Dataset Information

Impact of bodyweight-adjusted antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical-site infection rates.

ABSTRACT: Antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) adjustment according to bodyweight to prevent surgical-site infections (SSI) is controversial. The impact of weight-adjusted AMP dosing on SSI rates was investigated here. Results from a first study of patients undergoing visceral, vascular or trauma operations, and receiving standard AMP, enabled retrospective evaluation of the impact of bodyweight and BMI on SSI rates, and identification of patients eligible for weight-adjusted AMP. In a subsequent observational prospective study, patients weighing at least 80 kg were assigned to receive double-dose AMP. Risk factors for SSI, including ASA classification, duration and type of surgery, wound class, diabetes, weight in kilograms, BMI, age, and AMP dose, were evaluated in multivariable analysis. In the first study (3508 patients), bodyweight and BMI significantly correlated with higher rates of all SSI subclasses (both P < 0.001). An 80-kg cut-off identified patients receiving single-dose AMP who were at higher risk of SSI. In the prospective study (2161 patients), 546 patients weighing 80 kg or more who received only single-dose AMP had higher rates of all SSI types than a group of 1615 who received double-dose AMP (odds ratio (OR) 4.40, 95 per cent c.i. 3.18 to 6.23; P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis including 5021 patients from both cohorts, bodyweight (OR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02; P = 0.008), BMI (OR 1.01, 1.00 to 1.02; P = 0.007) and double-dose AMP (OR 0.33, 0.23 to 0.46; P < 0.001) among other variables were independently associated with SSI rates. Double-dose AMP decreases SSI rates in patients weighing 80 kg or more.

SUBMITTER: Salm L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7944861 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designRetrospective hospital-registry study.ObjectiveTo characterize the microbial epidemiology of surgical site infection (SSI) in spinal fusion surgery and the burden of resistance to standard surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.Summary of background dataSSI persists as a leading complication of spinal fusion surgery despite the growth of enhanced recovery programs and improvements in other measures of surgical quality. Improved understandings of SSI microbiology and common mechanisms of failure for current prevention strategies are required to inform the development of novel approaches to prevention relevant to modern surgical practice.MethodsSpinal fusion cases performed at a single referral center between January 2011 and June 2019 were reviewed and SSI cases meeting National Healthcare Safety Network criteria were identified. Using microbiologic and procedural data from each case, we analyzed the anatomic distribution of pathogens, their differential time to presentation, and correlation with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening results. Susceptibility of isolates cultured from each infection were compared with the spectrum of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis administered during the index procedure on a per-case basis. Susceptibility to alternate prophylactic agents was also modeled.ResultsAmong 6727 cases, 351 infections occurred within 90 days. An anatomic gradient in the microbiology of SSI was observed across the length of the back, transitioning from cutaneous (gram-positive) flora in the cervical spine to enteric (gram-negative/anaerobic) flora in the lumbosacral region (correlation coefficient 0.94, P < 0.001). The majority (57.5%) of infections were resistant to the prophylaxis administered during the procedure. Cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative infection was common at lumbosacral levels and undetected methicillin-resistance was common at cervical levels.ConclusionIndividualized infection prevention strategies tailored to operative level are needed in spine surgery. Endogenous wound contamination with enteric flora may be a common mechanism of infection in lumbosacral fusion. Novel approaches to prophylaxis and prevention should be prioritized in this population.Level of Evidence: 3.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical site infections (SSI) are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. To lower the incidence of SSI, antimicrobial prophylaxis is given 30-60 min before certain types of surgeries in both human and veterinary patients. However, due to the increasing concern of antimicrobial resistance, the benefit of antimicrobial prophylaxis in clean orthopaedic and neurosurgeries warrants investigation. The aims of this retrospective cross-sectional study were to review the rate of SSI and evaluate the compliance with antimicrobial guidelines in dogs at a veterinary teaching hospital in 2012-2016. In addition, possible risk factors for SSI were assessed. RESULTS:Nearly all dogs (377/406; 92.9%) received antimicrobial prophylaxis. Twenty-nine dogs (7.1%) did not receive any antimicrobials and only four (1.1%) received postoperative antimicrobials. The compliance with in-house and national protocols was excellent regarding the choice of prophylactic antimicrobial (cefazolin), but there was room for improvement in the timing of prophylaxis administration. Follow-up data was available for 89.4% (363/406) of the dogs. Mean follow-up time was 464 days (range: 3-2600 days). The overall SSI rate was 6.3%: in orthopaedic surgeries it was 6.7%, and in neurosurgeries it was 4.2%. The lowest SSI rates (0%) were seen in extracapsular repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture, ulnar ostectomy, femoral head and neck excision, arthrotomy and coxofemoral luxation repair. The highest SSI rate (25.0%) was seen in arthrodesis. Omission of antimicrobials did not increase the risk for SSI (P?=?0.56; OR 1.7; CI95% 0.4-5.0). Several risk factors for SSI were identified, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus pseudintermedius carriage (P?=?0.02; OR 9.0; CI95% 1.4-57.9) and higher body temperature (P?=?0.03; OR 1.69; CI95% 1.0-2.7; mean difference +?0.4 °C compared to dogs without SSI). CONCLUSIONS:Antimicrobial prophylaxis without postoperative antimicrobials is sufficient to maintain the overall rate of SSI at a level similar to published data in canine clean orthopedic and neurosurgeries.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery is a major source of postoperative morbidity. Although studies have demonstrated perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) to be beneficial in the prevention of SSI among spinal surgery patients, consensus is lacking over whether preoperative or extended postoperative AMP is most efficacious. To date, no meta-analysis has investigated the comparative efficacy of these two temporally variable AMP protocols in spinal surgery. We undertook a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine whether extended postoperative AMP is associated with a difference in the rate of SSI occurrence among adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.MethodsEmbase and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for clinical trials and cohort studies directly comparing SSI rates among adult spinal surgery patients receiving either preoperative or extended postoperative AMP. Quality of evidence of the overall study population was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Random effects meta-analyses were performed utilizing both pooled and stratified data based on instrumentation use.ResultsFive studies met inclusion criteria. No individual study demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of SSI occurrence between preoperative and extended postoperative AMP protocols. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Among the overall cohort of 2824 patients, 96% underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Pooled SSI rates were 1.38% (26/1887) for patients receiving extended postoperative AMP and 1.28% (12/937) for patients only receiving preoperative AMP. The risk of SSI development among patients receiving extended postoperative AMP was not significantly different from the risk of SSI development among patients only receiving preoperative AMP [RR (risk ratio), 1.11; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.53-2.36; p = 0.78]. The difference in risk of SSI development when comparing extended postoperative AMP to preoperative AMP was also not significant for both instrumented (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.15-5.75; p = 0.93) and non-instrumented spinal surgery (RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.49-3.17; p = 0.65). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects for all meta-analyses.ConclusionPreoperative AMP appears to provide equivalent protection against SSI development when compared to extended postoperative AMP. Prudent antibiotic use is also known to decrease hospital length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and risk of complications. However, until higher-quality evidence becomes available regarding AMP in spinal surgery, surgeons should continue to exercise discretion and clinical judgment when weighing the effects of patient comorbidities and complications before determining the optimal duration of perioperative AMP.

Project description:Importance:Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a common indication for antibiotic use in hospitals and is associated with high rates of inappropriateness. Objective:To describe the SAP prescribing practices and assess hospital, surgical, and patient factors associated with appropriate SAP prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants:Multicenter, national, quality improvement study with retrospective analysis of data collected from Australian hospitals via Surgical National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey audits from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Crude estimates of appropriateness were adjusted for factors included in the model by calculating estimated marginal means and presented as adjusted-appropriateness with 95% confidence intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures:Adjusted appropriateness and factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions. Results:A total of 9351 surgical episodes and 15 395 prescriptions (10 740 procedural and 4655 postprocedural) were analyzed. Crude appropriateness of total prescriptions was 48.7% (7492 prescriptions). The adjusted appropriateness of each surgical procedure group was low for procedural SAP, ranging from 33.7% (95% CI, 26.3%-41.2%) for dentoalveolar surgery to 68.9% (95% CI, 63.2%-74.5%) for neurosurgery. The adjusted appropriateness of postprocedural prescriptions was also low, ranging from 21.5% (95% CI, 13.4%-29.7%) for breast surgery to 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-69.4%) for ophthalmological procedures. The most common reason for inappropriate procedural SAP was incorrect timing (44.9%), while duration greater than 24 hours was the most common reason for inappropriate postprocedural SAP (54.3%). Conclusions and Relevance:High rates of inappropriate procedural and postprocedural antimicrobial use were demonstrated across all surgical specialties. Reasons for inappropriateness, such as timing and duration, varied according to the type of SAP and surgical specialty. These findings highlight the need for improvement in SAP prescribing and suggest potential targeted areas for action.

Project description:IntroductionIn breast surgeries, prophylactic antibiotics given before the surgical incision as per Joint Commission Surgical Care Improvement Project guidelines have been shown to decrease the rate of postoperative infections. There is, however, no clear consensus on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing mastectomy with indwelling drains. This trial protocol proposes to study the difference in rates of surgical site infection (SSI) with or without continuation of postoperative antibiotics in patients undergoing mastectomy without immediate reconstruction and with indwelling drains.Methods and analysisIn this multicentre, double-blinded clinical trial, all patients undergoing mastectomy (without immediate reconstruction) will receive a single prophylactic dose of preoperative antibiotics at induction of anaesthesia and will then get randomised to either continue antibiotic prophylaxis or a placebo postoperatively, for the duration of indwelling drains. The primary and secondary outcomes will be development of an SSI and antibiotic-associated adverse effects, respectively. Data will be collected through a standard questionnaire by wound assessors. Intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out using STATA V.12. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be assessed by χ2 test/Fisher's exact test as appropriate. The quantitative variables will be computed by their mean±SD or median (IQR) and will be assessed by independent t-test/Mann-Whitney test as appropriate. Unadjusted and adjusted relative risk with their 95% CI will be reported using Cox proportional regression. A p value of <0.05 will be considered statistically significant.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from each site's Ethical Review Board. The study background and procedure will be explained to the study participants and informed consent will be obtained. Participation in the study is voluntary. All data will be deidentified and kept confidential. The study findings will be published in scientific media and authorship guidelines of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors will be followed.Trial registration numberNCT04577846. (patient recruitment).

Dataset Information

Impact of bodyweight-adjusted antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical-site infection rates.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets