Literature DB >> 26637264

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation.

Ricardo A M B Almeida1, Claudia N Hasimoto, Anna Kim, Erica N Hasimoto, Regina El Dib.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is more frequent in liver transplantation than in other types of solid organ transplantation with different antibiotics. Studies have shown that the rate of surgical site infection varies from 8.8% to 37.5% after liver transplantation. Therefore, antimicrobial prophylaxis is likely an essential tool for reducing these infections. However, the literature lacks evidence indicating the best prophylactic antibiotic regimen that can be used for liver transplantation.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylactic regimens for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). The most recent search was performed on 11 September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: All eligible randomised clinical trials comparing any antibiotic regimen versus placebo, versus no intervention or versus another antibiotic regimen for surgical site infection in liver transplant recipients, regardless of age, sex and reason for transplantation. Quasi-randomised studies and other observational studies were considered for data on harm if retrieved with search results for randomised clinical trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of studies and extracted data. MAIN
RESULTS: The electronic search identified 786 publications after removal of duplicates. From this search, only one seemingly randomised clinical trial, published in abstract form, fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. This trial was conducted at Shiraz Transplant Centre, Shiraz, Iran, where investigators randomly assigned a total of 180 consecutive liver transplant recipients. We judged the overall risk of bias of the trial published in abstract form as high. Researchers reported no numerical data but mentioned that 163 participants met the inclusion criteria after randomisation, and hence were included in the analyses. Most probably, the 17 excluded participants were high-risk liver transplant recipients. Trial authors concluded that they could find no differences between the two antibiotic regimens - ceftriaxone plus metronidazole versus ampicillin-sulbactam plus ceftizoxime - when given to liver transplant recipients. Review authors could not reconfirm the analyses because, as it has been mentioned, trial authors provided no trial data for analyses. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylactic regimens for surgical site infection in liver transplantation remain unclear. Additional well-conducted randomised clinical trials adhering to SPIRIT (Spirit Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines are needed to determine the exact role of antibiotic prophylactic regimens in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26637264      PMCID: PMC6718211          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010164.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  36 in total

1.  Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.

Authors:  L L Kjaergard; J Villumsen; C Gluud
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-12-04       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 3.  Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research.

Authors:  D J Newell
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 7.196

Review 4.  Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project.

Authors:  Dale W Bratzler; Peter M Houck
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 9.079

5.  Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches.

Authors:  Pamela Royle; Ruairidh Milne
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.188

6.  Duration of operation as a risk factor for surgical site infection: comparison of English and US data.

Authors:  G Leong; J Wilson; A Charlett
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2006-05-15       Impact factor: 3.926

7.  Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

Authors:  A J Mangram; T C Horan; M L Pearson; L C Silver; W R Jarvis
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 2.918

Review 8.  Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in solid organ transplant recipients.

Authors:  E G Playford; A C Webster; T C Sorell; J C Craig
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

9.  Surgical site infection in living-donor liver transplant recipients: a prospective study.

Authors:  Yoshitsugu Iinuma; Kazuyoshi Senda; Naoko Fujihara; Takashi Saito; Shunji Takakura; Toyoichiro Kudo; Tetsuya Kiuchi; Koichi Tanaka; Satoshi Ichiyama
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2004-09-15       Impact factor: 4.939

10.  Microbiological efficacy and pharmacokinetics of prophylactic antibiotics in liver transplant patients.

Authors:  P M Arnow; K Furmaga; J P Flaherty; D George
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 5.191

View more
  3 in total

1.  Vacuum-assisted management of surgical site infections after liver transplantation: 15-year experience in a tertiary hepatobiliary center.

Authors:  Paolo Magistri; Tiziana Olivieri; Valentina Serra; Giuseppe Tarantino; Giacomo Assirati; Annarita Pecchi; Roberto Ballarin; Fabrizio Di Benedetto
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2018-08-24

2.  Comparison of Ceftizoxime Plus Ampicillin-Sulbactam versus Gentamicin Plus Ampicillin-Sulbactam in the Prevention of Post-Transplant Early Bacterial Infections in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Mojtaba Shafiekhani; Iman Karimzadeh; Saman Nikeghbalian; Mohammad Firoozifar; Gholamreza Pouladfar; Afsaneh Vazin
Journal:  Infect Drug Resist       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 4.003

3.  Carbapenems versus Cephalosporin or Piperacillin-Tazobactam as Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Liver Transplant Recipients with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Scores of ≥30: A Retrospective Study in a Chinese Population.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Ying Chen; Yuntao Zhang; Rongrong Wang; Weili Wang; Xueli Bai; Tingbo Liang
Journal:  Infect Drug Resist       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 4.177

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.