Dog- to- dog bite wound management - Comparison of the antiseptic efficacy of polyhexanide and hypochlorous acid with regard to reducing the use of antibiotics: A randomized clinical trial.

The CDC estimates 23% of healthcare-associated infections to be surgical site infections, with alarming prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms. While there is consensus regarding preoperative prophylaxis, orthopaedic surgeons' use of prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics is less defined. We investigated surgeons' use of prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics after elective outpatient foot or ankle procedures, identifying (1) frequency of use, (2) regimen preferences, (3) personal indications, and (4) associated experience and demographics. Using a cross-sectional survey design, a questionnaire was emailed to all active and candidate members of the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society. Supplementary questions captured demographic information. We invited 1136 members to participate; 22 addresses produced delivery failure messages, leaving 1114 members as potential participants. After nonresponses and exclusions, 312 (28%) responses were analyzed. Statistical analysis used Pearson's chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and multivariate regression. The majority (75%) of respondents reported use of prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics. Most users (69%) prescribed to fewer than 25% of patients, although 16% prescribed for all elective cases. The most frequent regimen was cephalexin 500 mg four times a day (63%) and the most common duration was 5 to 7 days (50%). Surgeons' most common indications were previous infection (71%), medical comorbidities (65%), and previous wound-healing difficulties (56%). Those who do and do not prescribe prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics showed no difference in surgical site infection rate or any demographic category. Surgeons' reported use of prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics after elective foot or ankle surgery was common, without demographic association. Commonalities were identified in antibiotic regimen and personal indications for this practice. Comparative clinical studies are warranted to elucidate the efficacy of prophylactic postoperative oral antibiotics and establish evidence-based guidelines for their use.

Late onset neonatal septicemia (systemic infection after 72 hours of life) remains a major cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Early treatment with appropriate antibiotics is critical since infected infants can deteriorate rapidly. The aim of this study was to review the pathogens responsible for late onset neonatal septicemia (LONS) and their antimicrobial susceptibilities in order to guide the initial selection of appropriate antibiotics for infants with suspected LONS. A retrospective chart review of all cases with LONS seen in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical College from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2005 was conducted. All cases were selected based on the clinical presentation and at least one positive result of blood culture. The basic clinical characteristics and the results of blood culture and antimicrobial susceptibilities were analyzed. A total of 102 cases with LONS were identified. Among those 102 cases, 80 were community acquired (infants admitted from home and the blood culture was done on admission) and 22 were hospital acquired (infants became sick while in the NICU and the blood culture was done prior to use of antibiotics). The clinical presentations were non-specific. Compared to the infants with community acquired LONS, infants with hospital acquired LONS were usually born more prematurely (mean gestational age 33 +/- 3 vs 39 +/- 2 wks, t = 2.255, P < 0.01), with lower weight (mean weight 1.79 +/- 0.70 vs 3.23 +/- 0.67 kg, t = 8.818, P < 0.01) and with younger age (mean age 12 +/- 6 vs 16 +/- 7 days, t = 7.581, P < 0.05). Of the 102 cases, a total of 103 strains of bacteria were isolated. Among the pathogenic bacteria isolated, the most common were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (CoNS) (50/103, 48.5%), followed by Klebsiella pneumoniae (16/103, 15.5%). The main pathogens for community acquired LONS were Staphylococcus species and Escherichia coli. The most important pathogen responsible for hospital acquired LONS was Klebsiella pneumoniae. Most (> 80%) of the Staphylococcus especially CoNS were resistant to common antibiotics such as penicillin, erythromycin and cefazolin. Significant numbers (6/9) of Staphylococcus aureus isolated were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). However, all of the Staphyloccus isolates were sensitive to vancomycin. Almost all (15/16) of the Klebsiella pneumoniae isolated were multi-drug resistant due to production of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs). They were sensitive only to a few antibiotics such as carbapenems, aminoglycosides and quinolones. There was also one strain of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). Furthermore, there was no a single case of late onset neonatal sepsis due to infection with group B Streptococcus (GBS). The clinical manifestations of late onset neonatal sepsis are usually non-specific. GBS is not a significant pathogen responsible for community acquired LONS in the Wenzhou area. There are increasing numbers of multi-drug resistant bacterial species isolated from the newborn infants with late onset neonatal septicemia, which is most likely due the non-restricted use of antibiotics in the hospitals as well as in the communities. A routine blood culture should be taken from any newborn infant who is suspected of LONS and empirical use of appropriate antibiotics should be initiated as soon as the blood specimen for culture has been drawn. To reduce the occurrence of multi-drug resistant bacteria, the use of antibiotics especially the third generation cephalosporins in neonates should be restricted as much as possible.

Wastewater treatment contributes to selective increase of antibiotic resistance among Acinetobacter spp.

Interventional Antibiotic Treatment Replacing Antibiotic Prophylaxis during Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Is Safe and Feasible: A Single-Center Analysis

To determine current practice in the management of dog bite wounds with regard to the use of prophylactic antibiotics and primary closure and to compare the available evidence. We conducted a national postal survey of Accident and Emergency (A and E) departments in the UK to ascertain the current practice in the management of recent dog bite wounds. A questionnaire was designed and posted to a named A and E consultant. Non-respondents were sent a single reminder 8 weeks after the initial mailing. A detailed literature search was carried out using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases to look at the available evidence. The postal survey yielded an 80% response. Prophylactic antibiotics were routinely used by 53% of the respondents. Although 99% of the respondents were happy to close facial dog bite lacerations, 60% were reluctant to suture other body regions. Recent available evidence suggests that restricting the use of prophylactic antibiotics for high-risk dog bite wounds and the primary suturing of appropriate dog bite lacerations is safe. The management of recent dog bite wounds is not entirely evidence based in many A and E departments in the UK.

The use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing has been a controversial topic. There are few evidence-based studies to determine the need for prophylactic systemic antibiotics. We performed a systematic literature review to determine the role of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing in the prevention of toxic shock syndrome and local nasal infections. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic literature review to determine the role of prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing in the prevention of toxic shock syndrome and local nasal infections. A search for studies that reviewed the efficacy of prophylactic systemic antibiotics in the prevention of toxic shock or nasal infections and/or sinusitis for patients with nasal packing for epistaxis and postoperative septoplasties was performed. This was conducted in a number of medical literature data bases by following the methods of the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only English publications and human studies that were randomized control trials, quasi-randomized control trials, controlled clinical trials, retrospective studies, and case series were included. Six studies, with a total of 990 patients, met the inclusion criteria for the review and were included. Primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of nasal or sinus infections in patients who underwent nasal packing for epistaxis or septoplasty. There were no reports of toxic shock syndrome in any patients, and there was no statistical difference in purulent drainage in patients who had septoplasty (9.9 versus 11.2%) treated with or without antibiotics. There is a paucity of literature that reviewed the need for prophylactic systemic antibiotics with nasal packing. The available literature does not show a significant benefit to the use of antibiotics with nasal packing, but the studies were underpowered to detect such a difference. One must consider the associated risks of prophylactic antibiotics to the patient as well when deciding to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics.

The definition of late PJI is variable in literature. Majority of the members of the consensus felt that any infection occurring after one year should be considered as late. Coventry defined stages of PJI, where Stage I is an acute infection that occurred within 3 months of the index procedure, Stage II is a delayed infection that occurred between 3 months and 2 years after the index procedure where there was no pain-free interval, and Stage III is a hematogenous infection where there is a pain-free stage [1]. Garvin and Hanssen defined a late chronic PJI as one that occurred 4 weeks after the index procedure with an insidious clinical onset [2]. McPherson et al defined a chronic infection as one that had symptoms for 4 weeks or longer [3]. In Sweden, a late PJI is defined as one that occurs 2 years after the index procedure. Due to the huge variation in time frames, we did not find consensus in defining a timeframe for a late PJI. However, we classified late PJI as late hematogenous PJI, where there was an asymptomatic period followed by clinical and/or radiographical signs of infection. The workgroup feels that late PJI arises as a result of bacteremia at a later stage [4] and should be distinguished with infections arising as a result of intraoperative contamination. Risk factors for late PJI are similar to those described for PJI in Workgroup 1 (Please see Question 1, Workgroup 1).

Dog bites account for 250,000 attendances for urgent and emergency care each year. They pose risks including infections with potentially life-threatening complications. This article scrutinises the evidence underpinning the use of prophylactic antibiotics in dog bite wounds. A focused literature review involving four databases specialising in peer-reviewed healthcare literature was conducted to identify the highest quality evidence, which was then systematically appraised. The use of antibiotics in treating dog bite wounds to reduce the risk of infection is largely supported by the evidence. However, significant limitations exist in the research, with patient-specific criteria for administering prophylactic antibiotics and the associated risks and financial costs not addressed. Further research into antibiotic treatment for dog bites would help to support clinicians, nurse practitioners and the wider nursing and allied health professional team in urgent and emergency care by informing safe practice and in turn improving patient care, cost-effectiveness and antimicrobial stewardship.

Infection following a dog bite

Introduction: Plastic surgeons may opt to administer prophylactic perioperative antibiotics in elective skin graft surgeries to curtail the risk of surgical site infections (SSI). However, the use of antibiotics brings the risk of adverse events or antibiotic resistance and evidence comparing the risk versus benefit is still lacking. Thus, there are no specific guidelines regarding the use of antibiotics prophylaxis in skin graft surgery and the potential for misuse of antibiotics is high. Methodology: A systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve all articles comparing the use versus nonuse of “prophylactic antibiotics” in “skin graft surgery” on March 29, 2020. All comparative study designs were considered for inclusion. The primary outcome was occurrence of SSI. A meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random effect model was used to pool the effect estimates from included studies. Result: A total of 1403 articles were identified, of which, 6 were included in the meta-analysis. The 6 articles included were all comparative studies (5 RCTs and 1 cohort study) and reported the outcomes of 391 patients and 404 grafts. A total of 202 patients received prophylactic antibiotics and 202 patients did not receive antibiotics. All 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled effect estimates comparing treatment groups showed no significant difference for outcomes in terms of SSI (odds ratio: 0.43; 95% confidence interval: 0.18, 1.02; I 2 0%; P=0.06). Conclusion: Incidence of SSI in elective skin graft surgery is relatively low. Our data shows there is limited utility in the use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent clinically significant SSI in patients undergoing elective skin graft surgery. However, there are still only a small number of studies conducted on the topic to date, and more work is required before definitive conclusions can be used.

Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host-response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimise infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life-threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. It would be useful to know whether prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing failures of dental implants. To assess the beneficial or harmful effects of the administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: March 2003. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow up of at least 3 months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotics regimens and no antibiotics/placebo to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity). Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. No RCTs were identified. There is not appropriate scientific evidence to recommend or discourage the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics to prevent complications and failures of dental implants. Even though the present review did not assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at risk for endocarditis, it seems sensible to recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at high and moderate risk for endocarditis, with immunodeficiencies, metabolic diseases, irradiated in the head and neck area and when an extensive or prolonged surgery is anticipated.

A substantive amendment to this systematic review was last made on 15 March 2003. Cochrane reviews are regularly checked and updated if necessary. Background Some dental implant failures may be due to bacterial contamination at implant insertion. Infections around biomaterials are difficult to treat and almost all infected implants have to be removed. In general, antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery is only indicated for patients at risk of infectious endocarditis, for patients with reduced host‐response, when surgery is performed in infected sites, in cases of extensive and prolonged surgical interventions and when large foreign materials are implanted. To minimize infections after dental implant placement various prophylactic systemic antibiotic regimens have been suggested. More recent protocols recommended short term prophylaxis, if antibiotics have to be used. With the administration of antibiotics adverse events may occur, ranging from diarrhoea to life‐threatening allergic reactions. Another major concern associated with the widespread use of antibiotics is the selection of antibiotic‐resistant bacteria. The use of antibiotics in implant dentistry is controversial. It would be useful to know whether prophylactic antibiotics are effective in reducing failures of dental implants. Objectives T o assess the beneficial or harmful effects of the administration of prophylactic antibiotics for dental implant placement versus no antibiotic/placebo administration and if antibiotics are of benefit, to find which type, dosage and duration is the most effective. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and manufacturers of dental implants were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: March 2003. Selection criteria Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a follow‐up of at least three months comparing the administration of various prophylactic antibiotics regimens and no antibiotics/placebo to patients undergoing dental implant placement. Outcome measures were prosthesis failures, implant failures, postoperative infections and adverse events (gastrointestinal, hypersensitivity). Data collection and analysis Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were to be expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95 per cent confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. Main Results No RCTs were identified. Reviewers' Conclusions There is not appropriate scientific evidence to recommend or discourage the use of prophylactic systemic antibiotics to prevent complications and failures of dental implants. Even though the present review did not assess the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at risk for endocarditis, it seems sensible to recommend the use of prophylactic antibiotics for patients at high and moderate risk for endocarditis, with immunodeficiencies, metabolic diseases, irradiated in the head and neck area and when an extensive or prolonged surgery is anticipated.

Introduction: Despite several perioperative care advancements and innovations in surgical procedures and technologies, the incidence rate of anastomotic leaks (ALs) after colorectal surgery has not substantially decreased. Gut microbiota can play a critical role in the healing process of anastomotic tissue and alterations in its composition may be largely to blame for anastomotic insufficiency. The use of specific antibiotics for preoperative large bowel decontamination could significantly influence the rate of ALs. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the various antibiotic prophylactic regimen strategies for primary prevention of ALs during colorectal surgery, in view of the available evidence. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) analyzing prophylactic antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery were included. PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through to 30 November 2022. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated. The primary outcome was AL rate; secondary outcomes were superficial/deep surgical site infections (SSIs). The PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out the present systematic review. Results: Thirteen RCTs published between 1977 and 2022, with a total of 4334 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered orally in 11/13 studies and intravenously in 2 studies. Patients randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis, regardless of the regimen, had a reduced risk of ALs (p = 0.003) compared to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis was also more effective in significantly reducing SSIs (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The evidence points to an advantage of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of AL rate, a significant contributor to perioperative morbidity, mortality, and rising healthcare expenditures. In light of such results, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis should be strongly encouraged prior to colorectal surgery.

Health-Care-Associated Pneumonia

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in the initial treatment of noninfected dog bite wounds is controversial. All patients with noninfected dog bite wounds who presented to our emergency department (ED) over a two-year period were considered for entry into a randomized prospective study. Patients were excluded from the study if they had any high-risk criteria for infection: puncture wounds, hand or foot wounds, wounds greater than 12 hours old, a history of immunocompromising disorders, or the use of immunosuppressive drugs. Patients in the antibiotic group (n = 89) were treated with local wound care and given either dicloxacillin, cephalexin, or erythromycin orally for seven days. Patients in the control group (n = 96) received local wound care only. All patients had their wounds irrigated with a 1% povidone-iodine solution and debrided and sutured if clinically indicated. All patients were subsequently reevaluated for clinical signs of wound infection. The groups were similar in age, sex, time of delay in seeking treatment, anatomic sites of wounds, depths and types of wounds, and number of wounds requiring suturing. The wound infection rates for the antibiotic and control groups were 1.1 and 5.1%, respectively. This difference was not significant (P = 0.212). There were 36 wounds in the antibiotic group and 37 wounds in the control group that were full thickness. The infection rates for these wounds were 2.8 and 13.5%, respectively. This was not statistically significant (P = 0.132). This study suggests that prophylactic oral antibiotics in low-risk dog bite wounds are not indicated.