The goal of this study was to assess whether patients receive their antibiotic prophylaxis as prescribed. We also investigated what doses and durations of antibiotics are typically ordered, which patients actually receive antibiotics and factors causing the ordered antibiotic regimen to be altered.
We performed a retrospective review of 205 patient charts and sent a national survey to all surgeon members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society (COTS) about antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of surgical treatment for closed fractures.
In all, 93% (179 of 193) of patients received an appropriate preoperative dose of antibiotics, whereas less than 32% (58 of 181) of patients received their postoperative antibiotics as ordered. The most commonly stated reason for patients not receiving their postoperative antibiotics as ordered was patients being discharged before completing 3 postoperative doses. There was a 70% (39 of 56) response rate to the survey sent to COTS surgeons. A single dose of a first-generation cephalosporin preoperatively followed by 3 doses postoperatively is the most common practice among orthopedic trauma surgeons across Canada, but several surgeons give only preoperative prophylaxis.
Adherence to multidose postoperative antibiotic regimens is poor. Meta-analyses have failed to demonstrate the superiority of multidose regimens over single-dose prophylaxis. Single-dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis may be a reasonable choice for most orthopedic trauma patients with closed fractures.
Cites: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999 Nov;20(11):752-510580626
To investigate antibiotic prophylaxis prescription behaviors among Swedish dentists working with dental implant surgery and the influence of scientific reviews.
An observational questionnaire study was conducted in 2008 and 2012. Dental clinic addresses were found through online search services of Swedish telephone directories. The questionnaires were posted to eligible dentists (120 in 2008, 161 in 2012) in the Stockholm region, Sweden. Absolute frequencies were used to describe the data. Chi-square tests were applied to assess statistically significant differences.
The response rate was 75% in 2008 and 88% in 2012. In 2008, 88% of the dentists routinely prescribed antibiotic prophylaxis when performing implant surgery and 74% in 2012 (P = 0.01). There was a significant reduction in the dentists prescription patterns as 65% prescribed a single dose in 2012, compared to 49% in 2008 (P = 0.04). Amoxicillin was the drug of choice for 47% of the respondents in 2012, and 21% in 2008 (P = 0.01). Dentists without postgraduate clinical training were significantly more prone to extend antibiotic administration after surgery (P
In a prospective, block-randomized, multicenter study, the safety and efficacy of cefoxitin in preoperative prophylaxis were studied. 1735 patients undergoing appendectomy were evaluable, and half of these patients received 2 g of cefoxitin before undergoing operation. The patients were divided into three groups: patients with a normal appendix, patients with an acutely inflamed appendix, and patients with a gangrenous appendix. The study showed for each group a significant reduction of the incidence of wound infection in patients receiving prophylaxis. However, intra-abdominal abscess formation was not influenced by preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Consequently, routine preoperative prophylaxis is recommended before appendectomy.
BACKGROUND. To investigate the guidelines for patient selection and drug regimens for application of antibiotic prophylaxis in relation to cesarean section in the maternity clinics in Denmark. METHODS. A questionnaire to all the Danish maternity clinics that perform cesarean section, concerning indications for application of antibiotic prophylaxis and antibiotic regimens to patients undergoing acute and elective cesarean section. RESULTS. All departments (n = 48) returned the questionnaire. Twenty departments (46%) provided written guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis. Four departments (8%) used antibiotic prophylaxis to elective cesarean sections, 25 departments (52%) applied antibiotics to all emergency sections. In the presence of the rupture of membranes or prolongation of labor (> 12 hrs) 58% and 63% of the departments applied antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively. The most infrequent first choice drug was cefuroxim, employed by 27 departments (56%). Concerning timing, 21 departments (44%) applied antibiotics after cord clamping and 13 departments (27%) before incision. CONCLUSION. We propose a nation-wide prospective investigation on the rate of infections associated with cesarean section to set up rational guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis.
In order to assess the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics (AB) in arthroplastic surgery in Denmark, questionnaires were sent to all Danish orthopaedic departments and all general surgical departments that perform orthopaedic surgery. Fifty-six departments (93%) returned the questionnaires. All departments use prophylactic AB in primary knee and hip arthroplasty and in revision arthroplasty. In addition, all departments but one use prophylactic AB in arthroplasty secondary to osteosynthesis. The largest group of departments uses penicillinase-resistant penicillin (PRP) in their standard prophylaxis regimens. The second largest group uses second generation cephalosporins. With one exception, all use cefuroxime. A small group uses other types of AB. Fifteen percent of the departments combine systemic AB with gentamicin bone cement (GC) in primary hip arthroplasty, whereas 22% use this combination in primary knee arthroplasty. Significantly more departments use GC in revision arthroplasty (89%) and in arthroplasty secondary to osteosynthesis (63%). Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis (beyond 24 hours) is practised to a significantly higher degree in revision arthroplastic surgery than in the primary arthroplasties. In conclusion, one of two homogeneous groups of prophylactic AB is used in arthroplastic surgery in Denmark as prescribed in the literature.
To review the evidence and provide recommendations on antibiotic prophylaxis for obstetrical procedures.
Outcomes evaluated include need and effectiveness of antibiotics to prevent infections in obstetrical procedures.
Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline and The Cochrane Library on the topic of antibiotic prophylaxis in obstetrical procedures. Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. Searches were updated on a regular basis and articles published from January 1978 to June 2009 were incorporated in the guideline. Current guidelines published by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology were also incorporated. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology assessment-related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.
The evidence obtained was reviewed and evaluated by the Infectious Diseases Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada under the leadership of the principal authors, and recommendations were made according to guidelines developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (Table 1).
Implementation of this guideline should reduce the cost and harm resulting from the administration of antibiotics when they are not required and the harm resulting from failure to administer antibiotics when they would be beneficial. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Available evidence does not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce infectious morbidity following operative vaginal delivery. (II-1) 2. There is insufficient evidence to argue for or against the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce infectious morbidity for manual removal of the placenta. (III) 3. There is insufficient evidence to argue for or against the use of prophylactic antibiotics at the time of postpartum dilatation and curettage for retained products of conception. (III) 4. Available evidence does not support the use of prophylactic antibiotics to reduce infectious morbidity following elective or emergency cerclage. (II-3)
1. All women undergoing elective or emergency Caesarean section should receive antibiotic prophylaxis. (I-A) 2. The choice of antibiotic for Caesarean section should be a single dose of a first-generation cephalosporin. If the patient has a penicillin allergy, clindamycin or erythromycin can be used. (I-A) 3. The timing of prophylactic antibiotics for Caesarean section should be 15 to 60 minutes prior to skin incision. No additional doses are recommended. (I-A) 4. If an open abdominal procedure is lengthy (>3 hours) or estimated blood loss is greater than 1500 mL, an additional dose of the prophylactic antibiotic may be given 3 to 4 hours after the initial dose. (III-L) 5. Prophylactic antibiotics may be considered for the reduction of infectious morbidity associated with repair of third and fourth degree perineal injury. (I-B) 6. In patients with morbid obesity (BMI>35), doubling the antibiotic dose may be considered. (III-B) 7. Antibiotics should not be administered solely to prevent endocarditis for patients who undergo an obstetrical procedure of any kind. (III-E).
The frequency of caesarean sections is increasing. Infection in operation wounds and/or underlying spaces and organs is a common complication. In Veileder I fødselshjelp [Clinical Guidelines in Obstetrics], 2008, antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended in the form of single dose ampicillin or first generation cephalosporins in connection with acute caesarean sections and under special conditions such as prolonged operations. We wanted to find out whether Norwegian maternity departments follow these recommendations.
All head senior consultants at maternity departments that carried out more than one caesarean section in 2008 were invited to take part in a survey of the department's written guidelines for use of antibiotic prophylaxis in connection with caesarean section. The extent to which the guidelines were followed was evaluated using data from the Norwegian Surveillance System for Hospital-Associated Infections (NOIS).
38 of the 42 maternity wards in the investigation had written guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis. Four of these maternity wards gave prophylaxis in all Caesarean sections, one only on indication, and 33 in acute Caesarean section. The guidelines varied as regards choice of type of antibiotic and time of administration. In the maternity wards with written guidelines recommending use of antibiotic prophylaxis in all Caesarean sections, were practice in accordance with the guidelines. When the guidelines recommended prophylactic use only in acute operations, there was agreement between practice and guidelines in 71 % to 97 % of the patients in the ward.
Most Norwegian maternity wards have written guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in Caesarean section. The contents of the guidelines varied but are mainly in agreement with current Norwegian recommendations.
Eight wound preparative agents (one triclosan compound, one hexachlorophene compound, and six iodophors) were evaluated under actual operating-room conditions for efficacy in de-germing the operative site prior to the performance of 310 total hip arthroplasties. All of the preparations tested achieved a significant reduction (p less than or equal to 0.001) of indigenous skin microflora compared with the pre-scrub level in both the post-scrub and the postoperative cultures. Two iodophors, when applied as sprays, demonstrated excellent bactericidal action, were less time-consuming and easier to use than the compounds that were applied as scrubs, and did not alter the low (0.42 per cent) infection rate that we have recorded over a period of four years.
The article presents the follow-up study of 254 onco-proctologic patients after reconstructive abdominoperitoneal resections. Patients were divided into 4 statistically homogeneous groups (2 main and 2 control groups). A comparative analysis of middle and lateral laparotomy wounds healing was made. Laparotomy wounds were stitched up using conventional method (in layers, tightly) and using other method of prolonged flow-aspiration drainage of hypodermic tissue. Postoperative wound infections were noted in 11.4% patients in case of conventional means. The prolonged flow-aspiration drainage in laparotomy wounds causes only 1.5% of complications.