1
|
Affiliation(s)
- Elizabeth M Stringer
- Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Ashraf Nabhan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rasmussen LV, Sengoka E, Maro E, Kisigo G, Rasch V, Sørensen BL. Infection Prevention Performance among Hospital Staff during Vaginal Birth: Results from a Criterion-Based Audit at a Zonal Referral Hospital in Tanzania. East Afr Health Res J 2021; 5:36-43. [PMID: 34308243 PMCID: PMC8291205 DOI: 10.24248/eahrj.v5i1.649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 06/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthcare associated infections is a global burden and is one of the main causes of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality during the time of labour when admitted to the hospital. Healthcare workers' hands are in most cases the vehicle for transmission of microorganisms from patient to patient. Good hand hygiene practices at the bedside are a simple way of reducing healthcare associated infections. The objective was to assess the impact of a criterion-based audit on infection prevention performance and knowledge during vaginal delivery at a hospital in Tanzania. The quantitative findings were discussed with staff to identify barriers and solutions to quality improvement. METHODS A mixed-method uncontrolled, before and after intervention study by criterion-based audit was performed at the labour ward at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre. Criteria for best practice were established together with key staff based on national and international guidelines. Sixty clean procedures during vaginal birth were observed and assessed by a structured checklist based on the audit criteria. Baseline findings were discussed with staff and an intervention performed including a short training and preparation of alcohol-based hand rub. Hereafter another 60 clean procedures were observed, and performance compared to the care before the intervention. Furthermore, a knowledge test was performed before and after the intervention. RESULTS Hand washing increased significantly after a procedure from 46.7% to 80% (RR=1.71 95% CI; 1.27 to 2.31), the use of alcohol-based hand rub before a procedure from 1.7% to 33.3% p<.001), and the use of alcohol-based hand rub after procedure from 0% to 30% p<.00l). After the intervention the mean score for the knowledge test increased insignificantly from 59.3% to 65.3%, (mean difference = 6.1%, 95% CI; -4.69 to 16.88). CONCLUSION The criterion-based audit process identified substandard care for infection prevention at the labour ward. An intervention of discussing baseline findings and a short training session and introducing alcohol-based hand rub resulted in improvements on infection prevention performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Vibeke Rasch
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark
| | - Bjarke Lund Sørensen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sjællands Universitets Hospital, Roskilde Sygehusvej
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Williams MJ, Carvalho Ribeiro do Valle C, Gyte GM. Different classes of antibiotics given to women routinely for preventing infection at caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD008726. [PMID: 33661539 PMCID: PMC8092483 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd008726.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caesarean section increases the risk of postpartum infection for women and prophylactic antibiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence; however, there are adverse effects. It is important to identify the most effective class of antibiotics to use and those with the least adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine, from the best available evidence, the balance of benefits and harms between different classes of antibiotic given prophylactically to women undergoing caesarean section, considering their effectiveness in reducing infectious complications for women and adverse effects on both mother and infant. SEARCH METHODS For this 2020 update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (2 December 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different classes of prophylactic antibiotics given to women undergoing caesarean section. RCTs published in abstract form were also included. We excluded trials that compared drugs with placebo or drugs within a specific class; these are assessed in other Cochrane Reviews. We excluded quasi-RCTs and cross-over trials. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included 39 studies, with 33 providing data (8073 women). Thirty-two studies (7690 women) contributing data administered antibiotics systemically, while one study (383 women) used lavage and was analysed separately. We identified three main comparisons that addressed clinically important questions on antibiotics at caesarean section (all systemic administration), but we only found studies for one comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'. We found no studies for the following comparisons: 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides' and 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus lincosamides plus aminoglycosides'. Twenty-seven studies (22 provided data) included comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only). However for this update, we only pooled data relating to different sub-classes of penicillins and cephalosporins where they are known to have similar spectra of action against agents likely to cause infection at caesarean section. Eight trials, providing data on 1540 women, reported on our main comparison, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors'. We found data on four other comparisons of cephalosporins (only) versus penicillins (only) using systemic administration: antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (9 studies, 3093 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus non-antistaphylococcal penicillins (natural and broad spectrum) (4 studies, 854 women); minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors (2 studies, 865 women); and minimally antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (3rd generation) versus broad spectrum and antistaphylococcal penicillins (1 study, 200 women). For other comparisons of different classes of antibiotics, only a small number of trials provided data for each comparison, and in all but one case data were not pooled. For all comparisons, there was a lack of good quality data and important outcomes often included few women. Three of the studies that contributed data were undertaken with drug company funding, one was funded by the hospital, and for all other studies the funding source was not reported. Most of the studies were at unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias and other biases, partly due to the inclusion of many older trials where trial reports did not provide sufficient methodological information. We undertook GRADE assessment on the only main comparison reported by the included studies, antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors, and the certainty ranged from low to very low, mostly due to concerns about risk of bias, wide confidence intervals (CI), and few events. In terms of the primary outcomes for our main comparison of 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins (1st and 2nd generation) versus broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors': only one small study reported sepsis, and there were too few events to identify clear differences between the drugs (risk ratio (RR) 2.37, 95% CI 0.10 to 56.41, 1 study, 75 women, very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between these antibiotics in preventing endometritis (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.60, 7 studies, 1161 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on infant sepsis or infant oral thrush. For our secondary outcomes, we found there may be little or no difference between interventions for maternal fever (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75, 3 studies, 678 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects on maternal: wound infection (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.90, 4 studies, 543 women), urinary tract infection (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.73, 4 studies, 496 women), composite adverse effects (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.50, 2 studies, 468 women), and skin rash (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.1, 3 studies, 591 women) (all very low certainty evidence). Although maternal allergic reactions were reported by two studies, there were no events. There were no infant outcomes reported in the included studies. For the other comparisons, the results for most outcomes had wide CIs, few studies and few women included. None of the included trials reported on longer-term maternal outcomes, or on any infant outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Based on the best currently available evidence, 'antistaphylococcal cephalosporins' and 'broad spectrum penicillins plus betalactamase inhibitors' may have similar efficacy at caesarean section when considering immediate postoperative infection, although we did not have clear evidence for several important outcomes. Most trials administered antibiotics at or after cord clamping, or post-operatively, so results may have limited applicability to current practice which generally favours administration prior to skin incision. We have no data on any infant outcomes, nor on late infections (up to 30 days) in the mother; these are important gaps in the evidence that warrant further research. Antimicrobial resistance is very important but more appropriately investigated by other trial designs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Myfanwy J Williams
- Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| | - Carolina Carvalho Ribeiro do Valle
- Infection Prevention and Control, Hospital da Mulher Prof. Dr. José Aristodemo Pinotti - CAISM, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil
| | - Gillian Ml Gyte
- Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Alnajjar MS, Alashker DA. Surgical site infections following caesarean sections at Emirati teaching hospital: Incidence and implicated factors. Sci Rep 2020; 10:18702. [PMID: 33127952 PMCID: PMC7603313 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-75582-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2020] [Accepted: 10/15/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
The rate of delivery by caesarean sections is increasing globally and, therefore, the incidence of post-caesarean surgical site infections (SSIs) is probably also going to rise. The aim of the present study was to determine the incidence of SSIs after caesarean operations and to explore the factors associated with an increased risk of post-caesarean SSIs. A retrospective study was performed to assess all women who underwent caesarean sections from January 2016 to December 2017 at Al Ain Hospital in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Backward multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to specify the variables that were significantly and independently connected with the development of post-caesarean SSIs. In total, 807 women underwent caesarean deliveries at the study site hospital during the two-year study period (January 2016-December 2017). Post-operative SSI was detected in 11 (1.4%) of the women who underwent caesarean operations. Of these, 11 (100%) women were diagnosed post-discharge, within 30 days after the date of the surgery. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that increased gestational age (P = 0.045) was significantly and independently associated with the development of post-caesarean SSI. Increased gestational age was found to be an independent predictor of post-caesarean SSIs. This identified risk factor should inform targeted health care policies to reduce the rate of SSIs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Munther S Alnajjar
- Department of Biopharmaceutics & Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, P. O. Box 19328, Amman, Jordan.
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Al Ain University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
| | - Dalia A Alashker
- Pharmacy Department, Al Ain Hospital, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Eckler R, Quist-Nelson J, Saccone G, Ward H, Berghella V. Adhesive incisional drapes during cesarean delivery for preventing wound infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2019; 4:100090. [PMID: 31673692 PMCID: PMC6817601 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100090] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2019] [Revised: 07/16/2019] [Accepted: 07/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the incidence of wound infection after cesarean delivery in procedures conducted using adhesive incisional drapes verses no adhesive incisional drapes. STUDY DESIGN Searches were performed in electronic databases (MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, OVID, EMBASE, and the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). We included randomized controlled trials comparing adhesive incisional drapes to no adhesive incisional drapes during cesarean delivery. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was wound infection. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird, to produce relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS 52 publications were identified through initial search of databases and two randomized controlled trials were eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis examined a total of 1943 subjects and showed a statistically significant increase in wound infections in patients in the adhesive incisional drape group when compared to the control group (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02-1.65). CONCLUSION Adhesive incisional drapes may increase the incidence of wound infections after cesarean delivery. Further studies are necessary to explore this relationship in the setting of current postoperative infection prophylaxis, including broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage, skin preparation and vaginal cleansing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Eckler
- Sidney Kimmel College of Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Johanna Quist-Nelson
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Gabriele Saccone
- Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Harvey Ward
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Coffs Harbour Health Campus, Coffs Harbour, Australia
| | - Vincenzo Berghella
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
López-Alcalde J, Stallings E, Cabir Nunes S, Fernández Chávez A, Daheron M, Bonfill Cosp X, Zamora J. Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19:169. [PMID: 30876452 PMCID: PMC6419810 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-019-4001-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/14/2018] [Accepted: 03/07/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender. METHODS Methodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR). RESULTS This study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being "sex" the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions. CONCLUSION Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesús López-Alcalde
- Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Preventative Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidad Francisco de Vitoria (UFV)-Madrid, Madrid, Spain
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
- Cochrane Associate Centre of Madrid, Madrid, Spain
| | - Elena Stallings
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | | | - Xavier Bonfill Cosp
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, IIB Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Madrid, Spain
- CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Javier Zamora
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain
- CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Castan B. [Prevention of postoperative or associated of care pelvic inflammatory diseases: CNGOF and SPILF Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases Guidelines]. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2019; 47:451-457. [PMID: 30858077 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2019] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
Abstract
Numerous prophylactic antibiotic regimens (PBR) have been evaluated particularly in surgical abortion, hysterosalpingography or caesarean section, but few randomized comparative trials are available. Recommendations for PBR should take into account, expected and demonstrated benefits that reduce the risk of surgical site infection, but also the impact on the microbiota, the risk of bacterial resistance selection, and the overall cost to the community. In addition, antibiotic prophylaxis is not the only one factor to reduce the risk of surgical site infection, such as preventive measures and good hygiene practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Castan
- Unité fonctionnelle d'infectiologie régionale, centre hospitalier d'Ajaccio, hôpital Eugénie, boulevard Rossini, 20000 Ajaccio, France; Coordinateur du groupe des recommandations de la Société de pathologie infectieuse de langue française (SPILF), 21, rue Beaurepaire, 75010 Paris, France.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Liu Z, Dumville JC, Norman G, Westby MJ, Blazeby J, McFarlane E, Welton NJ, O'Connor L, Cawthorne J, George RP, Crosbie EJ, Rithalia AD, Cheng H. Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 2:CD012653. [PMID: 29406579 PMCID: PMC6491077 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012653.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection (SSI) rates vary from 1% to 5% in the month following surgery. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these SSIs can be considerable in financial and social terms. Many interventions are used with the aim of reducing the risk of SSI in people undergoing surgery. These interventions can be broadly delivered at three stages: preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The intraoperative interventions are largely focused on decontamination of skin using soap and antiseptics; the use of barriers to prevent movement of micro-organisms into incisions; and optimising the patient's own bodily functions to promote best recovery. Both decontamination and barrier methods can be aimed at people undergoing surgery and operating staff. Other interventions focused on SSI prevention may be aimed at the surgical environment and include methods of theatre cleansing and approaches to managing theatre traffic. OBJECTIVES To present an overview of Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness and safety of interventions, delivered during the intraoperative period, aimed at preventing SSIs in all populations undergoing surgery in an operating theatre. METHODS Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting the effectiveness of interventions delivered during the intraoperative period in terms of SSI prevention were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane protocols and title registrations for future inclusion into the overview. We searched the Cochrane Library on 01 July 2017. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' and certainty assessment. We used the ROBIS (risk of bias in systematic reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables. MAIN RESULTS We included 32 Cochrane Reviews in this overview: we judged 30 reviews as being at low risk of bias and two at unclear risk of bias. Thirteen reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Two reviews had no relevant data to extract. We extracted data from 30 reviews with 349 included trials, totaling 73,053 participants. Interventions assessed included gloving, use of disposable face masks, patient oxygenation protocols, use of skin antiseptics for hand washing and patient skin preparation, vaginal preparation, microbial sealants, methods of surgical incision, antibiotic prophylaxis and methods of skin closure. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence for outcomes was low or very low. Of the 77 comparisons providing evidence for the outcome of SSI, seven provided high- or moderate-certainty evidence, 39 provided low-certainty evidence and 31 very low-certainty evidence. Of the nine comparisons that provided evidence for the outcome of mortality, five provided low-certainty evidence and four very low-certainty evidence.There is high- or moderate-certainty evidence for the following outcomes for these intraoperative interventions. (1) Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision reduce SSI risk compared with administration after cord clamping (10 trials, 5041 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.81; high-certainty evidence - assessed by review authors). (2) Preoperative antibiotics reduce SSI risk compared with placebo after breast cancer surgery (6 trials, 1708 participants; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence - assessed by overview authors). (3) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduce SSI risk in caesarean sections compared with no antibiotics (82 relevant trials, 14,407 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by review authors). (4) Antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces SSI risk for hernia repair compared with placebo or no treatment (17 trials, 7843 participants; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.84; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for risk of bias - assessed by overview authors); (5) There is currently no clear difference in the risk of SSI between iodine-impregnated adhesive drapes compared with no adhesive drapes (2 trials, 1113 participants; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.60; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by review authors); (6) There is currently no clear difference in SSI risk between short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotics in colorectal surgery (7 trials; 1484 participants; RR 1.05 95% CI 0.78 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence; downgraded once for imprecision - assessed by overview authors). There was only one comparison showing negative effects associated with the intervention: adhesive drapes increase the risk of SSI compared with no drapes (5 trials; 3082 participants; RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.48; high-certainty evidence - rated by review authors). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on use of intraoperative treatments for the prevention of SSIs from all currently published Cochrane Reviews. There is evidence that some interventions are useful in reducing SSI risk for people undergoing surgery, such as antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section and hernia repair, and also the timing of prophylactic intravenous antibiotics administered before caesarean incision. Also, there is evidence that adhesive drapes increase SSI risk. Evidence for the many other treatment choices is largely of low or very low certainty and no quality-of-life or cost-effectiveness data were reported. Future trials should elucidate the relative effects of some treatments. These studies should focus on increasing participant numbers, using robust methodology and being of sufficient duration to adequately assess SSI. Assessment of other outcomes such as mortality might also be investigated as part of non-experimental prospective follow-up of people with SSI of different severity, so the risk of death for different subgroups can be better understood.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhenmi Liu
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and HealthJean McFarlane BuildingOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Jo C Dumville
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and HealthJean McFarlane BuildingOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Gill Norman
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and HealthJean McFarlane BuildingOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Maggie J Westby
- University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and HealthJean McFarlane BuildingOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9PL
| | - Jane Blazeby
- University of BristolNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol Medical SchoolBristolUK
| | - Emma McFarlane
- National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceCentre for GuidelinesLevel 1A, City TowerPiccadilly PlazaManchesterUKM1 4BD
| | - Nicky J Welton
- University of BristolNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, School of Social and Community Medicine, Bristol Medical SchoolBristolUK
| | - Louise O'Connor
- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustInfection Prevention and Control / Tissue Viability TeamCobbett HouseOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9WL
| | - Julie Cawthorne
- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustInfection Prevention and Control / Tissue Viability TeamCobbett HouseOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9WL
| | - Ryan P George
- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustInfection Prevention and Control / Tissue Viability TeamCobbett HouseOxford RoadManchesterUKM13 9WL
| | - Emma J Crosbie
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of ManchesterDivision of Cancer Sciences5th Floor ‐ ResearchSt Mary's HospitalManchesterUKM13 9WL
| | - Amber D Rithalia
- Independent Researcher7 Victoria Terrace, KirkstallLeedsUKLS5 3HX
| | - Hung‐Yuan Cheng
- University of BristolBristol Centre for Surgical Research, Bristol Medical SchoolOffice 2.01Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley RoadBristolUKBS8 2PS
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ayeleke RO, Mourad SM, Marjoribanks J, Calis KA, Jordan V. Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6:CD004637. [PMID: 28625021 PMCID: PMC6441670 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004637.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Elective hysterectomy is commonly performed for benign gynaecological conditions. Hysterectomy can be performed abdominally, laparoscopically, or vaginally, with or without laparoscopic assistance. Antibiotic prophylaxis consists of administration of antibiotics to reduce the rate of postoperative infection, which otherwise affects 40%-50% of women after vaginal hysterectomy, and more than 20% after abdominal hysterectomy. No Cochrane review has systematically assessed evidence on this topic. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. SEARCH METHODS We searched electronic databases to November 2016 (including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), as well as clinical trials registers, conference abstracts, and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing use of antibiotics versus placebo or other antibiotics as prophylaxis in women undergoing elective hysterectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS We included in this review 37 RCTs, which performed 20 comparisons of various antibiotics versus placebo and versus one another (6079 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations of study findings were risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, imprecision due to small samples and low event rates, and inadequate reporting of adverse effects. Any antibiotic versus placebo Vaginal hysterectomyModerate-quality evidence shows that women who received antibiotic prophylaxis had fewer total postoperative infections (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.40; five RCTs, N = 610; I2 = 85%), less urinary tract infection (UTI) (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; eight RCTs, N = 1790; I2 = 44%), fewer pelvic infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.39; 11 RCTs, N = 2010; I2 = 57%), and fewer postoperative fevers (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.54; nine RCTs, N = 1879; I2 = 48%) than women who did not receive such prophylaxis. This suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 34% to 7% to 14%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.10; one RCT, N = 146; very low-quality evidence).Data were insufficient for comparison of adverse effects. Abdominal hysterectomyWomen who received antibiotic prophylaxis of any class had fewer total postoperative infections (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.38; one RCT, N = 345; low-quality evidence), abdominal wound infections (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.92; 11 RCTs, N = 2434; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), UTIs (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.51; 11 RCTs, N = 2547; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence), pelvic infections (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; 11 RCTs, N = 1883; I2 = 11%; moderate-quality evidence), and postoperative fevers (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.70; 11 RCTs, N = 2581; I2 = 51%; moderate-quality evidence) than women who did not receive prophylaxis, suggesting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the average risk of postoperative infection from about 16% to 1% to 6%. Whether this treatment has led to differences in rates of other serious infection remains unclear (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.69; two RCTs, N = 476; I2 = 29%; very low-quality evidence).It is unclear whether rates of adverse effects differed between groups (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 5.18; two RCTs, N = 430; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons between antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified four comparisons: cephalosporin versus penicillin (two RCTs, N = 470), cephalosporin versus tetracycline (one RCT, N = 51), antiprotozoal versus lincosamide (one RCT, N = 80), and cephalosporin versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes, except that fewer cases of total postoperative infection and postoperative fever were reported in women who received cephalosporin than in those who received antiprotozoal.Only one comparison (cephalosporin vs penicillin; two RCTs, N = 451) yielded data on adverse effects and showed no differences between groups. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified only one comparison: cephalosporin versus penicillin (N = 220). Data show no evidence of differences between groups for any of the primary outcomes. Adverse effects were not reported. Combined antibiotics versus single antibiotics Vaginal hysterectomyWe identified three comparisons: cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus cephalosporin (one RCT, N = 78), cephalosporin plus antiprotozoal versus antiprotozoal (one RCT, N = 78), and penicillin plus antiprotozoal versus penicillin (one RCT, N = 230). Data were unavailable for most outcomes, including adverse effects. We found no evidence of differences between groups, except that fewer women receiving cephalosporin with antiprotozoal received a diagnosis of total postoperative infection, UTI, or postoperative fever compared with women receiving antiprotozoal. Abdominal hysterectomyWe identified one comparison (penicillin plus antiprotozoal vs penicillin only; one RCT, N = 230). Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. Adverse effects were not reported. Comparison of cephalosporins in different regimensSingle small trials addressed dose comparisons and provided no data for most outcomes, including adverse effects. Whether differences between groups occurred was unclear. No trials compared route of administration.The quality of evidence for all head-to-head and dose comparisons was very low owing to very serious imprecision and serious risk of bias related to poor reporting of methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Antibiotic prophylaxis appears to be effective in preventing postoperative infection in women undergoing elective vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy, regardless of the dose regimen. However, evidence is insufficient to show whether use of prophylactic antibiotics influences rates of adverse effects. Similarly, evidence is insufficient to show which (if any) individual antibiotic, dose regimen, or route of administration is safest and most effective. The most recent studies included in this review were 14 years old at the time of our search. Thus findings from included studies may not reflect current practice in perioperative and postoperative care and may not show locoregional antimicrobial resistance patterns.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reuben Olugbenga Ayeleke
- University of AucklandDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyPrivate Bag 92019AucklandNew Zealand
| | | | - Jane Marjoribanks
- University of AucklandDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyPrivate Bag 92019AucklandNew Zealand
| | - Karim A Calis
- National Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development31 Center Drive (MSC 2423)Building 31, Suite 2A25, Room 2A25EBethesdaMarylandUSA20892
| | - Vanessa Jordan
- University of AucklandDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyPrivate Bag 92019AucklandNew Zealand
| | | |
Collapse
|