa). Patients were computer randomised 1:1:1:1 to: (1) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, (2) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, (3) 10% aqueous povidone-iodine and non-coated suture, or (4) 10% aqueous povidone-iodine and triclosan-coated suture. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was SSI, reported by trained outcome assessors, and presented using adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749.FindingsBetween Dec 10, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 5788 patients (3091 in clean-contaminated stratum, 2697 in contaminated or dirty stratum) were randomised (1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, 1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, 1447 to aqueous povidone-iodine and non-coated suture, and 1449 to aqueous povidone-iodine and triclosan-coated suture). 14·0% (810/5788) of patients were children and 66·9% (3873/5788) had emergency surgery. The overall SSI rate was 22·0% (1163/5284; clean-contaminated stratum 15·5% [454/2923], contaminated or dirty stratum 30·0% [709/2361]). For both strata, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI with alcoholic chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine (clean-contaminated stratum 15·3% [223/1455] vs 15·7% [231/1468], relative risk 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·14]; contaminated or dirty stratum 28·3% [338/1194] vs 31·8% [371/1167], relative risk 0·91 [95% CI 0·81-1·02]), or with triclosan-coated sutures versus non-coated sutures (clean-contaminated stratum 14·7% [215/1459] vs 16·3% [239/1464], relative risk 0·90 [95% CI 0·77-1·06]; contaminated or dirty stratum 29·4% [347/1181] vs 30·7% [362/1180], relative risk 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·10]). With both strata combined, there were no differences using alcoholic chlorhexidine or triclosan-coated sutures.InterpretationThis trial did not show benefit from 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation compared with povidone-iodine, or with triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures, in preventing SSI in clean-contaminated or contaminated or dirty surgical wounds. Both interventions are more expensive than alternatives, and these findings do not support recommendations for routine use.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant, BD.

Project description:BackgroundThere is ongoing debate on the clinical benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing pelvic infection after miscarriage surgery. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in low-income countries.MethodsWe did an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using data from 3412 women recruited to the AIMS trial, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical management of miscarriage in Malawi, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Uganda. Economic evaluation was done from a health-care-provider perspective on the basis of the outcome of cost per pelvic infection avoided within 2 weeks of surgery. Pelvic infection was broadly defined by the presence of clinical features or the clinically identified need to administer antibiotics. We used non-parametric bootstrapping and multilevel random effects models to estimate incremental mean costs and outcomes. Decision uncertainty was shown via cost-effectiveness acceptability frontiers. The AIMS trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97143849.FindingsBetween June 2, 2014, and April 26, 2017, 3412 women were assigned to receive either antibiotic prophylaxis (1705 [50%] of 3412) or placebo (1707 [50%] of 3412) in the AIMS trial. 158 (5%) of 3412 women developed pelvic infection within 2 weeks of surgery, of whom 68 (43%) were in the antibiotic prophylaxis group and 90 (57%) in the placebo group. There is 97-98% probability that antibiotic prophylaxis is a cost-effective intervention at expected thresholds of willingness-to-pay per additional pelvic infection avoided. In terms of post-surgery antibiotics, the antibiotic prophylaxis group was US$0·27 (95% CI -0·49 to -0·05) less expensive per woman than the placebo group. A secondary analysis, a sensitivity analysis, and all subgroup analyses supported these findings. Antibiotic prophylaxis, if implemented routinely before miscarriage surgery, could translate to an annual total cost saving of up to $1·4 million across the four participating countries and up to $8·5 million across the two regions of sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.InterpretationAntibiotic prophylaxis is more effective and less expensive than no antibiotic prophylaxis. Policy makers in various settings should be confident that antibiotic prophylaxis in miscarriage surgery is cost-effective.FundingUK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Department for International Development.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is an effective infection prevention strategy used to reduce postoperative surgical site infection. Inappropriate use of SAP is a concern in low-middle-income countries (LMICs) due to increased mortality risks, adverse reactions, re-admission rates and length of hospital stay. Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASP) have been shown to be effective in improving the appropriate use of antibiotics including the use of SAP. The aim of this review was to evaluate the impact of ASP on the appropriate use of SAP and its implication on patient outcomes in LMICs.MethodThe protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO. Studies published between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2023 were searched electronically from Medline, Central Cochrane Library, web of science, CINAHL and APA PsychInfo databases. Studies were included if they assessed the impact of ASP interventions on SAP use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies were evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for non-randomized and before and after studies as well as the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool for randomized studies. Findings were summarized in tables.ResultsTwenty studies comprising of seventeen before-after studies, two interrupted time series, and one randomized controlled trial were included. Penicillins and cephalosporins were the most commonly used antibiotics for SAP. Most (50%) of the studies were conducted in Asia followed by Africa (45%). While 80% of the studies showed the impact of ASP on compliance to SAP guidelines, only 45% showed an impact on antibiotic utilization. Again, 50% and 60% showed an impact on reducing antibiotic costs and patient length of stay at hospitals respectively. Patient outcomes including rates of surgical site infections and mortality showed no significant change. The studies showed a high risk of bias mainly due to the choice of study designs.ConclusionASP interventions in LMICs are effective in improving SAP guideline adherence, antibiotic utilization and their cost. Deliberate effort must be made to improve on the quality of future interventional studies in these settings to guide practice and encourage other LMICs to conduct such studies to assess the influence of different geographical contexts on SAP use.

Dataset Information

An observational cohort study on the effects of extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical-site infections in low- and middle-income countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

An observational cohort study on the effects of extended postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical-site infections in low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets