M W Mah1, A M Pyper, G A Oni, Z A Memish. 1. Department of Infection Prevention and Control, King Fahad National Guard Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To measure rates of incisional surgical site infection (ISSI) after cesarean section (CS) and to assess risks for infection. METHODS: Prospective surveillance for ISSI at a 540-bed hospital in Saudi Arabia by using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions for infection and the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system risk index. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-five CSs were studied from September 1998 to July 1999; 72% were emergency procedures, despite a 95% rate of antenatal care. The overall ISSI rate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7%-4.3%). The rate for NNIS risk category 0 was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.2%; n = 536) and for category 1 was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-8.6%; n = 170). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent risks for ISSI were duration of surgery (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P =.02) and no antibiotic prophylaxis (OR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.10-9.11; P =.04). Antibiotic prophylaxis was inconsistently administered among both emergency and elective CS. Infection control procedures were inadequate in the obstetric suite operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Despite deficient infection control practices in the setting described, ISSI rates after CS were judged "acceptable" compared with NNIS benchmark rates. This was attributed to prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at low risk as well as high risk of infection.
BACKGROUND: To measure rates of incisional surgical site infection (ISSI) after cesarean section (CS) and to assess risks for infection. METHODS: Prospective surveillance for ISSI at a 540-bed hospital in Saudi Arabia by using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions for infection and the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system risk index. RESULTS: Seven hundred thirty-five CSs were studied from September 1998 to July 1999; 72% were emergency procedures, despite a 95% rate of antenatal care. The overall ISSI rate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7%-4.3%). The rate for NNIS risk category 0 was 2.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.2%; n = 536) and for category 1 was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.8%-8.6%; n = 170). In the multivariate analysis, the only independent risks for ISSI were duration of surgery (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; P =.02) and no antibiotic prophylaxis (OR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.10-9.11; P =.04). Antibiotic prophylaxis was inconsistently administered among both emergency and elective CS. Infection control procedures were inadequate in the obstetric suite operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Despite deficient infection control practices in the setting described, ISSI rates after CS were judged "acceptable" compared with NNIS benchmark rates. This was attributed to prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis for patients at low risk as well as high risk of infection.