Perioperative antibiotics in pediatric cardiac surgery: protocol for a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Post-operative infections in pediatric cardiac surgery are an ongoing clinical challenge, with rates between 1 and 20%. Perioperative antibiotics remain the standard for prevention of surgical-site infections, but the type of antibiotic and duration of administration remain poorly defined. Current levels of practice variation through informal surveys are very high. Rates of antibiotic-resistant organisms are increasing steadily around the world.Methods/design
We will identify all controlled observational studies and randomized controlled trials examining prophylactic antibiotic use in pediatric cardiac surgery. Data sources will include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and proceedings from recent relevant scientific meetings. For each included study, we will conduct duplicate independent data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evaluation of quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.Discussion
We will report the results of this review in agreement with the PRISMA statement and disseminate our findings at relevant critical care and cardiology conferences and through publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will use this systematic review to inform clinical guidelines, which will be disseminated in a separate stand-alone publication.Study registration number
PROSPERO CRD42016052978C.
SUBMITTER: Anand V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5450342 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Perioperative antibiotics in pediatric cardiac surgery: protocol for a systematic review.
Anand Vijay V Bates Angela A Featherstone Robin R Murthy Srinivas S
Systematic reviews 20170530 1
<h4>Background</h4>Post-operative infections in pediatric cardiac surgery are an ongoing clinical challenge, with rates between 1 and 20%. Perioperative antibiotics remain the standard for prevention of surgical-site infections, but the type of antibiotic and duration of administration remain poorly defined. Current levels of practice variation through informal surveys are very high. Rates of antibiotic-resistant organisms are increasing steadily around the world.<h4>Methods/design</h4>We will i ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Post-operative endophthalmitis is a rare and dreaded complication in ophthalmic operations because it often induces irreparable vision loss. Although many ophthalmological studies aimed at reducing the rate of endophthalmitis have been performed around the world, controversy continues to surround some issues, including the choice of antimicrobials and their route of administration, duration and timing. The aim of this study is to investigate some of these unresolved issues.A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched to identify studies published until Feb. 2016. The relative risk (RR) for each clinical outcome data is presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled estimates of effects were calculated using random-effect models.Thirty-four studies from twenty-four reports involving 1264797 eyes were included in this analysis. Endophthalmitis occurred, on average, in one out of 6177 eyes when intracameral vancomycin/moxifloxacin were used and in one out of 1517 eyes when intracameral vancomycin/moxifloxacin were not used. The relative risk (95% CI) of endophthalmitis was reduced to 0.20 (0.10, 0.42) when intracameral antibiotics were used (p<0.0001). The subconjunctival injection of antibiotics was not superior to other administration routes included in this study (RR = 1.67, 95% CI (0.55, 5.05), p = 0.36). A statistically significant difference was found in the rate of endophthalmitis between the use and lack of use of topical antibiotics (RR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.43, 0.99), p = 0.04). However, no statistically significant difference was found in microbial isolation rates between these groups (RR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.34, 1.75), p = 0.53). When long-term and short-term use of topical antibiotics before surgery were compared, a statistically significant difference was found in microbial isolation rates (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.44, 0.74), p<0.0001).This meta-analysis concluded intracameral antibiotics are effective at preventing endophthalmitis in ocular surgery. A randomized controlled trial confirms the efficacy of cefuroxime but recent large cohort studies support the efficacy of vancomycin/moxifloxacin intracamerally. Intracameral antibitoics are superior to subconjunctival injections but that irrigation antibitoic data are not of enough quality to make a comparison. Different results were found in two clinical outcomes between the use or lack of use of topical antibiotic therapy, we did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that its use prevents endophthalmitis.
| S-EPMC5100907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The benefit-risk profile of perioperative corticosteroids in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains controversial. Objective: To investigate the influence of perioperative corticosteroids on the postoperative mortality and clinical outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database through August 31, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials comparing perioperative corticosteroids with other clinical interventions, placebo, or no treatment in children between 0 and 18 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery. The primary outcome of interest was all-cause in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit stay (LOIS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), postoperative insulin therapy, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), postoperative infection, maximal temperature (T max) in the first 24 h postoperatively, urine output (UO) in the first 24 h postoperatively, serum lactate at postoperative day (POD) 1, blood glucose at POD 1, vasoactive inotrope score (VIS) at POD 1, and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Results: Our analysis included 17 studies and 848 pediatric patients. The data demonstrated that children receiving corticosteroids showed no significant difference on the all-cause in-hospital mortality with a fixed-effect model (RR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.28-1.25, P = 0.55) compared with controls. For the secondary outcomes, corticosteroids had a statistically significant reduction on the VIS at POD1 (MD = -2.04, 95% CI = -3.96 -0.12, P = 0.04), while it might be significantly associated with an increased blood glucose at POD1 (MD = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.68-2.09, P = 0.0001) and a 2.69-fold higher risk of postoperative insulin therapy (RR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.37-5.27, P = 0.004). No statistical significance was shown in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Perioperative corticosteroids might not significantly improve clinical outcomes identified as mortality, LOIS, DMV, AKI, and LCOS other than VIS at POD1. However, it might increase the blood glucose and episodes of insulin therapy. Perioperative corticosteroids to attenuate the inflammatory response are not supported by available evidence from our study. Further results from ongoing randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size are required.
| S-EPMC7396528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of perioperative statin therapy on clinical outcome after cardiac or non-cardiac surgery are controversial. We aimed to assess the association between perioperative statin therapy and postoperative outcome.MethodsElectronic databases were searched up to May 1, 2018, for randomized controlled trials of perioperative statin therapy versus placebo or no treatment in adult cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. Postoperative outcomes were: myocardial infarction, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality. We calculated risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects meta-analyses. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to assess the possible influence of statin therapy regimen on clinical outcomes and trial sequential analysis to evaluate the risk of random errors and futility.ResultsWe included data from 35 RCTs involving 8200 patients. Perioperative statin therapy was associated with lower incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery (OR = 0.44 [95% CI 0.30-0.64], p < 0.0001), but not in cardiac surgery (OR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.70-1.24], p = 0.61) (psubgroup = 0.002). Higher incidence of AKI was present in cardiac surgery patients receiving perioperative statins (RR = 1.15 [95% CI 1.00-1.31], p = 0.05), nonetheless not in non-cardiac surgery (RR = 1.52 [95% CI 0.71-3.26], p = 0.28) (psubgroup = 0.47). No difference in postoperative stroke and mortality was present in either cardiac or non-cardiac surgery. However, low risk of bias trials performed in cardiac surgery showed a higher mortality with statins versus placebo (OR = 3.71 [95% CI 1.03-13.34], p = 0.04). Subgroup and meta-regression analyses failed to find possible relationships between length of statin regimens and clinical outcomes. Trial sequential analysis suggested no firm conclusions on the topic.ConclusionsPerioperative statins appear to be protective against postoperative myocardial infarction in non-cardiac surgery and associated with higher AKI in cardiac surgery. Possible positive or even negative effects on mortality could not be excluded and merits further investigations. Currently, no randomized evidence supports the systematic administration of statins in surgical patients.
| S-EPMC6160380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAnemia is common in cardiac surgery affecting 25-40% of patients and associated with increased blood transfusions, morbidity, mortality, and higher hospital costs. Higher rates of stroke, acute renal injury, and total number of adverse postoperative outcomes have also been reported to be associated with preoperative anemia. This systematic review assessed the current evidence for preoperative intravenous iron on major outcomes following cardiac surgery.MethodsOutcome measures included postoperative hemoglobin, transfusion rates, major adverse events, and mortality. The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and articles were identified using PubMed, Cochrane, CLINAHL, WOS, and EMBASE databases. Articles were included if they compared patients with and without preoperative anemia based on treatment with intravenous iron. Quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.ResultsOf the articles reviewed, six met inclusion criteria. These included four randomized double-blind prospective cohort studies, one randomized non-blinded prospective study, and one non-randomized non-blinded prospective study with historical control. Across studies, 1,038 patients were enrolled. Two studies showed higher hemoglobin with iron therapy, and only one study showed significant differences in multiple outcomes such as transfusion and morbidity.ConclusionsGiven the paucity of studies and biases within them, the current evidence for treatment with intravenous iron prior to cardiac surgery is weak. More evidence is needed to support the administration of preoperative intravenous iron in cardiac surgery patients.
| S-EPMC7665859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntithrombotic drugs increase the risk of bleeding, especially in patients who need urgent surgery without an adequate wash-out period. This review aims to evaluate perioperative bleeding complications in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) undergoing high-bleeding risk cardiovascular surgery and to present currently available potential solutions to mitigate antithrombotic therapy-related bleeding complications.MethodsAs a first step, we searched for relevant articles, over the last 10 years, in Medline (PubMed) and abstracted clinical information based on pre-defined criteria for bleeding complications. In the next step, an additional search evaluating potential solutions to mitigate bleeding complications was performed. The literature screening and selection process followed the principles derived from the PRISMA statement.ResultsFrom all reviewed studies, a total of 19 articles could be included evaluating the risk for bleeding in cardiac surgery related to DAPT or DOACs and 10 papers evaluating antithrombotic drug reversal or removal in the setting of cardiovascular surgery. Reported bleeding rates ranged between 18% and 41%. The variability of the reported data is remarkable. Idarucizumab is reported to provide optimal perioperative hemostasis in up to 93% of patients. It has been observed that andexanet alfa causes unresponsiveness to the anticoagulant effects of heparin. Antithrombotic removal by intraoperative hemoadsorption is found to be associated with a significant decrease in re-thoracotomy rate, overall procedure duration, administered transfusion volumes, chest-tube drainage, and length of hospitalization.DiscussionBleeding complications in patients treated with DAPT or DOACs in cardiac surgery are high. New costly reversal agents are available but have not been sufficiently tested in the cardio-surgical setting so far. Interestingly, bleeding-related complications seem to be effectively reduced by applying innovative intraoperative hemoadsorption techniques. Expected results from the ongoing trials should provide better insights concerning the efficacy and safety of several potential solutions. Currently, the variability of reports and the deficit of high-quality studies in this specific setting represent the major limitation for the unbiased conclusion of this review.
| S-EPMC9442533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionBleeding during cardiac surgery is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic with proven efficacy in major surgeries. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend intraoperative use in cardiac procedures. However, several complications have been reported with tranexamic acid including seizures. This review intends to summarise the evidence examining the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Methods/designWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, PubMED, ACPJC, CINAHL and the Cochrane trial registry for eligible randomised controlled trials, the search dates for all databases will be from inception until 1 January 2019, investigating the perioperative use of topical and/or intravenous tranexamic acid as a stand-alone antifibrinolytic agent compared with placebo in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. We categorised outcomes as patient critical or patient important. Selected patient-critical outcomes are: mortality (intensive care unit, hospital and 30-day endpoints), reoperation within 24 hours, postoperative bleeding requiring transfusion of packed red blood cells, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, bowel infarction, upper or lower limb deep vein thrombosis and seizures. Those outcomes, we perceived as clinical experts to be most patient valued and patients were not involved in outcomes selection process. We will not apply publication date, language, journal or methodological quality restrictions. Two reviewers will independently screen and identify eligible studies using predefined eligibility criteria and then review full reports of all potentially relevant citations. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be achieved. We will present the results as relative risk with 95% CIs for dichotomous outcomes and as mean difference or standardised mean difference for continuous outcomes with 95% CIs. We will assess the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018105904.
| S-EPMC6756438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is limited published literature exploring how the personality traits of surgeons may influence preoperative decision making, particularly in the context of visceral/abdominal surgery. Multiple validated personality scoring systems exist and have been used to describe surgeon personalities previously. The degree to which each trait is expressed by abdominal surgeons is neither currently known, nor the impact of these traits on postoperative outcomes. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The search strategy has been developed by a Health Scientist Librarian in collaboration with the review team. The search was conducted on 1st October 2019.Database subject headings and text words relating to 'abdominal/general surgeons', 'personality', 'postoperative outcomes' and 'decision making' formed the basis of our literature search strategy; the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases will be searched. Three reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles, with a fourth reviewer utilised if disagreements arise.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed, with information presented in text and table format. These will summarise the findings and characteristics of any included studies. Using guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the reviewers will describe the potential relationship and findings between studies using the narrative synthesis. Studies will only be reported if they are felt to have low or mid-levels of bias. Studies felt to display high levels of bias will be excluded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study does not require ethical approval. The formal systematic review will be submitted for peer reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences. The methods may inform future reviews in other surgical specialties regarding surgeon personality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019151375.
| S-EPMC7045243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, there is an increasing trend of performing more complex operations in a day care setting, usually driven by economic considerations. Provision of appropriate pain relief is still inadequate in this setting. Poor pain control and adverse effects of opioids provided for pain control are common reasons for readmission, with human and economic consequences. The aim of this review was to develop evidence-based protocol for pain management of day surgery in a resource limited setting.MethodAfter formulating the key questions, scope, and eligibility criteria for the articles to be included, advanced search strategy of electronic sources from data bases and websites was conducted. Screening of literatures was conducted with proper appraisal checklist. This review was reported in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement.ResultsA total of 333 articles were identified from data bases and websites using an electronic search. 45 articles were removed for duplication and 87 studies were excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts. At the screening stage, 73 articles were retrieved and evaluated for eligibility. Finally, 40 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this systematic review.ConclusionDay surgery encourages patients to mobilize soon after surgery and empowers them to manage their own pain. Thus, preoperative patient education and high-quality perioperative pain management are paramount. With increasing healthcare demands for more day-case procedures, multi-modal analgesic techniques in the perioperative period with good extension of analgesia into the postoperative discharge period are essential.
| S-EPMC9422356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5-7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42021255177.
| S-EPMC8438883 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The correct perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) is often debated by clinicians. American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend postponing elective NCS at least 3 months after stent implantation. Regardless of the timing of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines recommend continuing at least ASA throughout the perioperative period and ideally continuing dual APT (DAPT) therapy "unless surgery demands discontinuation." The objective of this review was to ascertain the risks and benefits of APT in the perioperative period, to assess how these risks and benefits vary by APT management, and the significance of length of time since stent implantation before operative intervention. METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 2017. Articles were included if patients were post PCI with stent placement (bare metal [BMS] or drug eluting [DES]), underwent elective NCS, and had rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or bleeding events associated with pre and perioperative APT therapy. RESULTS:Of 4882 screened articles, we included 16 studies in the review (1 randomized controlled trial and 15 observational studies). Studies were small (< 50: n = 5, 51-150: n = 5, >150: n = 6). All studies included DES with 7 of 16 also including BMS. Average time from stent to NCS was variable (< 6 months: n = 3, 6-12 months: n = 1, > 12 months: n = 6). At least six different APT strategies were described. Six studies further utilized bridging protocols using three different pharmacologic agents. Studies typically included multiple surgical fields with varying degrees of invasiveness. Across all APT strategies, rates of MACE/bleeding ranged from 0 to 21% and 0 to 22%. There was no visible trend in MACE/bleeding rates within a given APT strategy. Stratifying the articles by type of surgery, timing of discontinuation of APT therapy, bridging vs. no bridging, and time since stent placement did not help explain the heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence regarding perioperative APT management in patients with cardiac stents undergoing NCS is insufficient to guide practice. Other clinical factors may have a greater impact than perioperative APT management on MACE and bleeding events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016036607.
| S-EPMC5763575 | biostudies-literature