Contemporary use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical patients An observational cohort study

被引:8
作者
Dias, Priyanthi [1 ]
Patel, Akshaykumar [1 ]
Rook, William [2 ]
Edwards, Mark R. [3 ,4 ,5 ]
Pearse, Rupert M. [1 ]
Abbott, Tom E. F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Queen Mary Univ London, William Harvey Res Inst, London, England
[2] Univ Hosp Birmingham NHS Fdn Trust, Birmingham, W Midlands, England
[3] Univ Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, Dept Anaesthesia, Southampton, Hants, England
[4] Univ Hosp Southampton NHS Fdn Trust, NIHR Biomed Res Ctr, Acute Crit & Perioperat Care Res Grp, Southampton, Hants, England
[5] Univ Southampton, Southampton, Hants, England
关键词
SITE INFECTION; GUIDELINES; SURGERY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; CHECKLIST; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1097/EJA.0000000000001619
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND Antimicrobial prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), despite concerns of overuse leading to antimicrobial resistance. However, it is unclear how often antimicrobials are used and whether guidelines are followed. OBJECTIVES To describe contemporary clinical practice for antimicrobial prophylaxis including guideline compliance, the rate of postoperative infection and associated side effects. DESIGN A prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study. SETTING Twelve United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS One thousand one hundred and sixteen patients, aged at least 18 years undergoing specific colo-rectal, obstetric, gynaecological, urological or orthopaedic surgical procedures. EXPOSURE Compliance with guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis. OUTCOMES The primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were number of doses of antimicrobials for prophylaxis and to treat infection, incidence of antimicrobial-related side effects and mortality within 30 days after surgery. Data are presented as number with percentage (%) or median with interquartile range [IQR]. Results of logistic regression analyses are presented as odds ratio/rate ratio (OR/RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS 1102 out of 1106 (99.6%) patients received antimicrobial prophylaxis, which was compliant with local guidelines in 929 out of 1102 (84.3%) cases. 2169 out of 51 28 (42.3%) doses of antimicrobials were administered as prophylaxis (median 1 [1 to 2] dose) and 2959 out of 5128 (57.7%) were administered to treat an infection (median 21 [11 to 28] doses). 56 patients (5.2%) developed SSI. Antimicrobial prophylaxis administered according to local guidelines was not associated with a lower incidence of SSI compared with administration outside guidelines [OR 0.90 (0.35 to 2.29); P = 0.823]. 23 out of 1072 (2.2%) patients experienced a side effect of antimicrobial therapy. 7 out of 1082 (0.6%) patients died. The median hospital stay was 3 [1 to 5] days. CONCLUSION Antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered for almost all the surgical procedures under investigation. However, this was not always compliant with guidelines. Further research is required to determine whether the amount of prophylactic antimicrobials could be safely and effectively reduced without increasing the incidence of SSI.
引用
收藏
页码:533 / 539
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Frequency of surgical treatment and related hospital procedures in the UK: a national ecological study using hospital episode statistics
    Abbott, T. E. F.
    Fowler, A. J.
    Dobbs, T. D.
    Harrison, E. M.
    Gillies, M. A.
    Pearse, R. M.
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2017, 119 (02) : 249 - 257
  • [2] Agency HP, 2012, ENGL NAT POINT PREV, P2
  • [3] Allegranzi Benedetta, 2016, Lancet Infect Dis, V16, pe276, DOI 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30398-X
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2021, ANTIMICROBIAL RESIST
  • [5] International cooperation to improve access to and sustain effectiveness of antimicrobials
    Ardal, Christine
    Outterson, Kevin
    Hoffman, Steven J.
    Ghafur, Abdul
    Sharland, Mike
    Ranganathan, Nisha
    Smith, Richard
    Zorzet, Anna
    Cohn, Jennifer
    Pittet, Didier
    Daulaire, Nils
    Morel, Chantal
    Rizvi, Zain
    Balasegaram, Manica
    Dar, Osman A.
    Heymann, David L.
    Holmes, Alison H.
    Moore, Luke S. P.
    Laxminarayan, Ramanan
    Mendelson, Marc
    Rottingen, John-Arne
    [J]. LANCET, 2016, 387 (10015) : 296 - 307
  • [6] Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries
    Badia, J. M.
    Casey, A. L.
    Petrosillo, N.
    Hudson, P. M.
    Mitchell, S. A.
    Crosby, C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2017, 96 (01) : 1 - 15
  • [7] Bratzler Dale W, 2013, Am J Health Syst Pharm, V70, P195, DOI [10.1089/sur.2013.9999, 10.2146/ajhp120568]
  • [8] THE TIMING OF PROPHYLACTIC ADMINISTRATION OF ANTIBIOTICS AND THE RISK OF SURGICAL-WOUND INFECTION
    CLASSEN, DC
    EVANS, RS
    PESTOTNIK, SL
    HORN, SD
    MENLOVE, RL
    BURKE, JP
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1992, 326 (05) : 281 - 286
  • [9] Postoperative Adverse Events Inconsistently Improved by the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist: A Systematic Literature Review of 25 Studies
    de Jager, Elzerie
    McKenna, Chloe
    Bartlett, Lynne
    Gunnarsson, Ronny
    Ho, Yik-Hong
    [J]. WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 40 (08) : 1842 - 1858
  • [10] de Jonge SW, 2020, LANCET INFECT DIS, V20, P1182, DOI [10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30084-0, 10.1016/51473-3099(20)30084-0]