-
Heart (British Cardiac Society) Jun 2017The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. In recent years, guidelines to cardiologists and dentists have advised restriction of AP to high-risk groups (in Europe and the USA) or against its use at all (in the UK). The objective of this systematic review was to appraise the evidence for use of AP for prevention of bacteraemia or IE in patients undergoing dental procedures.
METHODS
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science. We assessed the methodological characteristics of included studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for trials. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies, assessed the methodology of included studies and extracted the data.
RESULTS
We identified 178 eligible studies, of which 36 were included in the review. This included 10 time-trend studies, 5 observational studies and 21 trials. All trials identified used bacteraemia as an endpoint rather than IE. One time-trend study suggests that total AP restriction may be associated with a rising incidence of IE, while data on the consequences of relative AP restriction are conflicting. Meta-analysis of trials indicates that AP is effective in reducing the incidence of bacteraemia (risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.57, p<0.01), but case-control studies suggest this may not translate to a statistically significant protective effect against IE in patients at low risk of disease.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base for the use of AP is limited, heterogeneous and the methodological quality of many studies is poor. Postprocedural bacteraemia is not a good surrogate endpoint for IE. Given the logistical challenges of a randomised trial, high-quality case-control studies would help to evaluate the role of dental procedures in causing IE and the efficacy of AP in its prevention.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Endocarditis; Humans
PubMed: 28213367
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309102 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Dec 2018The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of... (Review)
Review
The use of antibiotic prophylaxis in extraction and implant dentistry is still controversial, with varying opinions regarding their necessity. The overuse of antibiotics has led to widespread antimicrobial resistance and the emergence of multi drug resistant strains of bacteria. The main aim of this work was to determine whether there is a genuine need for antibiotic prophylaxis in two common dental procedures; dental implants and tooth extractions. Electronic searches were conducted across databases such as Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the UK National Health Service, Centre for reviews, Science Direct, PubMed and the British Dental Journal to identify clinical trials of either dental implants or tooth extractions, whereby the independent variable was systemic prophylactic antibiotics used as part of treatment in order to prevent postoperative complications such as implant failure or infection. Primary outcomes of interest were implant failure, and postoperative infections which include systemic bacteraemia and localised infections. The secondary outcome of interest was adverse events due to antibiotics. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to assess the risk of bias, extract outcomes of interest and to identify studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Seven randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the final review comprising = 1368 patients requiring either tooth extraction(s) or dental implant(s). No statistically significant evidence was found to support the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in reducing the risk of implant failure ( = 0.09, RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.16⁻1.14) or post-operative complications ( = 0.47, RR: 0.74; 95% CI 0.34⁻1.65) under normal conditions. Approximately 33 patients undergoing dental implant surgery need to receive antibiotics in order to prevent one implant failure from occurring. There is little conclusive evidence to suggest the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis for third molar extractive surgery in healthy young adults. There was no statistical evidence for adverse events experienced for antibiotics vs. placebo. Based on our analysis, even if financially feasible, clinicians must carefully consider the appropriate use of antibiotics in dental implants and extraction procedures due to the risk of allergic reactions and the development of microbial drug resistance.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Endocarditis; Female; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Tooth Extraction; Young Adult
PubMed: 30513764
DOI: 10.3390/medicina54060095 -
New Horizons (Baltimore, Md.) May 1998During the past 30 years, antibiotic prophylaxis has proved of enormous efficacy in reducing the incidence of surgical wound infections, postoperative morbidity and... (Review)
Review
During the past 30 years, antibiotic prophylaxis has proved of enormous efficacy in reducing the incidence of surgical wound infections, postoperative morbidity and mortality, the duration of the postoperative period, and the overall cost of surgical treatment. In this paper, the timing and route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis as well as the dosage and duration, the indications for antibiotic prophylaxis, the importance of the alterations of the delayed hypersensitivity response, and the value of antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative septic complications in anergic patients are analyzed. The possibility of combining antibiotic prophylaxis with immunoprophylaxis for high-risk patients is also analyzed.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Delayed; Immunotherapy; Patient Selection; Sepsis; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 9654308
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Health-system... Feb 2013
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Surgical Procedures, Operative; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 23327981
DOI: 10.2146/ajhp120568 -
The Urologic Clinics of North America Nov 2018Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) for urinary tract infection prevention in children with vesicoureteral reflux, hydronephrosis, and hydroureteronephrosis is... (Review)
Review
Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) for urinary tract infection prevention in children with vesicoureteral reflux, hydronephrosis, and hydroureteronephrosis is reviewed. A more selective use of CAP is advocated based on a review of known individual risk factors in each of these conditions that subsequently helps identify the children most likely to benefit from CAP. Both short-term and potential long-term side effects of CAP are reviewed, including the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on bacterial resistance and the microbiome. Alternatives to continuous antibiotic prophylaxis including Vaccinium macrocarpon (Cranberry), probiotics, and vaccines are reviewed.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Child; Humans; Urinary Tract Infections; Urology
PubMed: 30316308
DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.06.001 -
Dental Clinics of North America Jan 2024Antibiotic prophylaxis is the use of antibiotics perioperatively to prevent infections at the surgical site or distant locations. The decision to provide prophylaxis... (Review)
Review
Antibiotic prophylaxis is the use of antibiotics perioperatively to prevent infections at the surgical site or distant locations. The decision to provide prophylaxis must balance risks of antibiotic resistance, adverse drug reactions, and increased health care costs with the benefit of decreasing infection. This determination has been studied extensively in patients with specific cardiac conditions and prosthetic joints. Prophylactic antibiotics in healthy patients have been shown to reduce the frequency of alveolar osteitis and decrease the failure rates of dental implants.
Topics: Humans; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Heart Diseases; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 37951640
DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2023.07.004 -
Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and... Mar 2022The purpose of this paper is to discuss the limitations of the evidence supporting the SIS recommendations for antibiotic prescribing in patients with traumatic facial...
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the limitations of the evidence supporting the SIS recommendations for antibiotic prescribing in patients with traumatic facial fractures and to provide suggestions for clinical decision-making and further research in this area given the wide variation in prescribing practices.
COMMENT
The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) recently published guidelines on antibiotic use in patients with traumatic facial fractures. The guidelines recommend against the use of prophylactic antibiotics for all adult patients with mandibular or non-mandibular facial fractures undergoing non-operative or operative procedures. Despite the available evidence, surveys conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom prior to the publication of the SIS guidelines demonstrate substantial preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative prophylactic prescribing of antibiotics for patients with facial fractures undergoing surgery.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION
With the exception of strong recommendations based on moderate-quality evidence to avoid prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, the weak recommendations in the guidelines are a function of low-quality evidence. A logical choice for a narrow-spectrum antibiotic is cefazolin administered within 1 h of surgery and no longer than 24 h after surgery, since it is the gold standard of comparison based on clinical practice guidelines concerning antibiotic prophylaxis.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Postoperative Period; United Kingdom
PubMed: 34490647
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.13530 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Oct 2017Objective To determine the optimal duration and type of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing clean-contaminated resection for head and neck cancer. Data Sources... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Objective To determine the optimal duration and type of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing clean-contaminated resection for head and neck cancer. Data Sources Search strategies were created by a medical librarian, implemented in multiple databases, and completed in June 2016. Review Methods The population of interest was adults ≥18 years undergoing clean-contaminated head and neck surgery, intervention was postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, comparator was duration and types of antibiotics used, outcome was the wound infection rate, and the study design was randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if not randomized, did not use systemic antibiotics, did not study wound infections, or included children. After excluding duplicates, the search strategy yielded 427 abstracts. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 67 studies were screened, leaving 19 RCTs for review. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results Meta-analysis of 340 patients in 4 RCTs showed that the pooled relative risk of wound infection was 0.98 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.61; P = .718; I = 0.0%) in patients receiving 1 day vs 5 days of prophylaxis. Conclusion This study provides evidence that there is no difference in the risk of wound infection with 1 day vs 5 days of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in clean-contaminated head and neck surgery, consistent with existing guidelines. Future large randomized trials are needed to more clearly define the appropriate choice of prophylaxis in penicillin-allergic patients.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 28695786
DOI: 10.1177/0194599817712215 -
Veterinary and Comparative Oncology Sep 2018Bacterial infection following cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in human and veterinary patients. Antimicrobial... (Review)
Review
Bacterial infection following cancer chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in human and veterinary patients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis is controversial in the human oncology field, as any decreased incidence in bacterial infections is countered by patient adverse effects and increased antimicrobial resistance. Comprehensive guidelines exist to aid human oncologists in prescribing antimicrobial prophylaxis but similar recommendations are not available in veterinary literature. As the veterinarian's role in antimicrobial stewardship is increasingly emphasized, it is vital that veterinary oncologists implement appropriate antimicrobial use. By considering the available human and veterinary literature we present an overview of current clinical practices and are able to suggest recommendations for prophylactic antimicrobial use in veterinary cancer chemotherapy patients.
Topics: Animals; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antineoplastic Agents; Bacterial Infections; Neoplasms
PubMed: 29892997
DOI: 10.1111/vco.12406 -
Urologia Feb 2024Periprocedural prophylaxis in medicine encompasses the set of measures (physical, chemical, and pharmacological) used to reduce the risk of infection. Antibiotic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Periprocedural prophylaxis in medicine encompasses the set of measures (physical, chemical, and pharmacological) used to reduce the risk of infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) refers to the administration of a short-term regimen of antibiotics shortly before a medical procedure to reduce the risk of infectious complications that can result from diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. The outspreading growth of multidrug-resistant bacterial species and changes in the bacterial local ecosystem have impeded the development of a unique scheme of AP in urology.
OBJECTIVES
To review the literature and current guidelines regarding AP for urological diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and to define agents, timing, and occasions when administering pharmacological prophylaxis. Secondly, according to current literature, to open new scenarios where AP can be useful or useless.
RESULTS
Major gaps in evidence still exist in this field. AP appears useful in many invasive procedures and some sub-populations at risk of infectious complications. AP is not routinely recommended for urodynamic exams, diagnostic cystoscopy, and extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. The available data regarding the use of AP during the transperineal prostate biopsy are still unclear; conversely, in the case of the transrectal approach AP is mandatory. AP is still considered the gold standard for the prevention of postoperative infective complications in the case of ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, endoscopic resection of bladder tumor, endoscopic resection of the prostate, and prosthetic or major surgery.
CONCLUSION
The review highlights the complexity of determining the appropriate candidates for AP, emphasizing the importance of considering patient-specific factors such as comorbidities, immunocompetence, and the nature of the urologic intervention. The evidence suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be suitable, and a tailored strategy based on the specific procedure and patient characteristics is essential.
Topics: Humans; Male; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Ureteroscopy; Urologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 38288737
DOI: 10.1177/03915603231226265