Systemic Prophylactic Antibiotics for the Modified Introducer Method for Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study

被引:15
|
作者
Adachi, Yasushi [1 ,2 ]
Akino, Kimishige [1 ]
Mita, Hiroaki [1 ]
Kikuchi, Takefumi [1 ]
Yamashita, Kentaro [2 ]
Sasaki, Yasushi [2 ]
Arimura, Yoshiaki [2 ]
Endo, Takao [1 ]
机构
[1] Sapporo Shirakaba Dai Hosp, Div Gastroenterol, Dept Internal Med, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
[2] Sapporo Med Univ, Dept Gastroenterol Rheumatol & Clin Immunol, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan
关键词
antibiotic prophylaxis; modified introducer method; percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG); peristomal infection; wound infection; PERISTOMAL INFECTION; PULL METHOD; PEG-GASTROPEXY; RISK; MORTALITY; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1097/MCG.0000000000000470
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the most common method of enteral nutrition in patients who require long-term tube feeding. According to meta-analyses, administration of systemic prophylactic antibiotics for PEG reduces peristomal infection. However, with several recent developments in the procedure and instruments, the risk of infection might have been reduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for a modified introducer method of PEG. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial assessed 278 patients undergoing PEG for inclusion. Ninety-one patients with an indication for PEG who gave informed consent to participate were randomized. Forty-six patients received prophylactic ampicillin and 45 patients received a placebo. A modified introducer method of PEG using a Seldinger PEG kit was performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically evident wound infection within 3 days after PEG. Results: Wound infection within 3 days was observed in none in the prophylaxis group and in 1 patient in the control group (P = 0.4945). There was no significant difference between 2 groups in the other parameters, including peristomal infection within 7 days, overall infection, white blood cell counts, C-reactive protein level, and successive rate of finishing antibiotics. Conclusions: For wound infection within 3 days, noninferiority of the placebo group to the antibiotics group was preliminarily suggested with our criteria, but not for peristomal infection within 7 days. More strict criteria for noninferiority should be examined in a further large sample study.
引用
收藏
页码:727 / 732
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of modified introducer method with pull method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: Prospective randomized study
    Shigoka, Hiroaki
    Maetani, Iruru
    Tominaga, Kenji
    Gon, Katsushige
    Saitou, Michihiro
    Takenaka, Yukio
    DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2012, 24 (06) : 426 - 431
  • [2] Role of antibiotic prophylaxis for wound infection in percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): result of a prospective double-blind randomized trial
    Panigrahi, H
    Shreeve, DR
    Tan, WC
    Prudham, R
    Kaufman, R
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2002, 50 (04) : 312 - 315
  • [3] Placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study of prophylactic antibiotics in elective abdominal hysterectomy
    Chongsomchai, C
    Lumbiganon, P
    Thinkhamrop, J
    Ounchai, J
    Vudhikamraksa, N
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2002, 52 (04) : 302 - 306
  • [4] Comparison of normal saline and antiseptic solution effect on the early peristomal infection rates of patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes: A randomized double-blind study
    Akcay, Kezban
    Ayhan, Hatice
    Sezer Ceren, Rana Elcin
    Simsek, Cem
    Abbasoglu, Osman
    NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2023, 38 (06) : 1343 - 1353
  • [5] Paravertebral block for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study
    Baldea, Kristin G.
    Patel, Parth M.
    Delos Santos, Grace
    Ellimoottil, Chandy
    Farooq, Ahmer
    Mueller, Elizabeth R.
    Byram, Scott
    Turk, Thomas M. T.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (11) : 2963 - 2969
  • [6] Central Venous Catheterization: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study
    Mer, Mervyn
    Duse, Adriano Gianmaria
    Galpin, Jacqueline Suzanne
    Richards, Guy Antony
    CLINICAL AND APPLIED THROMBOSIS-HEMOSTASIS, 2009, 15 (01) : 19 - 26
  • [7] Dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation with colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study
    Kinugasa, Hideaki
    Higashi, Reiji
    Miyahara, Koji
    Moritou, Yuki
    Hirao, Ken
    Ogawa, Tsuneyoshi
    Kunihiro, Masaki
    Nakagawa, Masahiro
    CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 9
  • [8] Premedication Methods in Nasal Endoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study
    Sahin, Mehmet Ilhan
    Kokoglu, Kerem
    Gulec, Safak
    Ketencil, Ibrahim
    Unlu, Yasar
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY, 2017, 10 (02) : 158 - 163
  • [9] Buffered Lidocaine for Incision and Drainage: A Prospective, Randomized Double-blind Study
    Balasco, Matthew
    Drum, Melissa
    Reader, Al
    Nusstein, John
    Beck, Mike
    JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2013, 39 (11) : 1329 - 1334
  • [10] Efficacy of Low-Dose Prophylactic Quetiapine on Delirium Prevention in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
    Kim, Youlim
    Kim, Hyung-Sook
    Park, Jong Sun
    Cho, Young-Jae
    Yoon, Ho Il
    Lee, Sang-Min
    Lee, Jae Ho
    Lee, Choon-Taek
    Lee, Yeon Joo
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (01)