-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2023It remains unclear whether antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) should be recommended or discouraged in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for prostate... (Review)
Review
It remains unclear whether antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) should be recommended or discouraged in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for prostate cancer (PCa). The development of microbial resistance and side effects are risks of antibiotic use. This systematic review (SR) investigates the evidence base for AP in RALP. A systematic literature search was conducted until 12 January 2023, using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane CDSR (via Ovid) and CINAHL for studies reporting the effect of AP on postoperative infectious complications in RALP. Of 436 screened publications, 8 studies comprising 6378 RALP procedures met the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate and severity of infective complications within 30 days after RALP surgery between different AP protocols. No studies omitted AP. For patients who received AP, the overall occurrence of postoperative infectious complications varied between 0.6% and 6.6%. The reported urinary tract infection (UTI) rates varied from 0.16% (4/2500) to 8.9% (15/169). Wound infections were reported in 0.46% (4/865) to 1.12% (1/89). Sepsis/bacteraemia and hyperpyrexia were registered in 0.1% (1/1084) and 1.6% (5/317), respectively. Infected lymphoceles (iLC) rates were 0.9% (3 of 317) in a RALP cohort that included 88.6% pelvic lymph node dissections (PLND), and 3% (26 of 865) in a RALP cohort where all patients underwent PLND. Our findings underscore that AP is being administered in RALP procedures without scientifically proven evidence. Prospective studies that apply consistent and uniform criteria for measuring infectious complications and antibiotic-related side effects are needed to ensure the comparability of results and guidance on AP in RALP.
PubMed: 38136777
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics12121744 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2024The aim of this study is to perform a high-quality meta-analysis using only randomized controlled trials (RCT) to better define the role of postoperative antibiotics in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this study is to perform a high-quality meta-analysis using only randomized controlled trials (RCT) to better define the role of postoperative antibiotics in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature search for RCTs in EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science up to May 2023 was conducted following the PICO framework: Population-adult patients who underwent PCNL; Intervention-postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal; Control-single dose of antibiotic during the induction of anesthesia; and Outcome-systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) or sepsis and fever after PCNL. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42022361579). We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A random-effects model was employed, and the alpha risk was defined as < 0.05.
RESULTS
Seven articles, encompassing a total of 629 patients, were included in the analysis. The outcome of SIRS or sepsis was extracted from six of the included studies, while the outcome of postoperative fever was extracted from four studies. The analysis revealed no statistical association between the use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal and the occurrence of SIRS/sepsis (OR 1.236, 95% CI 0.731 - 2.089, p=0.429) or fever (OR 2.049, 95% CI 0.790 - 5.316, p=0.140).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that there is no benefit associated with the use of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis until nephrostomy tube withdrawal in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We recommend that antibiotic prophylaxis should be administered only until the induction of anesthesia in PCNL.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Sepsis; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38386786
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2023.0626 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jul 2023: Group B streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of infections in neonates with high fatality rates. GBS is caused by the streptococcus bacterium known as... (Review)
Review
: Group B streptococcus (GBS) is the leading cause of infections in neonates with high fatality rates. GBS is caused by the streptococcus bacterium known as streptococcus agalactiae, which is highly contagious and can be transmitted from pregnant women to infants. GBS infection can occur as an early onset or late-onset infection and has different treatment strategies. Antibiotics are effective in treating GBS infections at early stages. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the clinical characteristics and treatment strategies for GBS, with a focus on antibiotics. : The findings of this review were reported in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and a flow diagram of the study selection process, a summary of the included studies, a description of the study characteristics, a summary of the results, a discussion of the implications of the findings, and a conclusion are included. Overall, the authors followed a rigorous methodology to ensure that this review is comprehensive and inclusive of relevant studies on GBS infection and its treatment. : Overall, 940 studies were reviewed and only the most relevant 22 studies were included in the systematic review. This review describes the characteristics of patients in different studies related to early onset GBS disease and presents various treatment strategies and outcomes for GBS infection in pediatrics. The studies suggest that preventive measures, risk-based intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis, and maternal vaccination can significantly reduce the burden of GBS disease, but late-onset GBS disease remains a concern, and more strategies are required to decrease its rate. Improvement is needed in the management of the risk factors of GBS. A conjugate vaccine with a serotype (Ia, Ib, II, III, and V) has been proven effective in the prevention of GBS in neonates. Moreover, penicillin is an important core antibiotic for treating early onset GBS (EOD). : This systematic review summarizes the treatment comparison for GBS infections in neonates, with a primary focus on antibiotics. IAP (intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis) according to guidelines, antenatal screening, and the development of a conjugate vaccine may be effective and could lower the incidence of the disease.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Child; Streptococcus agalactiae; Vaccines, Conjugate; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Streptococcal Infections; Pediatrics
PubMed: 37512090
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59071279 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Dec 2023The worldwide prevalence of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (uUTIs) caused by multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli is increasing. To address this emergency,... (Review)
Review
The worldwide prevalence of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (uUTIs) caused by multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli is increasing. To address this emergency, international guidelines recommend reducing administration of fluoroquinolones, in the context of growing resistance and the long-lasting and potentially disabling side effects of these drugs. The favoured drug to replace fluoroquinolones is fosfomycin trometamol (FT), a well-known derivate of phosphonic acid with broad-spectrum activity against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria, including multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) recently reduced the susceptibility breakpoint for E. coli from 32 mg/L to 8 mg/L regarding FT used for uUTIs. This might lead to increased appropriate use of oral fosfomycin target therapy against E. coli and other microorganisms, and may be associated with a high likelihood of success. For species such as Klebsiella spp, particularly MDR strains, the absence of clinical breakpoints might lead to reduced use of oral fosfomycin, particularly if minimum inhibitory concentration is not available. To address this issue, this review presents an overview of the preclinical evidence on the activity of FT, and a systematic review of the clinical activity of FT in uUTIs in women, and in the prevention of infectious complications after prostate biopsy. The findings indicate that the safety and microbiological and clinical effectiveness of a single oral dose of FT are similar to that for comparator regimens with longer treatment schedules in women with uUTI, and FT can be considered a viable alternative to fluoroquinolones for antimicrobial prophylaxis in prostate biopsy. These observations and a broad clinical experience support the empirical use of FT for treating uUTI and indicate that FT is a promising candidate to effectively counteract antibiotic-resistant uUTIs throughout Europe.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Fosfomycin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Tromethamine; Escherichia coli; Expert Testimony; Urinary Tract Infections; Anti-Infective Agents; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 37748624
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2023.106983