-
International Journal of Nursing Studies Feb 2020The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients' risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses.
DESIGN
Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Library database.
REVIEW METHODS
All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
RESULTS
Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Care; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31810020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103486 -
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 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Oct 2020Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation might have no advantage compared with its immediate discontinuation, and it unnecessarily exposes patients to risks associated with antibiotic use. In 2016, WHO recommended discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery. We aimed to update the evidence that formed the basis for that recommendation.
METHODS
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and WHO regional medical databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis that were published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 24, 2018. RCTs comparing the effect of postoperative continuation versus discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing any surgical procedure with an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis were eligible. The primary outcome was the effect of postoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuation versus its immediate discontinuation on the occurrence of surgical site infection, with a prespecified subgroup analysis for studies that did and did not adhere to current best practice standards for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). We evaluated heterogeneity with the χ test, I, and τ, and visually assesed publication bias with a contour-enhanced funnel plot. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017060829.
FINDINGS
We identified 83 relevant RCTs, of which 52 RCTs with 19 273 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled RR of surgical site infection with postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis versus its immediate discontinuation was 0·89 (95% CI 0·79-1·00), with low heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ=0·001, χ p=0·46, I=0·7%). Our prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant association between the effect estimate and adherence to best practice standards of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the RR of surgical site infection was reduced with continued antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery compared with its immediate discontinuation in trials that did not meet best practice standards (0·79 [95% CI 0·67-0·94]) but not in trials that did (1·04 [0·85-1·27]; p=0·048). Whether studies adhered to best practice standards explained all variance in the pooled estimate from the primary meta-analysis.
INTERPRETATION
Overall, we identified no conclusive evidence for a benefit of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis over its discontinuation. When best practice standards were followed, postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis did not yield any additional benefit in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. These findings support WHO recommendations against this practice.
FUNDING
None.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Postoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32470329
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30084-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Honey is a viscous, supersaturated sugar solution derived from nectar gathered and modified by the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Honey has been used since ancient times as a remedy in wound care. Evidence from animal studies and some trials has suggested that honey may accelerate wound healing.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of honey compared with alternative wound dressings and topical treatments on the of healing of acute (e.g. burns, lacerations) and/or chronic (e.g. venous ulcers) wounds.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update of the review we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 October 2014); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October Week 1 2014); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations 13 October 2014); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 13 October 2014); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 15 October 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials that evaluated honey as a treatment for any sort of acute or chronic wound were sought. There was no restriction in terms of source, date of publication or language. Wound healing was the primary endpoint.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data from eligible trials were extracted and summarised by one review author, using a data extraction sheet, and independently verified by a second review author. All data have been subsequently checked by two more authors.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 26 eligible trials (total of 3011 participants). Three trials evaluated the effects of honey in minor acute wounds, 11 trials evaluated honey in burns, 10 trials recruited people with different chronic wounds including two in people with venous leg ulcers, two trials in people with diabetic foot ulcers and single trials in infected post-operative wounds, pressure injuries, cutaneous Leishmaniasis and Fournier's gangrene. Two trials recruited a mixed population of people with acute and chronic wounds. The quality of the evidence varied between different comparisons and outcomes. We mainly downgraded the quality of evidence for risk of bias, imprecision and, in a few cases, inconsistency.There is high quality evidence (2 trials, n=992) that honey dressings heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional dressings (WMD -4.68 days, 95%CI -5.09 to -4.28) but it is unclear if there is a difference in rates of adverse events (very low quality evidence) or infection (low quality evidence).There is very low quality evidence (4 trials, n=332) that burns treated with honey heal more quickly than those treated with silver sulfadiazine (SSD) (WMD -5.12 days, 95%CI -9.51 to -0.73) and high quality evidence from 6 trials (n=462) that there is no difference in overall risk of healing within 6 weeks for honey compared with SSD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) but a reduction in the overall risk of adverse events with honey relative to SSD. There is low quality evidence (1 trial, n=50) that early excision and grafting heals partial and full thickness burns more quickly than honey followed by grafting as necessary (WMD 13.6 days, 95%CI 9.82 to 17.38).There is low quality evidence (2 trials, different comparators, n=140) that honey heals a mixed population of acute and chronic wounds more quickly than SSD or sugar dressings.Honey healed infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptic washes followed by gauze and was associated with fewer adverse events (1 trial, n=50, moderate quality evidence, RR of healing 1.69, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.61); healed pressure ulcers more quickly than saline soaks (1 trial, n= 40, very low quality evidence, RR 1.41, 95%CI 1.05 to 1.90), and healed Fournier's gangrene more quickly than Eusol soaks (1 trial, n=30, very low quality evidence, WMD -8.00 days, 95%CI -6.08 to -9.92 days).The effects of honey relative to comparators are unclear for: venous leg ulcers (2 trials, n= 476, low quality evidence); minor acute wounds (3 trials, n=213, very low quality evidence); diabetic foot ulcers (2 trials, n=93, low quality evidence); Leishmaniasis (1 trial, n=100, low quality evidence); mixed chronic wounds (2 trials, n=150, low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw overall conclusions regarding the effects of honey as a topical treatment for wounds due to the heterogeneous nature of the patient populations and comparators studied and the mostly low quality of the evidence. The quality of the evidence was mainly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. Honey appears to heal partial thickness burns more quickly than conventional treatment (which included polyurethane film, paraffin gauze, soframycin-impregnated gauze, sterile linen and leaving the burns exposed) and infected post-operative wounds more quickly than antiseptics and gauze. Beyond these comparisons any evidence for differences in the effects of honey and comparators is of low or very low quality and does not form a robust basis for decision making.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Apitherapy; Burns; Honey; Humans; Leg Ulcer; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Varicose Ulcer; Wound Healing; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 25742878
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005083.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3 -
The British Journal of Surgery Oct 2015Numerous published studies have explored associations between anaemia and adverse outcomes after surgery. However, there are no evidence syntheses describing the impact... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Numerous published studies have explored associations between anaemia and adverse outcomes after surgery. However, there are no evidence syntheses describing the impact of preoperative anaemia on postoperative outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies exploring associations between preoperative anaemia and postoperative outcomes was performed. Studies investigating trauma, burns, transplant, paediatric and obstetric populations were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-day or in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, stroke and myocardial infarction. Predefined analyses were performed for the cardiac and non-cardiac surgery subgroups. A post hoc analysis was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between anaemia and infection. Data are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 per cent c.i.
RESULTS
From 8973 records, 24 eligible studies including 949 445 patients were identified. Some 371 594 patients (39·1 per cent) were anaemic. Anaemia was associated with increased mortality (OR 2·90, 2·30 to 3·68; I(2) = 97 per cent; P < 0·001), acute kidney injury (OR 3·75, 2·95 to 4·76; I(2) = 60 per cent; P < 0·001) and infection (OR 1·93, 1·17 to 3·18; I(2) = 99 per cent; P = 0·01). Among cardiac surgical patients, anaemia was associated with stroke (OR 1·28, 1·06 to 1·55; I(2) = 0 per cent; P = 0·009) but not myocardial infarction (OR 1·11, 0·68 to 1·82; I(2) = 13 per cent; P = 0·67). Anaemia was associated with an increased incidence of red cell transfusion (OR 5·04, 4·12 to 6·17; I(2) = 96 per cent; P < 0·001). Similar findings were observed in the cardiac and non-cardiac subgroups.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative anaemia is associated with poor outcomes after surgery, although heterogeneity between studies was significant. It remains unclear whether anaemia is an independent risk factor for poor outcome or simply a marker of underlying chronic disease. However, red cell transfusion is much more frequent amongst anaemic patients.
Topics: Anemia; Blood Transfusion; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Models, Statistical; Odds Ratio; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Period; Risk Factors
PubMed: 26349842
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9861 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Oct 2010Guidelines exist for the surgical treatment of hip fracture, but the effect of early surgery on mortality and other outcomes that are important for patients remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Guidelines exist for the surgical treatment of hip fracture, but the effect of early surgery on mortality and other outcomes that are important for patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect of early surgery on the risk of death and common postoperative complications among elderly patients with hip fracture.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE), the archives of meetings of orthopedic associations and the bibliographies of relevant articles and questioned experts to identify prospective studies, published in any language, that evaluated the effects of early surgery in patients undergoing procedures for hip fracture. Two reviewers independently assessed methodologic quality and extracted relevant data. We pooled data by means of the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, which is based on the inverse variance method.
RESULTS
We identified 1939 citations, of which 16 observational studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies had a total of 13 478 patients for whom mortality data were complete (1764 total deaths). Based on the five studies that reported adjusted risk of death (4208 patients, 721 deaths), irrespective of the cut-off for delay (24, 48 or 72 hours), earlier surgery (i.e., within the cut-off time) was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96, p = 0.01). Unadjusted data indicated that earlier surgery also reduced in-hospital pneumonia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37-0.93, p = 0.02) and pressure sores (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.34-0.69, p < 0.001).
INTERPRETATION
Earlier surgery was associated with a lower risk of death and lower rates of postoperative pneumonia and pressure sores among elderly patients with hip fracture. These results suggest that reducing delays may reduce mortality and complications.
Topics: Aged; Confidence Intervals; Cross Infection; Hip Fractures; Humans; Odds Ratio; Pneumonia; Postoperative Complications; Pressure Ulcer; Proportional Hazards Models; Risk; Risk Management; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20837683
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.092220 -
RMD Open Nov 2022To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases... (Review)
Review
Systematic literature review informing the 2022 EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in adults with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) on the screening and prophylaxis of opportunistic and chronic infections in autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).
METHODS
SLR (inception-12/2021) based on the following search domains: (1) infectious agents, (2) AIIRD, (3) immunosuppressives/immunomodulators used in rheumatology, (4) screening terms and (5) prophylaxis terms. Articles were retrieved having the terms from (1) AND (2) AND (3) plus terms from (4) OR(5). Databases searched: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
studies on postoperative infections, paediatric AIIRD, COVID-19, vaccinations and non-Εnglish literature. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RoB-Cochrane for RCTs, AMSTAR2 for SLRs.
RESULTS
From 5641 studies were retrieved, 568 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, with 194 articles finally included. For tuberculosis, tuberculin skin test (TST) is affected by treatment with glucocorticoids and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and its performance is inferior to interferon gamma release assay (IGRA). Agreement between TST and IGRA is moderate to low. For hepatitis B virus (HBV): risk of reactivation is increased in patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. Anti-HBcore positive patients are at low risk for reactivation but should be monitored periodically with liver function tests and/or HBV-viral load. Risk for Hepatitis C reactivation is existing but low in patients treated with biological DMARDs. For , prophylaxis treatment should be considered in patients treated with prednisolone ≥15-30 mg/day for >2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
Different screening and prophylaxis approaches are described in the literature, partly determined by individual patient and disease characteristics.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; COVID-19; Hepatitis B virus; Opportunistic Infections; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 36323488
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002726 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Mar 2020In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. lidocaine administration during the perioperative period to prevent cough and other airway complications.
METHODS
We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs comparing the perioperative use of i.v. lidocaine with a control group in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. The RCTs were assessed using risk-of-bias assessment, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).
RESULTS
In 16 trials (n=1516), the administration of i.v. lidocaine compared with placebo or no treatment led to large reductions in post-extubation cough (risk ratio [RR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.86) and in postoperative sore throat at 1 h (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32-0.67). There was no difference in incidence of laryngospasm (risk difference [RD]: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03) or incidence of adverse events related to the use of lidocaine.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of i.v. lidocaine perioperatively decreased airway complications, including coughing and sore throat. There was no associated increased risk of harm.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Local; Cough; Device Removal; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Intubation, Intratracheal; Lidocaine; Perioperative Care; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 32000978
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.11.033 -
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Apr 2023The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant...
SCOPE
The aim of the guidelines is to provide recommendations on perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) in adult inpatients who are carriers of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (MDR-GNB) before surgery.
METHODS
These evidence-based guidelines were developed after a systematic review of published studies on PAP targeting the following MDR-GNB: extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), aminoglycoside-resistant Enterobacterales, fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales, cotrimoxazole-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), extremely drug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, colistin-resistant Gram-negative bacteria, and pan-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. The critical outcomes were the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by any bacteria and/or by the colonizing MDR-GNB, and SSI-attributable mortality. Important outcomes included the occurrence of any type of postsurgical infectious complication, all-cause mortality, and adverse events of PAP, including development of resistance to targeted (culture-based) PAP after surgery and incidence of Clostridioides difficile infections. The last search of all databases was performed until April 30, 2022. The level of evidence and strength of each recommendation were defined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Consensus of a multidisciplinary expert panel was reached for the final list of recommendations. Antimicrobial stewardship considerations were included in the recommendation development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The guideline panel reviewed the evidence, per bacteria, of the risk of SSIs in patients colonized with MDR-GNB before surgery and critically appraised the existing studies. Significant knowledge gaps were identified, and most questions were addressed by observational studies. Moderate to high risk of bias was identified in the retrieved studies, and the majority of the recommendations were supported by low level of evidence. The panel conditionally recommends rectal screening and targeted PAP for fluoroquinolone-resistant Enterobacterales before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and for extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales in patients undergoing colorectal surgery and solid organ transplantation. Screening for CRE and CRAB is suggested before transplant surgery after assessment of the local epidemiology. Careful consideration of the laboratory workload and involvement of antimicrobial stewardship teams before implementing the screening procedures or performing changes in PAP are warranted. High-quality prospective studies to assess the impact of PAP among CRE and CRAB carriers performing high-risk surgeries are advocated. Future well-designed clinical trials should assess the effectiveness of targeted PAP, including the monitoring of MDR-GNB colonization through postoperative cultures using European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing clinical breakpoints.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Prospective Studies; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial; Carbapenems; Cephalosporins; Monobactams; Fluoroquinolones
PubMed: 36566836
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2022.12.012