OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) before and after an intervention period in which an optimized policy for antibiotic prophylaxis was implemented. To demonstrate that a more prudent, restrictive policy would not have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Before-after trial with prospective SSI surveillance in the Dutch nosocomial surveillance network (Preventie Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance [PREZIES]), using the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control, including postdischarge surveillance for up to 1 year. METHODS: During a preintervention period and a postintervention period (both 6-13 months), 12 Dutch hospitals collected data on antimicrobial prophylaxis and SSI rates. The study was limited to commonly performed surgical procedures in 4 specialties: vascular, intestinal, gynecological and orthopedic surgery. Selected risk factors for analysis were sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, wound contamination class, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay before surgery, and urgency of surgery (elective or acute). RESULTS: A total of 3,621 procedures were included in the study, of which 1,668 were performed before the intervention and 1,953 after. The overall SSI rate decreased from 5.4% to 4.5% (P=.22). Among the procedures included in the study, the largest proportion (55%) were total hip arthroplasty, and the smallest proportion (2%) were replacement of the head of the femur. SSI rates varied from 0% for vaginal hysterectomy to 21.1% for femoropopliteal or femorotibial bypass surgery. Crude and adjusted odds ratios showed that there were no significant changes in procedure-specific SSI rates after the intervention (P>.1). CONCLUSIONS: An optimized and restrictive antibiotic prophylaxis policy had no detrimental effect on the outcome of clean and clean contaminated surgery, as measured by SSI rate.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of surgical site infection (SSI) before and after an intervention period in which an optimized policy for antibiotic prophylaxis was implemented. To demonstrate that a more prudent, restrictive policy would not have a detrimental effect on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Before-after trial with prospective SSI surveillance in the Dutch nosocomial surveillance network (Preventie Ziekenhuisinfecties door Surveillance [PREZIES]), using the criteria of the Centers for Disease Control, including postdischarge surveillance for up to 1 year. METHODS: During a preintervention period and a postintervention period (both 6-13 months), 12 Dutch hospitals collected data on antimicrobial prophylaxis and SSI rates. The study was limited to commonly performed surgical procedures in 4 specialties: vascular, intestinal, gynecological and orthopedic surgery. Selected risk factors for analysis were sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, wound contamination class, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay before surgery, and urgency of surgery (elective or acute). RESULTS: A total of 3,621 procedures were included in the study, of which 1,668 were performed before the intervention and 1,953 after. The overall SSI rate decreased from 5.4% to 4.5% (P=.22). Among the procedures included in the study, the largest proportion (55%) were total hip arthroplasty, and the smallest proportion (2%) were replacement of the head of the femur. SSI rates varied from 0% for vaginal hysterectomy to 21.1% for femoropopliteal or femorotibial bypass surgery. Crude and adjusted odds ratios showed that there were no significant changes in procedure-specific SSI rates after the intervention (P>.1). CONCLUSIONS: An optimized and restrictive antibiotic prophylaxis policy had no detrimental effect on the outcome of clean and clean contaminated surgery, as measured by SSI rate.
Authors: Ahmed N Al-Niaimi; Mostafa Ahmed; Nikki Burish; Saygin A Chackmakchy; Songwon Seo; Stephen Rose; Ellen Hartenbach; David M Kushner; Nasia Safdar; Laurel Rice; Joseph Connor Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Evelina Tacconelli; Niklas F Müller; Sebastian Lemmen; Nico T Mutters; Stefan Hagel; Elisabeth Meyer Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Peter Davey; Charis A Marwick; Claire L Scott; Esmita Charani; Kirsty McNeil; Erwin Brown; Ian M Gould; Craig R Ramsay; Susan Michie Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-02-09
Authors: Adina Fésüs; Ria Benkő; Mária Matuz; Orsolya Kungler-Gorácz; Márton Á Fésüs; Tamás Bazsó; Zoltán Csernátony; Gábor Kardos Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-12-09
Authors: Nehad J Ahmed; Ziyad S Almalki; Abdullah A Alfaifi; Ahmed M Alshehri; Abdullah K Alahmari; Emad Elazab; Alaa Almansour; Abdul Haseeb; Mohamed F Balaha; Amer H Khan Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-03-01