-
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2024Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinicians frequently prescribe systemic antibiotics after lower third molar extractions to prevent complications such as surgical site infections and dry socket. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials was conducted to compare the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of lower third molars with different prophylactic antibiotics. The occurrence of any antibiotic-related adverse event was also analysed. A pairwise and network meta-analysis was performed to establish direct and indirect comparisons of each outcome variable. Sixteen articles involving 2158 patients (2428 lower third molars) were included, and the following antibiotics were analysed: amoxicillin (with and without clavulanic acid), metronidazole, azithromycin, and clindamycin. Pooled results favoured the use of antibiotics to reduce dry socket and surgical site infection after the removal of a lower third molar, with a number needed to treat of 25 and 18, respectively. Although antibiotic prophylaxis was found to significantly reduce the risk of dry socket and surgical site infection in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction, the number of patients needed to treat was high. Thus, clinicians should evaluate the need to prescribe antibiotics taking into consideration the patient's systemic status and the individual risk of developing a postoperative infection.
Topics: Humans; Dry Socket; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Surgical Wound Infection; Molar, Third; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 37612199
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2023.08.001 -
The British Journal of Surgery Oct 2023Previous studies have reported conflicting results of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the...
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have reported conflicting results of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis on infectious complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. This study evaluated the effect of prolonged antibiotics on surgical-site infections (SSIs) after pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken of SSIs in patients with perioperative (within 24 h) versus prolonged antibiotic (over 24 h) prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy. SSIs were classified as organ/space infections or superficial SSI within 30 days after surgery. ORs were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.
RESULTS
Ten studies were included in the qualitative analysis, of which 8 reporting on 1170 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The duration of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis varied between 2 and 10 days after surgery. Four studies reporting on 782 patients showed comparable organ/space infection rates in patients receiving perioperative and prolonged antibiotics (OR 1.35, 95 per cent c.i. 0.94 to 1.93). However, among patients with preoperative biliary drainage (5 studies reporting on 577 patients), organ/space infection rates were lower with prolonged compared with perioperative antibiotics (OR 2.09, 1.43 to 3.07). Three studies (633 patients) demonstrated comparable superficial SSI rates between patients receiving perioperative versus prolonged prophylaxis (OR 1.54, 0.97 to 2.44), as well as in patients with preoperative biliary drainage in 4 studies reporting on 431 patients (OR 1.60, 0.89 to 2.88).
CONCLUSION
Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with fewer organ/space infection in patients who undergo preoperative biliary drainage. However, the optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy remains to be determined and warrants confirmation in an RCT.
PubMed: 37440361
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znad213 -
BMJ Open Aug 2023Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating disease with a 50% 1-year mortality rate. In recent years, medical authorities across the globe advised stricter criteria... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a devastating disease with a 50% 1-year mortality rate. In recent years, medical authorities across the globe advised stricter criteria for antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with high risk of IE undergoing dental procedures. Whether such recommendations may increase the risk of IE in at-risk patients must be investigated.
DESIGN
Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through 23 May 2022, together with an updated search on 5 August 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
All primary studies reporting IE within 3 months of dental procedures in adults >18 years of age were included, while conference abstracts, reviews, case reports and case series involving fewer than 10 cases were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
All studies were assessed by two reviewers independently, and any discrepancies were further resolved through a third researcher.
RESULTS
Of the 3771 articles screened, 38 observational studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the study for subsequent analysis. Overall, 11% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.16, I=100%) of IE are associated with recent dental procedures. accounted for 69% (95% CI 0.46 to 0.85) of IE in patients who had undergone recent dental procedures, compared with only 21% (95% CI 0.17 to 0.26) in controls (p=0.003). None of the high-risk patients developed IE across all studies where 100% of the patients were treated with prophylactic antibiotics, and IE patients are 12% more likely to have undergone recent dental manipulation compared with matched controls (95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, p=0.048).
CONCLUSIONS
Although there is a lack of randomised control trials due to logistic difficulties in the literature on this topic, antibiotic prophylaxis are likely of benefit in reducing the incidence of IE in high-risk patients after dental procedures. Further well-designed high-quality case-control studies are required.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022326664.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Endocarditis; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Case-Control Studies; Group Processes
PubMed: 37607797
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077026 -
European Urology Focus Jul 2023Patients undergoing radical cystectomy frequently suffer from infectious complications, including urinary tract infections (UTIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs)... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Patients undergoing radical cystectomy frequently suffer from infectious complications, including urinary tract infections (UTIs) and surgical site infections (SSIs) leading to emergency department visits, hospital readmission, and added cost.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the literature regarding perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, ureteric stent usage, and prevalence of infectious complications after cystectomy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and reference lists was conducted.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 20 reports including a total of 55 306 patients. The median rates of any infection, UTIs, SSIs, and bacteremia were 40%, 20%, 11%, and 6%, respectively. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis differed substantially between reports. Perioperative antibiotics were used only during surgery in one study but were continued over several days after surgery in all other studies. Empirical use of antibiotics for 1-3 d after surgery was described in 12 studies, 3-10 d in two studies, and >10 d in four studies. Time to stent removal ranged from 4 to 25 d after cystectomy. Prophylactic antibiotics were used before stent removal in nine of 20 studies; two of these studies used targeted antibiotics based on urine cultures from the ureteric stents, and the other seven studies used a single shot or 2 d of empirical antibiotics. Studies with any prophylactic antibiotic before stent removal found a lower median percentage of positive blood cultures after stent removal than studies without prophylactic antibiotics before stent removal (2% vs 9%).
CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed a high proportion of infectious complications after cystectomy, and a heterogeneous pattern of choice and duration of antibiotics during and after surgery or stent removal. These findings highlight a need for further studies and support quality prospective trials.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this review, we observed wide variability in the use of antibiotics before or after surgical removal of the bladder.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cystectomy; Prospective Studies; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Surgical Wound Infection; Urinary Tract Infections; Stents
PubMed: 36710211
DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.012 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2023In the era of antibiotic overuse and increasing antibiotic resistance, there is a gap in evidence regarding antibiotic stewardship, and in particular, perioperative... (Review)
Review
In the era of antibiotic overuse and increasing antibiotic resistance, there is a gap in evidence regarding antibiotic stewardship, and in particular, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis after urethral reconstruction. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness and relevance of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis after male pediatric and adult urethral reconstruction. An online search of MEDLINE database via PubMed was performed. The systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022348555) and was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR 2 checklist. A narrative synthesis of included studies was performed. After the screening of 1176 publications, six studies regarding antibiotic prophylaxis after hypospadias reconstruction and two studies regarding antibiotic prophylaxis after urethroplasty in adults were eligible to be included in the systematic review. All but one of the studies on hypospadias repair showed no benefit from postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The level of evidence on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis after urethroplasty in adults is low. Neither of the two studies included in the review showed a benefit from antibiotic use. Postoperative prophylaxis after hypospadias repair is not effective in preventing urinary tract infections and wound infections. It seems that the use of postoperative prophylaxis after urethroplasty in adults is also not beneficial, but there is a high need for high-quality scientific data.
PubMed: 37834807
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196162 -
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Jul 2023There are currently no standardised guidelines on whether antibiotic prophylaxis is required for Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation to minimise the risk of surgical site...
INTRODUCTION
There are currently no standardised guidelines on whether antibiotic prophylaxis is required for Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation to minimise the risk of surgical site infection when used in patients undergoing clean orthopaedic surgery.
PURPOSE
To compare the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic in K-wire fixation when used in either in trauma or elective orthopaedics.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and a search of electronic information was conducted to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies comparing the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis group versus those without antibiotic in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in which K-wire fixation was used. Incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome. Random effects modelling was used for the analysis.
RESULTS
Four retrospective cohort studies and one RCT were identified with a total of 2316 patients. There was no significant difference between the prophylactic antibiotic and no antibiotic groups in terms of incidence of SSI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72, = 0.18).
CONCLUSIONS
There is no significant difference in administering peri-operative antibiotics for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery using K-wire.
PubMed: 37384006
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-00879-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2024Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Leptospirosis is a global zoonotic and waterborne disease caused by pathogenic Leptospira species. Antibiotics are used as a strategy for prevention of leptospirosis, in particular in travellers and high-risk groups. However, the clinical benefits are unknown, especially when considering possible treatment-associated adverse effects. This review assesses the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in leptospirosis and is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Library (2009, Issue 3).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis for human leptospirosis.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and other resources. We searched online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The last date of search was 17 April 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised clinical trials of any trial design, assessing antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis, and with no restrictions on age, sex, occupation, or comorbidity of trial participants. We looked for trials assessing antibiotics irrespective of route of administration, dosage, and schedule versus placebo or no intervention. We also included trials assessing antibiotics versus other antibiotics using these criteria, or the same antibiotic but with another dose or schedule.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed Cochrane methodology. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (inclusive of asymptomatic cases), clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation, clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (exclusive of asymptomatic cases), and serious adverse events. The secondary outcomes were quality of life and the proportion of people with non-serious adverse events. We assessed the risk of bias of the included trials using the RoB 2 tool and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model for our main analyses and the fixed-effect model for sensitivity analyses. Our primary outcome analyses included trial data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five randomised clinical trials comprising 2593 participants that compared antibiotics (doxycycline, azithromycin, or penicillin) with placebo, or one antibiotic compared with another. Four trials assessed doxycycline with different durations, one trial assessed azithromycin, and one trial assessed penicillin. One trial had three intervention groups: doxycycline, azithromycin, and placebo. Three trials assessed pre-exposure prophylaxis, one trial assessed postexposure prophylaxis, and one did not report this clearly. Four trials recruited residents in endemic areas, and one trial recruited soldiers who experienced limited time exposure. The participants' ages in the included trials were 10 to 80 years. Follow-up ranged from one to three months. Antibiotics versus placebo Doxycycline compared with placebo may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.83; 1 trial, 782 participants; low-certainty evidence). Prophylactic antibiotics may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.26; 5 trials, 2593 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics may result in little to no difference in the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of laboratory confirmation (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.08; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis with laboratory confirmation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.26; 4 trials, 1653 participants; low-certainty evidence). Antibiotics compared with placebo may increase non-serious adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 10.13, 95% CI 2.40 to 42.71; 3 trials, 1909 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One antibiotic versus another antibiotic One trial assessed doxycycline versus azithromycin but did not report mortality. Compared to azithromycin, doxycycline may have little to no effect on laboratory-confirmed leptospirosis regardless of the presence of an identified clinical syndrome (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.51 to 4.32; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis regardless of the presence of laboratory confirmation (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), on the clinical diagnosis of leptospirosis confirmed by laboratory diagnosis (RR 4.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 18.66; 1 trial, 137 participants), and on non-serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.48; 1 trial, 137 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes was very low. None of the five included trials reported serious adverse events or assessed quality of life. One study is awaiting classification. Funding Four of the five trials included statements disclosing their funding/supporting sources, and the remaining trial did not include this. Three of the four trials that disclosed their supporting sources received the supply of trial drugs directly from the same pharmaceutical company, and the remaining trial received financial support from a governmental source.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo or another antibiotic has little or have no effect on all-cause mortality or leptospirosis infection because the certainty of evidence is low or very low. We do not know if antibiotics versus placebo may increase the overall risk of non-serious adverse events because of very low-certainty evidence. We lack definitive rigorous data from randomised trials to support the use of antibiotics for the prophylaxis of leptospirosis infection. We lack trials reporting data on clinically relevant outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Doxycycline; Azithromycin; Quality of Life; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Penicillins; Leptospirosis
PubMed: 38483067
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014959.pub2 -
JAMA Cardiology Apr 2024The association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures is still unclear. Indications for antibiotic prophylaxis were...
IMPORTANCE
The association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures is still unclear. Indications for antibiotic prophylaxis were restricted by guidelines beginning in 2007.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and analyze existing evidence on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Proquest, Embase, Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to May 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies on the association between antibiotic prophylaxis and infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures or time-trend analyses of infective endocarditis incidence before and after current antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Study quality was evaluated using structured tools. Data were extracted by independent observers. A pooled relative risk (RR) of developing infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals who were receiving antibiotic prophylaxis vs those who were not was computed by random-effects meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The outcome of interest was the incidence of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis.
RESULTS
Of 11 217 records identified, 30 were included (1 152 345 infective endocarditis cases). Of them, 8 (including 12 substudies) were either case-control/crossover or cohort studies or self-controlled case series, while 22 were time-trend studies; all were of good quality. Eight of the 12 substudies with case-control/crossover, cohort, or self-controlled case series designs performed a formal statistical analysis; 5 supported a protective role of antibiotic prophylaxis, especially among individuals at high risk, while 3 did not. By meta-analysis, antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a significantly lower risk of infective endocarditis after invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk (pooled RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.29-0.57; P for heterogeneity = .51; I2, 0%). Nineteen of the 22 time-trend studies performed a formal pre-post statistical analysis; 9 found no significant changes in infective endocarditis incidence, 7 demonstrated a significant increase for the overall population or subpopulations (individuals at high and moderate risk, streptococcus-infective endocarditis, and viridans group streptococci-infective endocarditis), whereas 3 found a significant decrease for the overall population and among oral streptococcus-infective endocarditis.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
While results from time-trend studies were inconsistent, data from case-control/crossover, cohort, and self-controlled case series studies showed that use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with reduced risk of infective endocarditis following invasive dental procedures in individuals at high risk, while no association was proven for those at low/unknown risk, thereby supporting current American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology recommendations. Currently, there is insufficient data to support any benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in individuals at moderate risk.
PubMed: 38581643
DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2024.0873 -
Annals of Plastic Surgery Sep 2023The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast augmentation (IBBA) is commonplace among many plastic surgeons. However, the current literature... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for implant-based breast augmentation (IBBA) is commonplace among many plastic surgeons. However, the current literature lacks evidence-based recommendations to support this practice. Although few studies have demonstrated a reduction in surgical site infection (SSI) and capsular contracture (CC) with antibiotics, these studies were underpowered and poorly designed. The aim of this study was to provide an updated comprehensive analysis of the literature to revisit the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane was performed from January 1989 to January 2022. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving primary and secondary IBBA and use of antibiotic prophylaxis were included. Primary outcomes included SSI and CC. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using standardized tools. A meta-analysis was performed for eligible studies. Trial Sequential Analysis was used to assess the need for future RCTs.
RESULTS
A total of 5 studies (3 observational and 2 RCTs) with 2383 patients were included in this study. Rates of SSI ranged from 0% to 2.3%, whereas CC ranged from 0% to 53%. Antibiotic prophylaxis showed no benefit for both SSI (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4.13) and CC (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.00-45.72). Trial Sequential Analysis demonstrated that further high-quality RCTs are needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA failed to demonstrate improvements in SSI and CC in this comprehensive review. Current evidence was shown to be of low quality because of heterogeneity and high risk for bias. Further high-quality multicentered RCTs are warranted to fully evaluate the role of antibiotic prophylaxis for IBBA.
Topics: Female; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Mammaplasty; Observational Studies as Topic; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 37566823
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003622 -
International Urogynecology Journal Jan 2024To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for intradetrusor onabotulinum toxin type A (BTX)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
To our knowledge, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for intradetrusor onabotulinum toxin type A (BTX) injections. This systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed at investigating the optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen to decrease urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients undergoing BTX for overactive bladder syndrome (OAB).
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted from inception through 30 June 2022. All randomized controlled trials and prospective trials with > 20 subjects undergoing BTX injections for OAB in adults that described prophylactic antibiotic regimens were included. Meta-analysis performed to assess UTI rates in patients with idiopathic OAB using the inverse variance method for pooling.
RESULTS
A total of 27 studies (9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective) were included, representing 2,100 patients (69% women) with 19 studies of idiopathic OAB patients only, 6 of neurogenic only, and 2 including both. No studies directly compared antibiotic regimens for the prevention of UTI. Included studies favor the use of antibiotics in patients with idiopathic OAB and favor continuing antibiotics for 2-3 days after the procedure for prevention of UTI. Given the heterogeneity of the data, direct comparisons of antibiotic type or duration could not be performed. Meta-analysis found a 10% UTI rate at 4 weeks and 15% at 12 weeks post-injection.
CONCLUSIONS
Although there are insufficient data to support the use of a specific antibiotic regimen, available studies favor the use of prophylactic antibiotics for 2-3 days in idiopathic OAB patients undergoing BTX injection. Future trials are needed to determine the optimal regimens to prevent UTI in patients undergoing BTX for OAB.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Male; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prospective Studies; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Urinary Tract Infections; Urinary Bladder, Overactive
PubMed: 37938397
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05665-4