-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2021Patients treated with mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) have a high risk of developing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Ventilator-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients treated with mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) have a high risk of developing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been estimated to affect 5% to 40% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. The attributable mortality rate of VAP has been estimated at about 9%. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD), which consists of the topical application of non-absorbable antimicrobial agents to the oropharynx and gastroenteric tract during the whole period of mechanical ventilation, is often used to reduce the risk of VAP. A related treatment is selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD), in which topical antibiotics are applied to the oropharynx only. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and updated in 2002, 2004, and 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of topical antibiotic regimens (SDD and SOD), given alone or in combination with systemic antibiotics, to prevent mortality and respiratory infections in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours in ICUs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, PubMed, and Embase on 5 February 2020. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished studies on 5 February 2020. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of topical prophylactic antibiotic regimens in adults receiving intensive care and mechanical ventilation. The included studies compared topical plus systemic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment; topical antibiotics versus no treatment; and topical plus systemic antibiotics versus systemic antibiotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 41 trials involving 11,004 participants (five new studies were added in this update). The minimum duration of mechanical ventilation ranged from 2 (19 studies) to 6 days (one study). Thirteen studies reported the mean length of ICU stay, ranging from 11 to 33 days. The percentage of immunocompromised patients ranged from 0% (10 studies) to 22% (1 study). The reporting quality of the majority of included studies was very poor, so we judged more than 40% of the studies as at unclear risk of selection bias. We judged all studies to be at low risk of performance bias, though 47.6% were open-label, because hospitals usually have standardised infection control programmes, and possible subjective decisions on who should be tested for the presence or absence of RTIs are unlikely in an ICU setting. Regarding detection bias, we judged all included studies as at low risk for the outcome mortality. For the outcome RTIs, we judged all double-blind studies as at low risk of detection bias. We judged five open-label studies as at high risk of detection bias, as the diagnosis of RTI was not based on microbiological exams; we judged the remaining open-label studies as at low risk of detection bias, as a standardised set of diagnostic criteria, including results of microbiological exams, were used. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis reduces overall mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.96; 18 studies; 5290 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 303 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 48 (95% CI 15 to 79) fewer deaths with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces RTIs (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.53; 17 studies; 2951 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 417 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 238 (95% CI 196 to 271) fewer RTIs with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces overall mortality compared with no topical antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 22 studies, 4213 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 290 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 19 (95% CI 37 fewer to 15 more) fewer deaths with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce RTIs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; 19 studies, 2698 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 318 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 137 (95% CI 83 to 178) fewer RTIs with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Sixteen studies reported adverse events and dropouts due to adverse events, which were poorly reported with sparse data. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Treatments based on topical prophylaxis probably reduce respiratory infections, but not mortality, in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours, whereas a combination of topical and systemic prophylactic antibiotics reduces both overall mortality and RTIs. However, we cannot rule out that the systemic component of the combined treatment provides a relevant contribution in the observed reduction of mortality. No conclusion can be drawn about adverse events as they were poorly reported with sparse data.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bias; Critical Care; Cross Infection; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Tract Infections
PubMed: 33481250
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000022.pub4 -
Thoracic Surgery Clinics Feb 2012No official guidelines exist for perioperative antibiotic use in noncardiac thoracic surgery. Despite some conflicting data and few randomized clinical trials there... (Review)
Review
No official guidelines exist for perioperative antibiotic use in noncardiac thoracic surgery. Despite some conflicting data and few randomized clinical trials there exists strong evidence supporting the use of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in pulmonary resection. This article discusses the evidence-based indications for antibiotic prophylaxis after lung resection, esophageal surgery, and lung transplantation.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Perioperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 22108687
DOI: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2011.08.012 -
PloS One 2021The aim of this study was to evaluate whether surgeons´ experience and perioperative single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis affect outcome of patients undergoing stapes...
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether surgeons´ experience and perioperative single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis affect outcome of patients undergoing stapes surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We retrospectively evaluated audiological outcomes and postoperative complications of 538 consecutive patients who underwent stapes surgery at a single tertiary referral center between 1990 and 2017. Effects of different clinical variables, including single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis and surgeons' experience on outcome were assessed.
RESULTS
538 patients underwent 667 stapedotomies and postoperative complication rate was 7.5% (n = 50). Air conduction and air-bone gap closure improved significantly after surgery (14.2 ± 14.8 dB, p = 0.001; 14.5 ± 12.8 dB, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that 6 years or less of surgical experience was independently associated with a higher incidence of persisting or recurrent conductive hearing loss (p = 0.033, OR 5.13) but perioperative application of antibiotics had no significant effect on outcome.
CONCLUSION
First, clinical outcome regarding persisting or recurrent conductive hearing loss caused by incus necrosis and prosthesis luxation is linked to surgical performance. This underlines the need for a meticulous training and supervision of less experienced surgeons performing stapes surgery. Second, our results do not support the need for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in stapes surgery. Potential standard limitations of retrospective cohort studies (selection bias, confusion bias etc.) could play a role in interpreting our results. However, the probability for these limitations is minimized due to the large patient sample.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Clinical Competence; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Otosclerosis; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Stapes Surgery; Surgeons; Tertiary Care Centers; Young Adult
PubMed: 33621252
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247451 -
BMC Health Services Research Aug 2022Antibiotic prophylaxis during implant placement may improve implant short term survival. Nevertheless, use of antibiotics carries risks of adverse effects and antibiotic...
BACKGROUND
Antibiotic prophylaxis during implant placement may improve implant short term survival. Nevertheless, use of antibiotics carries risks of adverse effects and antibiotic resistance. The aim of the present study is to compare the use of antibiotics in dental implant procedures in terms of costs and effectiveness.
METHODS
A decision-tree model was developed using TreeAge Pro Healthcare software. Two strategies were compared: Antibiotics and No antibiotics in implant placement procedures. The costs were calculated considering direct costs for implant placement, antibiotic costs, and costs for implant replacement in case of failure. Effectiveness was defined in terms of General Oral Health Assessment Index. Outcomes were evaluated as Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). One-way sensitivity analysis and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis were performed for the most influential variables to test parameter uncertainty. Patient and healthcare perspectives were considered.
RESULTS
Antibiotic prophylaxis resulted to be cost-effective compared to no use of antibiotics (ICER = 14,692,64 and ICER = 3841,18, respectively for patient's and healthcare perspective). The cost of antibiotics, cost of implant replacement in case of failure and probability of adverse effects significantly influenced the results.
CONCLUSIONS
From an individual patient perspective, antibiotic strategy can be considered cost-effective, even when the cost of antibiotic therapy increases. We can conclude that the administration of antibiotics in association with implant placement is recommended in clinical practice, as it increases the success rate and makes the treatment more effective. However, attention should be placed when healthcare perspective is considered, particularly in terms of antibiotic resistance that may impact public health and associated costs.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dental Implants; Humans
PubMed: 35996129
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08452-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014Organ transplant recipients are at increased risk of infection as a result of immunosuppression caused inadvertently by medical treatment. Tuberculosis (TB) is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Organ transplant recipients are at increased risk of infection as a result of immunosuppression caused inadvertently by medical treatment. Tuberculosis (TB) is a challenging infection to manage among organ transplant recipients that can be transmitted from infected people or triggered from latent infection. Organ transplant recipients have been reported to be up to 300 times more likely to develop TB than the general population. Consensus about the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent post solid organ transplant TB has not been achieved.
OBJECTIVES
This review assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent post solid organ transplant TB.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register up to 30 April 2013 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE and handsearching conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared antibiotic prophylaxis with a placebo or no intervention for recipients of solid organ transplants were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three studies (10 reports) that involved 558 kidney transplant recipients which met our inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted in countries that have high prevalence of TB (India and Pakistan), and investigated isoniazid, an oral antibacterial drug. Control in all studies was no antibiotic prophylaxis. Prophylactic administration of isoniazid reduced the risk of developing TB post-transplant (3 studies, RR 0.35 95% CI 0.14 to 0.89), and there was no significant effect on all-cause mortality (2 studies, RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.78). There was however substantial risk of liver damage (3 studies, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.22 to 6.17).Reporting of methodological quality parameters was incomplete in all three studies. Overall, risk of bias was assessed as suboptimal.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Isoniazid prophylaxis for kidney transplant recipients reduced the risk of developing TB post-transplant. Kidney transplant recipients in settings that have high prevalence of TB should receive isoniazid during the first year following transplant. There is however, significant risk of liver damage, particularly among those who are hepatitis B or C positive. Further studies are needed among recipients of other solid organ transplants and in settings with low prevalence of TB to determine the benefits and harms of anti-TB prophylaxis in those populations.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antitubercular Agents; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis C; Humans; Immunosuppression Therapy; Isoniazid; Kidney Transplantation; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 24590589
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008597.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... May 2006Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral and maxillofacial surgery aims the prevention of the infection of the surgical wound, either due to the characteristics of the surgery or... (Review)
Review
Antibiotic prophylaxis in oral and maxillofacial surgery aims the prevention of the infection of the surgical wound, either due to the characteristics of the surgery or the general state of the patient. This risk increases with the contamination of the surgical operation area, making it necessary to imply a prophylactic treatment of the infection in clean-contaminated and contaminated surgeries and treatment of the infection in dirty surgeries. Moreover, a proper surgical technique helps to reduce the development of the postsurgical infection. The elective antibiotic chemotherapy ranges from penicillin-derivates with betalactamase inhibitors (amoxycillin-clavulanate, ampicilin-sulbactam) to second or third generation cephalosporins, quinolones or clindamycin. The indication for the use of these antibiotics depends on the type of surgery in oral and maxillofacial surgery, according to the degree of contamination. Thus in oral surgery and surgery of the salivary glands the literature demonstrates that there is not a better prognosis when using prophylactic antibiotherapy instead of not using it in healthy patients. In traumatology this prophylaxis is justified in compound fractures and those communicating with paranasal sinuses. En orthognatic surgery there is disagreement according to the criteria of using antibiotic prophylaxis, but short term treatment is preferred in case of using it. In oncological surgery it has been demonstrated the reduce in incidence of postsurgical infection using prophylactic peroperative antibiotherapy, mostly in those cases in which oral mucosa and cervical area contact.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Oral Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 16648771
DOI: No ID Found -
The Bone & Joint Journal Aug 2016Prophylactic antibiotics can decrease the risk of wound infection and have been routinely employed in orthopaedic surgery for decades. Despite their widespread use,... (Review)
Review
Prophylactic antibiotics can decrease the risk of wound infection and have been routinely employed in orthopaedic surgery for decades. Despite their widespread use, questions still surround the selection of antibiotics for prophylaxis, timing and duration of administration. The health economic costs associated with wound infections are significant, and the judicious but appropriate use of antibiotics can reduce this risk. This review examines the evidence behind commonly debated topics in antibiotic prophylaxis and highlights the uses and advantages of some commonly used antibiotics. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1014-19.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; Orthopedic Procedures; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors; Urinary Catheterization
PubMed: 27482011
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B8.37359 -
Acta Orthopaedica Oct 2017Background and purpose - To minimize the risk of hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (HPJI), international and Dutch guidelines recommended antibiotic... (Review)
Review
Background and purpose - To minimize the risk of hematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (HPJI), international and Dutch guidelines recommended antibiotic prophylaxis prior to dental procedures. Unclear definitions and contradictory recommendations in these guidelines have led to unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions. To formulate new guidelines, a joint committee of the Dutch Orthopaedic and Dental Societies conducted a systematic literature review to answer the following question: can antibiotic prophylaxis be recommended for patients (with joint prostheses) undergoing dental procedures in order to prevent dental HPJI? Methods - The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, and observational studies up to July 2015. Studies were included if they involved patients with joint implants undergoing dental procedures, and either considered HPJI as an outcome measure or described a correlation between HPJI and prophylactic antibiotics. A guideline was formulated using the GRADE method and AGREE II guidelines. Results - 9 studies were included in this systematic review. All were rated "very low quality of evidence". Additional literature was therefore consulted to address clinical questions that provide further insight into pathophysiology and risk factors. The 9 studies did not provide evidence that use of antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of dental HPJI, and the additional literature supported the conclusion that antibiotic prophylaxis should be discouraged in dental procedures. Interpretation - Prophylactic antibiotics in order to prevent dental HPJI should not be prescribed to patients with a normal or an impaired immune system function. Patients are recommended to maintain good oral hygiene and visit the dentist regularly.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Care; Humans; Joint Prosthesis; Netherlands; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 28639846
DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2017.1340041 -
Clinical Microbiology Reviews Jun 2019Invasive fungal diseases carry high morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing chemotherapy for hematological malignancies or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell... (Review)
Review
Invasive fungal diseases carry high morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing chemotherapy for hematological malignancies or allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In order to prevent these life-threatening infections, antifungal chemoprophylaxis plays an important role in daily clinical practice. Broad-spectrum antifungal triazoles are widely used but exhibit disadvantages such as relevant drug-drug interactions. Therefore, amphotericin B products or echinocandins can be an alternative in selected patient populations. As these compounds are available as intravenous formulations only, there is growing interest in extended dosing regimens. Although not approved for these agents, this strategy is a rational option, as these compounds have properties suitable for this strategy, including dose-proportional pharmacokinetics, prolonged elimination half-life, and a large therapeutic window. As the use of extended dosing regimens in antifungal prophylaxis is expanding in clinical practice, we reviewed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic rationale for this strategy, animal model data, dose escalation studies, and clinical trials supporting this concept.
Topics: Amphotericin B; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Antifungal Agents; Echinocandins; Hematologic Neoplasms; Humans; Mycoses; Transplant Recipients; Transplantation, Homologous
PubMed: 31092507
DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00010-19 -
British Dental Journal Jun 2015Infective endocarditis is a devastating disease with high morbidity and mortality. The link to oral bacteria has been known for many decades and has caused on going...
Infective endocarditis is a devastating disease with high morbidity and mortality. The link to oral bacteria has been known for many decades and has caused on going concern for dentists, patients and cardiologists. Good oral hygiene has long been advocated to prevent endocarditis. Before 2008, antibiotic prophylaxis before invasive dental procedures was also an important strategy for preventing infective endocarditis for patients at risk of the disease in the UK, and still is in most other countries of the world. In 2008, however, NICE published new guidance recommending that antibiotic prophylaxis in the UK should cease. At the time this was a highly controversial decision. New data suggests that there has been a significant increase in the incidence of infective endocarditis since the 2008 guidelines. The 2008 guidance is being reviewed and draft new guidance is being put out for public consultation. This article discusses the issues raised by the new data and the questions that should be addressed in the review and public consultation.
Topics: Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Dental Care; Endocarditis; Humans; Practice Guidelines as Topic; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 26068156
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.496