Prophylactic antibiotic prescription for cesarean section

Oral antibiotic prophylaxis in elective cesarean deliveries: pilot analysis in tertiary Care Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Puerperal infection remains a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Those infections occur more likely after cesarean delivery (CD). Prophylactic antibiotics are administered at the time of CD to prevent complications. In addition to intraoperative prophylaxis; prescription of antibiotics during hospital discharge to prevent surgical site infections (SSI) is quite common. Purpose of this study is to determine the utility of prophylactic oral antibiotic prescription in a cohort of low-risk women undergoing CD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted between 2014 and 2018 at Ufuk University School of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Total of 389 low risk elective cesarean deliveries were selected. All cases received intraoperative prophylaxis. In group I (157 subjects), no further antibiotics were given and in group II (232 cases), oral cephuroxime 500 mg was given during hospital discharge. Primary outcome was SSI. Secondary outcomes were endometritis and other infectious conditions.

RESULTS

Overall SSI rate was 2.5%. Only 2 SSIs were noted in group 1 (1.2%) compared to eight in group II (3.4%). There was no statistical difference in SSI rate between two groups. Secondary outcomes were also comparable.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we failed to reveal any beneficial effect of oral antibiotic prescription during hospital discharge in low risk elective CDs. Therefore, use of oral antibiotics in addition to intraoperative prophylaxis should be questioned in terms of increased costs, emergence of bacterial resistance and long term effects on new born as a consequence of changes in gut microbiome.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in caesarean section delivery

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is used routinely for pre-, intra- and post-operative caesarean section. One of the most important risk factors for postpartum infection is caesarean delivery. Caesarean section shows a higher incidence of infection than vaginal delivery. It is complicated by surgical site infections, endometritis or urinary tract infection. The aim of the present study was to assess the usage of antimicrobials in women undergoing caesarean section at a Tertiary Care Hospital. A prospective study was conducted in 100 women during the period of February 2013 to August 2013 in the inpatient Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. Data collected included the age of the patient, gravidity, and type of caesarean section, which was analyzed for the nature and number of antimicrobials prescribed, duration of treatment, polypharmacy, fixed-dose combinations, generic/brand names used and failure of prophylaxis. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered to the patients. The most commonly prescribed antimicrobial was a combination of ceftriaxone and sulbactam. Of 100 patients, 87% were aged 20-35 years. The highest proportion of patients were primigravida 72%. Elective procedure was carried out in 38%, the remaining were emergency C-section in whom intra- and post-operative antimicrobial prophylaxis was given for a duration of 7 days. In total, 27% of patients were reported with infection even after the antimicrobial prophylaxis. In conclusion, pre-operative prophylaxis was given in the early rupture of membranes. Fixed-dose combinations were preferred. Incidence of infection even after antimicrobial prophylaxis was reported due to pre-existing infection, debilitating disease or prolonged rupture of membranes. Patients with recurrent infection were shifted to amoxicillin and clavulinic acid combination. Drugs were prescribed only by brand names which is of concern.

Routes of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Post-caesarean section infection is a cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for preventing infection after caesarean delivery. The route of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis should be effective, safe and convenient. Currently, there is a lack of synthesised evidence regarding the benefits and harms of different routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing infection after caesarean section.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of different routes of prophylactic antibiotics given for preventing infectious morbidity in women undergoing caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two alternative routes of antibiotic prophylaxis for caesarean section (both elective and emergency). Cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs were not eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from the included studies. These steps were checked by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies (1354 women). The risk of bias was unclear or high in most of the included studies.All of the included trials involved women undergoing caesarean section whether elective or non-elective. Intravenous antibiotics versus antibiotic irrigation (nine studies, 1274 women) Nine studies (1274 women) compared the administration of intravenous antibiotics with antibiotic irrigation. There were no clear differences between groups in terms of this review's maternal primary outcomes: endometritis (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.29; eight studies (966 women) (low-quality evidence)); wound infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.43; seven studies (859 women) (very low-quality evidence)). The outcome of infant sepsis was not reported in the included studies.In terms of this review's maternal secondary outcomes, there were no clear differences between intravenous antibiotic or irrigation antibiotic groups in terms of postpartum febrile morbidity (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.60; three studies (264 women) (very low-quality evidence)); or urinary tract infection (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.15; five studies (660 women) (very low-quality evidence)). In terms of adverse effects of the treatment on the women, no drug allergic reactions were reported in three studies (284 women) (very low-quality evidence), and there were no cases of serious infectious complications reported (very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in terms of maternal length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 0.28 days, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.79 days, (random-effects analysis), four studies (512 women). No data were reported for the number of women readmitted to hospital. For the baby, there were no data reported in relation to oral thrush, infant length of hospital stay or immediate adverse effects of the antibiotics on the infant. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis versus oral antibiotic prophylaxis (one study, 80 women) One study (80 women) compared an intravenous versus an oral route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics, but did not report any of this review's primary or secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear difference between irrigation and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing the risk of post-caesarean endometritis. For other outcomes, there is insufficient evidence regarding which route of administration of prophylactic antibiotics is most effective at preventing post-caesarean infections. The quality of evidence was very low to low, mainly due to limitations in study design and imprecision. Furthermore, most of the included studies were underpowered (small sample sizes with few events). Therefore, we advise caution in the interpretation and generalisability of the results.For future research, there is a need for well-designed, properly-conducted, and clearly-reported RCTs. Such studies should evaluate the more recently available antibiotics, elaborating on the various available routes of administration, and exploring potential neonatal side effects of such interventions.

Postpregnancy genital tract and wound infections

Despite the widespread application of standard aseptic techniques during vaginal birth, cesarean birth, and/or termination of pregnancy, postpregnancy infections remain a significant source of maternal morbidity and mortality. Obstetric infection accounts for more than 12% of maternal deaths. Infection occurs most frequently in women who have cesarean births, and following spontaneous or elective termination of pregnancy. Infection is estimated to be the second highest cause of under-reported maternal death in the United States. This article identifies measures to aid in primary prevention and recognition of obstetric infections in order to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment.

Successful control program to implement the appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for Cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

Describe implementation of a successful program to reduce doses (cefazolin 2 to 1 g) used for antimicrobial prophylaxis.

METHODS

Evaluation of an intervention program to reduce prophylactic antimicrobial doses. The intervention included weekly staff discussions, automatic dispensation of 1g-vial of cefazolin by the pharmacy unless expressly requested by surgeon and increase in post-discharge surveillance as a strategy to reassure surgeons of the safety of the reduction. In the pre and post intervention periods, a prospective study of antimicrobial consumption and surgical site infections were measured.

RESULTS

There were 5,164 and 5,204 deliveries in 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, respectively; 1,524 (29.5%) and 1,363 (26%) were cesarean sections. There was a 45% decrease in cefazolin vials used on average per cesarean section (2.29 to 1.25). Patients evaluated increased from 16% to 67% and the SSI rates in both periods were 3.34% to 2.42%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

An ample intervention, including administrative and educational measures, led to high compliance with dose reduction and saved more than US$4,000 in cefazolin, considered important because government reimbursement in Brazil for cesarean section is $80.

Evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis for cesarean section alone is not sufficient to change the practices of doctors in a teaching hospital

AIMS

To assess the pattern of prophylactic antibiotic use in cesarean sections, identify factors associated with single-dose prescriptions as evidence-based best practice, and evaluate the changes in use of single-dose compared with multiple-dose regimens and the variation of use between doctors after dissemination of evidence.

METHODS

An analytical descriptive study was conducted. The medical records of 432 women undergoing cesarean section from April to September 2001 after dissemination of evidence in a teaching hospital in Southern Thailand were reviewed. Use of single-dose prophylactic antibiotic was the main outcome measure. Patterns of prophylactic antibiotics, and factors associated with pregnant women and doctors, were analyzed and compared with baseline data among 463 women undergoing cesarean section in 1998. Multivariate logistic regression with random effects was used for analysis.

RESULTS

After the dissemination of evidence, the rate of single-dose prescriptions increased from 14.2 to 22.4% (P < 0.01), single-dose prescriptions decreased for patients who had experienced longer durations of ruptured membranes, and the timing of the administration of antibiotics improved, but multiple-dose and duration of postoperative prescriptions increased. The variation in prescribing antibiotics between doctors was significant (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge of evidence alone does not improve practices uniformly. Consequently, other interventions are necessary to improve practices.