Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: is the clinical practice based on evidence?

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in companion animal surgery: A scoping review for European Network for Optimization of Antimicrobial Therapy (ENOVAT) guidelines

Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is widely used to reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSI), but there is uncertainty as to what the proportion of SSI reduction is. Therefore, it is difficult for surgeons to properly weigh the costs, risks and benefits for individual patients when deciding on the use of SAP, making it challenging to promote antimicrobial stewardship in primary practice settings. The objective of this study was to map the veterinary evidence focused on assessing the effect of SAP on SSI development and in order to identify surgical procedures with some research evidence and possible knowledge gaps. In October 2021 and December 2022, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase and MEDLINE were systematically searched. Double blinded screening of records was performed to identify studies in companion animals that reported on the use of SAP and SSI rates. Comparative data were available from 34 out of 39123 records screened including: eight randomised controlled trials (RCT), 23 cohort studies (seven prospective and 16 retrospective) and three retrospective case series representing 12476 dogs and cats in total. Extracted data described peri- or post-operative SAP in nine, and 25 studies, respectively. In the eight RCTs evaluating SAP in companion animals, surgical procedure coverage was skewed towards orthopaedic stifle surgeries in referral settings and there was large variation in SAP protocols, SSI definitions and follow-up periods. More standardized data collection and agreement of SSI definitions is needed to build stronger evidence for optimized patient care.

Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Proposal for a Global Evidence-Based Bundle

In the multimodal strategy context, to implement healthcare-associated infection prevention, bundles are one of the most commonly used methods to adapt guidelines in the local context and transfer best practices into routine clinical care. One of the most important measures to prevent surgical site infections is surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP). This narrative review aims to present a bundle for the correct SAP administration and evaluate the evidence supporting it. Surgical site infection (SSI) prevention guidelines published by the WHO, CDC, NICE, and SHEA/IDSA/APIC/AHA, and the clinical practice guidelines for SAP by ASHP/IDSA/SIS/SHEA, were reviewed. Subsequently, comprehensive searches were also conducted using the PubMed®/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, in order to identify further supporting evidence-based documentation. The bundle includes five different measures that may affect proper SAP administration. The measures included may be easily implemented in all hospitals worldwide and are based on minimal drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics knowledge, which all surgeons should know. Antibiotics for SAP should be prescribed for surgical procedures at high risk for SSIs, such as clean-contaminated and contaminated surgical procedures or for clean surgical procedures where SSIs, even if unlikely, may have devastating consequences, such as in procedures with prosthetic implants. SAP should generally be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision for most antibiotics (including cefazolin). SAP redosing is indicated for surgical procedures exceeding two antibiotic half-lives or for procedures significantly associated with blood loss. In principle, SAP should be discontinued after the surgical procedure. Hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programmes can optimise the treatment of infections and reduce adverse events associated with antibiotics. In the context of a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach, it is essential to encourage an institutional safety culture in which surgeons are persuaded, rather than compelled, to respect antibiotic prescribing practices. In that context, the proposed bundle contains a set of evidence-based interventions for SAP administration. It is easy to apply, promotes collaboration, and includes measures that can be adequately followed and evaluated in all hospitals worldwide.

Physician-reported barriers and challenges to antibiotic prescribing in surgical prophylaxis: a structured systematic review

Objectives

The purpose of the study is to identify and analyse the barriers in surgical procedures where antibiotic dissipation is habitual.

Methods

Extensive literature search is carried out using different electronic databases (PubMed, Europe PMC, PLoS and Google Scholar) between January 2000 and December 2020. The articles were selected purely based on the inclusion criteria. Only qualitative and cross-sectional studies were selected to reduce the risk of bias. The JBI and AXIS checklists were used to assessed the quality of the enrolled articles. Data extractions were done by using a predesigned standardized data collection form.

Key findings

A total of 2067 articles were electronically retrieved but only 14 articles met the eligibility criteria. About 15 902 healthcare professionals (HCPs) with an average response rate of 64.7% were pooled for evidence synthesis. The majority of respondents (50%) discussed different barriers in their practice site for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) administration. Barriers were categorized into four themes: lack of guideline availability and knowledge, lack of adherence to guidelines, lack of guideline knowledge and adherence and physician perceptions or off-label practices. A total of 723 (56.3%) out of 1282 HCPs from nine different studies reported a lack of adherence to guidelines during the perioperative process. The majority of respondents in three studies, 318 (82%) out of 386 HCPs, reported that physicians’ perceptions play a crucial role in prescribing SAP during surgeries.

Conclusion

This study concluded that the barriers within the practice site play a decisive role in SAP optimization and therefore all HCPs are recommended to maintain local/standard guidelines and adhere to them while prescribing SAP.

[Modern management of chronic wounds]

The treatment of patients with chronic wounds is a multiprofessional challenge. Based on a comprehensive diagnosis and integrated into a causal treatment concept, patients should always be treated with a modern wound therapy. This wound therapy should try to take into account many different factors such as the wound healing phases, infection status, exudate levels, but also individual patient wishes. Especially in the case of chronic wounds of the lower extremities and edema, compression therapy is also very important for therapy and recurrence prophylaxis. In addition, the pain, which is usually very distressing, should be recorded and adequately treated or avoided. Modern moist wound therapy can then support the healing of patients with chronic wounds, reduce complications and thus improve their quality of life.

Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis use in elective orthopaedic surgery - a cross-sectional analysis

Purpose

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) prevents surgical site infections (SSI). In orthopaedic surgery, the use of prolonged SAP (PSAP) has been reported in daily routine, despite guidelines advising against it. Therefore, we asked: What is the proportion of PSAP use, defined as administration of SAP ≥24 h after elective orthopaedic surgery? Are there patient- and surgery-related predictors of PSAP use?

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis investigated 1292 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery including total joint arthroplasties at one Swiss centre between 2015 and 2017. Patient comorbidities, surgical characteristics and occurrence of SSI at 90 days in PSAP group were compared to the SAP group (< 24 h post-operative).

Results

PSAP use was 12% (155 of 1292). Patient-related factors associated with PSAP compared to the SAP group included older age (63 vs. 58y; p < 0.001), higher BMI (29 vs. 27 kg/m²; p < 0.001), ASA classification ≥3 (31% vs. 17%; p < 0.001) and lung disease (17% vs. 9%; p = 0.002). Surgery-related factors associated with PSAP were use of prosthetics (62% vs. 45%; p < 0.001), surgery of the knee (65% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), longer surgery duration (87 vs. 68 min; p < 0.001) and presence of drains (90% vs. 65%; p < 0.001). All four SSI occurred in the SAP group (0 vs. 4; p = 1.0). Surgeons administered PSAP with varying frequencies; proportions ranged from 0 to 33%.

Conclusion

PSAP use and SSI proportions were lower than reported in the literature. Several patient- and surgery-related factors associated with PSAP use were identified and some were potentially modifiable. Also, experienced surgeons seemed to implement differing approaches regarding the duration of SAP administration.