-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by persistent respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation. Acute exacerbations punctuate the natural history of COPD and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality and disease progression. Chronic airflow limitation is caused by a combination of small airways (bronchitis) and parenchymal destruction (emphysema), which can impact day-to-day activities and overall quality of life. In carefully selected patients with COPD, long-term, prophylactic use of antibiotics may reduce bacterial load, inflammation of the airways, and the frequency of exacerbations.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of different prophylactic antibiotics on exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events in people with COPD in three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs), and to provide rankings of identified antibiotics.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and clinical trials registries. We conducted the most recent search on 22 January 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with a parallel design of at least 12 weeks' duration evaluating long-term administration of antibiotics prophylactically compared with other antibiotics, or placebo, for patients with COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This Cochrane Review collected and updated pair-wise data from two previous Cochrane Reviews. Searches were updated and additional studies included. We conducted three separate network meta-analyses (NMAs) within a Bayesian framework to assess three outcomes: exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events. For quality of life, we collected data from St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Using previously validated methods, we selected the simplest model that could adequately fit the data for every analysis. We used threshold analysis to indicate which results were robust to potential biases, taking into account each study's contributions to the overall results and network structure. Probability ranking was performed for each antibiotic class for exacerbations, quality of life, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Characteristics of studies and participants Eight trials were conducted at multiple sites that included hospital clinics or academic health centres. Seven were single-centre trials conducted in hospital clinics. Two trials did not report settings. Trials durations ranged from 12 to 52 weeks. Most participants had moderate to severe disease. Mean age ranged from 64 years to 73 years, and more males were recruited (51% to 100%). Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranged from 0.935 to 1.36 L. Most participants had previous exacerbations. Data from 12 studies were included in the NMAs (3405 participants; 16 treatment arms including placebo). Prophylactic antibiotics evaluated were macrolides (azithromycin and erythromycin), tetracyclines (doxycyclines), quinolones (moxifloxacin) and macrolides plus tetracyclines (roxithromycin plus doxycycline). Risk of bias and threshold analysis Most studies were at low risk across domains, except detection bias, for which only seven studies were judged at low risk. In the threshold analysis for exacerbations, all comparisons in which one antibiotic was compared with another were robust to sampling variation, especially macrolide comparisons. Comparisons of classes with placebo were sensitive to potential bias, especially macrolide versus placebo, therefore, any bias in the comparison was likely to favour the active class, so any adjustment would bring the estimated relative effect closer to the null value, thus quinolone may become the best class to prevent exacerbations. Exacerbations Nine studies were included (2732 participants) in this NMA (exacerbations analysed as time to first exacerbation or people with one or more exacerbations). Macrolides and quinolones reduced exacerbations. Macrolides had a greater effect in reducing exacerbations compared with placebo (macrolides: hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.60 to 0.75; quinolones: HR 0.89, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.04), resulting in 127 fewer people per 1000 experiencing exacerbations on macrolides. The difference in exacerbations between tetracyclines and placebo was uncertain (HR 1.29, 95% CrI 0.66 to 2.41). Macrolides ranked first (95% CrI first to second), with quinolones ranked second (95% CrI second to third). Tetracyclines ranked fourth, which was lower than placebo (ranked third). Contributing studies were considered as low risk of bias in a threshold analysis. Quality of life (SGRQ) Seven studies were included (2237 participants) in this NMA. SGRQ scores improved with macrolide treatment compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CrI -3.61 to -0.99), but the mean difference did not reach the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) of 4 points. Tetracyclines and quinolones did not improve quality of life any more than placebo, and we did not detect a difference between antibiotic classes. Serious adverse events Nine studies were included (3180 participants) in the NMA. Macrolides reduced the odds of a serious adverse event compared with placebo (fixed effect-fixed class effect: odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% CrI 0.62 to 0.93). There was probably little to no difference in the effect of quinolone compared with placebo or tetracycline plus macrolide compared with placebo. There was probably little to no difference in serious adverse events between quinolones or tetracycline plus macrolide. With macrolide treatment 49 fewer people per 1000 experienced a serious adverse event compared with those given placebo. Macrolides ranked first, followed by quinolones. Tetracycline did not rank better than placebo. Drug resistance Ten studies reported drug resistance. Results were not combined due to variation in outcome measures. All studies concluded that prophylactic antibiotic administration was associated with the development of antimicrobial resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This NMA evaluated the safety and efficacy of different antibiotics used prophylactically for COPD patients. Compared to placebo, prolonged administration of macrolides (ranked first) appeared beneficial in prolonging the time to next exacerbation, improving quality of life, and reducing serious adverse events. No clear benefits were associated with use of quinolones or tetracyclines. In addition, antibiotic resistance was a concern and could not be thoroughly assessed in this review. Given the trade-off between effectiveness, safety, and risk of antibiotic resistance, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may be best reserved for selected patients, such as those experiencing frequent exacerbations. However, none of the eligible studies excluded patients with previously isolated non-tuberculous mycobacteria, which would contraindicate prophylactic administration of antibiotics, due to the risk of developing resistant non-tuberculous mycobacteria.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Load; Bayes Theorem; Bias; Disease Progression; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Macrolides; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Quality of Life; Quinolones; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetracyclines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33448349
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013198.pub2 -
Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 2022To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the use of antibiotics versus placebo in premature rupture of membranes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that compared the use of antibiotics versus placebo in premature rupture of membranes preterm and evaluated maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with premature rupture of ovular membranes at a gestational age between 24 and 37 weeks.
METHODS
A search was conducted using keywords in PubMed, Cochrane, Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde and Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da USP between August 2018 and December 2021. A total of 926 articles were found. Those included were randomized clinical trials that compared the use of antibiotics versus placebo in the premature rupture of preterm membranes. Articles referring to antibiotics only for streptococcus agalactiae prophylaxis were excluded. The retrieved articles were independently and blindly analyzed by two reviewers. A total of 24 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria and 21 articles were included for quantitative analysis.
RESULTS
Among the maternal outcomes analyzed, there was a prolongation of the latency period that was ≥7 days. In addition, we observed a reduction in chorioamnionitis in the group of pregnant women who used antibiotics. As for endometritis and other maternal outcomes, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Regarding fetal outcomes, antibiotic prophylaxis worked as a protective factor for neonatal sepsis. Necrotizing enterocolitis and respiratory distress syndrome showed no statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSION
The study showed positive results in relation to antibiotic prophylaxis to prolong the latency period, new randomized clinical trials are needed to ensure its beneficial effect.
PROSPERO DATABASE REGISTRATION
(www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under number CRD42020155315.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Family
PubMed: 36477525
DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2022RW0015 -
Should We Use Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Flexible Cystoscopy? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urologia Internationalis 2015The role of antibiotic prophylaxis for routine flexible cystoscopy (FC) is not clear due to the varying practices of individual clinicians. There are no formal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The role of antibiotic prophylaxis for routine flexible cystoscopy (FC) is not clear due to the varying practices of individual clinicians. There are no formal guidelines, and this may be due to a lack of formal summary of the data.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted in April 2014 including all randomised control trials on prophylactic antibiotic use for FC. The main outcome measures were confirmed bacteriuria on mid-stream urine (MSU), asymptomatic bacteriuria and symptomatic bacteriuria. A meta-analysis was conducted with difference between groups expressed as an odds ratio (OR) and control group risk.
RESULTS
5,107 patients were included, 2,173 in placebo and 2,934 in the antibiotic group. The OR for all three outcomes favoured the antibiotic group; the risk of developing symptomatic bacteriuria was 0.06 times more likely in the control group (OR 0.34), 0.054 (OR 0.40) for developing asymptomatic bacteriuria and 0.109 for confirming bacteriuria on MSU (OR 0.36). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 15 (13-19) for MSU positive bacteriuria; 32 (27-42) for symptomatic bacteriuria and 26 (23-33) for asymptomatic bacteriuria.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis did confer a reduction in cases of symptomatic and asymptomatic bacteriuria but the NNT were high. Therefore, the authors cannot advocate the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for routine FC procedures.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cystoscopy; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26138144
DOI: 10.1159/000381882 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common bacterial infection that can lead to significant morbidity including stricture, abscess formation, fistula, bacteraemia, sepsis, pyelonephritis and kidney dysfunction. Mortality rates are reported to be as high as 1% in men and 3% in women due to development of pyelonephritis. Because probiotic therapy is readily available without a prescription, a review of their efficacy in the prevention of UTI may aid consumers in making informed decisions about potential prophylactic therapy. Institutions and caregivers also need evidence-based synopses of current evidence to make informed patient care decisions.
OBJECTIVES
Compared to placebo or no therapy, did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality, when used to prevent UTI in susceptible patient populations?Compared to other prophylactic interventions, including drug and non-drug measures (e.g. continuous antibiotic prophylaxis, topical oestrogen, cranberry juice), did probiotics (any formulation) provide a therapeutic advantage in terms of morbidity and mortality when used to prevent UTIs in susceptible patient populations?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 21 September 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of susceptible patients (e.g. past history of UTI) or healthy people in which any strain, formulation, dose or frequency of probiotic was compared to placebo or active comparators were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All RCTs and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at comparing probiotics to no therapy, placebo, or other prophylactic interventions were included. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies that involved 735 people in this review. Four studies compared probiotic with placebo, two compared probiotic with no treatment, two compared probiotics with antibiotics in patients with UTI, and one study compared probiotic with placebo in healthy women. All studies aimed to measure differences in rates of recurrent UTI.Our risk of bias assessment found that most studies had small sample sizes and reported insufficient methodological detail to enable robust assessment. Overall, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies which lead to inability to draw firm conclusions and suggesting that any reported treatment effects may be misleading or represent overestimates.We found no significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI between patients treated with probiotics and placebo (6 studies, 352 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.12; I(2) = 23%) with wide confidence intervals, and statistical heterogeneity was low. No significant reduction in the risk of recurrent symptomatic bacterial UTI was found between probiotic and antibiotic treated patients (1 study, 223 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33).The most commonly reported adverse effects were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, constipation and vaginal symptoms. None of the included studies reported numbers of participants with at least one asymptomatic bacterial UTI, all-cause mortality or those with at least one confirmed case of bacteraemia or fungaemia. Two studies reported study withdrawal due to adverse events and the number of participants who experienced at least one adverse event. One study reported withdrawal occurred in six probiotic participants (5.2%), 15 antibiotic participants (12.2%), while the second study noted one placebo group participant discontinued treatment due to an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No significant benefit was demonstrated for probiotics compared with placebo or no treatment, but a benefit cannot be ruled out as the data were few, and derived from small studies with poor methodological reporting.There was limited information on harm and mortality with probiotics and no evidence on the impact of probiotics on serious adverse events. Current evidence cannot rule out a reduction or increase in recurrent UTI in women with recurrent UTI who use prophylactic probiotics. There was insufficient evidence from one RCT to comment on the effect of probiotics versus antibiotics.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacterial Infections; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 26695595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008772.pub2 -
The Lancet. Microbe Oct 2022Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines.
METHODS
This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554.
FINDINGS
Overall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups.
INTERPRETATION
For adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed.
FUNDING
Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Biguanides; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; GRADE Approach; Humans; Incidence; Iodine; Network Meta-Analysis; Povidone-Iodine; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35985350
DOI: 10.1016/S2666-5247(22)00187-2 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) May 2023To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To assess the effects of fosfomycin compared with other antibiotics as a prophylaxis for urinary tract infections (UTIs) in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsies. We searched multiple databases and trial registries without publication language or status restrictions until 4 January 2022. Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) were included. The primary outcomes were febrile UTI, afebrile UTI, and overall UTI. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022302743). We found data on five comparisons; however, this abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of the two most clinically relevant comparisons. Regarding fosfomycin versus fluoroquinolone, five RCTs and four NRSs with a one-month follow-up were included. Based on the RCT evidence, fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to four fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in afebrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 29 fewer afebrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Fosfomycin likely resulted in little to no difference in overall UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 35 fewer overall UTIs per 1000 patients. Regarding fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined versus fluoroquinolone, two NRSs with a one- to three-month follow-up were included. Based on the NRS evidence, fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may result in little to no difference in febrile UTIs compared with fluoroquinolone. This difference corresponded to 16 fewer febrile UTIs per 1000 patients. Compared with fluoroquinolone, fosfomycin or fosfomycin and fluoroquinolone combined may have a similar prophylactic effect on UTIs after a transrectal prostate biopsy. Given the increasing fluoroquinolone resistance and its ease to use, fosfomycin may be a good option for antibiotic prophylaxis.
Topics: Male; Humans; Fosfomycin; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prostate; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Urinary Tract Infections; Biopsy; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 37241143
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050911 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence May 2010Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10% to 20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Between 12% and 37% of people will die in the year after a hip fracture, and 10% to 20% of survivors will move into a more dependent residence.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of surgical interventions in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of perisurgical medical interventions on surgical outcome and prevention of complications in people with hip fracture? What are the effects of rehabilitation interventions and programmes after hip fracture? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 55 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: anaesthesia (general, regional); antibiotic regimens; arthroplasty; choice of implant for internal fixation; conservative treatment; co-ordinated multidisciplinary approaches for inpatient rehabilitation of older people; cyclical compression of the foot or calf; early supported discharge followed by home-based rehabilitation; extramedullary devices; fixation (external, internal); graduated elastic compression; intramedullary devices; mobilisation strategies; nerve blocks for pain control; nutritional supplementation (oral multinutrient feeds, nasogastric feeds); perioperative prophylaxis with antibiotics, with antiplatelet agents, or with heparin (low molecular weight or unfractionated); preoperative traction to the injured limb; and systematic multicomponent home-based rehabilitation.
Topics: Fracture Fixation, Internal; Hip Fractures; Humans; Inpatients; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 21726483
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2020One of the most common bacteria responsible for most Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is Propionibacterium acnes. Even though the rate of infections in patients...
BACKGROUND
One of the most common bacteria responsible for most Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is Propionibacterium acnes. Even though the rate of infections in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty is increasing, effective diagnostic tests and the precautions taken during the surgery are not yet adequate. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis in PJI in shoulder replacement and to provide health workers with the best approach to the use of antimicrobial agents based on currently available clinical evidence.
METHODS
a systematic review of the literature was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Studies concerning the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis in the prevention of PJI in patients undergoing shoulder replacement were included.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in the final analysis because they were considered valid. A total of 3272 patients underwent a surgical procedure, most of which were males. The male population has a greater presence of hair, therefore a greater risk of P. acnes. in surface cultures. Patients were assessed at an average follow-up period of 20 months ranging from 9 weeks to 53 months.
CONCLUSION
The optimal perioperative antimicrobial regimen is controversial. The clinical guidelines recommend the use of only one antibiotic as prophylaxis but considering the increase in the rates of antibiotic-resistant infections, the question arises whether antibiotic prophylaxis should be extended for adequate coverage. Shoulder arthroplasty performed on the male population must be carefully checked after surgery for the possible presence of P. Acnes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder; Child; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Propionibacterium acnes; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Sex Factors; Shoulder Joint; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32393217
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03332-z -
JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery Jan 2019Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Difference in infectious complication rate between groups.
RESULTS
A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rhinoplasty
PubMed: 30489601
DOI: 10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1187 -
Arab Journal of Urology Sep 2016To review the existing literature on when and how to treat patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) who undergo urological surgery, as uncertainty about this issue... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To review the existing literature on when and how to treat patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) who undergo urological surgery, as uncertainty about this issue persists.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to compare the different timing of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with AB undergoing urological surgery. We used predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and we also developed a specific quality scale to assess the quality of the papers included.
RESULTS
Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the nine studies included, eight evaluated antibiotic prophylaxis regardless of the presence of AB, as their purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for urological procedures. Of these, four studies showed a significant reduction in the rate of infections in the intervention group compared with placebo, or with the same antibiotic therapy but using different durations of therapy. Four studies found no significant differences in infectious complications between the intervention and comparison arms. Only one study assessed the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with AB.
CONCLUSIONS
With the available evidence, antibiotic therapy should be considered only for procedures in which studies have shown a clinical benefit in the prevention of infection. It is important to establish the duration and type of treatment for antimicrobial therapy for surgical prophylaxis in patients with AB who are going to receive urological invasive procedures.
PubMed: 27547467
DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2016.05.002