Alternative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Research Articles

147 Pre-Operative Urine Culture for Endourology Surgeries

Abstract Aim Our aim was to reduce post-operative endourology infection rates by screening all patient pre-operatively with urine culture. Our local guidelines recommend single dose Gentamicin for prophylaxis prior to endourology procedures. Pre-operative urine culture can identify patients with positive cultures to be treated prior to surgery and to identify multi-resistant microorganisms to aid alternative antibiotic prophylaxis choice. Method We identified patients that underwent elective endourological surgeries in a 3-month period (July-September2021). We identified if pre-operative urine cultures were performed, if the cultures were positive and were they treated appropriately. We identified if any patients had re-admissions postoperatively within 30 days of their procedure with UTI. We identified if the microorganism grown in the culture was resistant to Gentamicin and if an alternative prophylaxis was given pre-operatively. Results 104 patients were identified. 65 had pre-operative cultures done. Of the 39 patients that did not have cultures done, 2 were re-admitted within 30 days with UTI. 14 pre-operative cultures were positive (21.5%) and was treated with a course of antibiotics per sensitivities and Gentamicin pre-operatively. 4 were resistant to Gentamicin (6.2%). An alternative prophylactic antibiotic was used per microbiologist’s advice for those resistant. No one was re-admitted with a UTI within 30 days in the group that had pre-operative cultures done. Conclusions Around 1 in 5 urine cultures done was positive for growth. Almost a third of this was resistant to Gentamicin and this aided our choice of alternative prophylactic treatment. By performing pre-operative cultures, we reduced our postoperative infection complication and re-admission rates.

Use of clindamycin as an alternative antibiotic prophylaxis

BackgroundClindamycin serves as an alternative surgical prophylactic antibiotic in patients with penicillin (PCN) or cephalosporin allergy labels. In the previous reports, the use of clindamycin was associated with higher incidences of surgical site infections (SSIs). We aimed to determine the characteristics of PCN or cephalosporin allergic reactions to stratify patient's risk and indicate subsequent management; leading to de-labeling of PCN or cephalosporin allergy. MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of patients receiving clindamycin as surgical antibiotic prophylaxis from September 2021 to March 2022. Data were collected from electronic medical records; included demographic data, antibiotic allergy labels, allergic reaction, and allergy testing. ResultsClindamycin was administered in 445 patients who underwent 451 operations. Among these patients, 53.0% (n = 236) were female with a median age of 15 years (range; 0.5–57.0 years). PCN and cephalosporin allergies were labelled in 83.8% (n = 373) and 25.6% (n = 114) patients, respectively; 11.4% (n = 51) of patients were allergic to both classes of the antibiotics. There were 191 (51.2%) and 73 (64.0%) possible hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in PCN and cephalosporin groups, respectively. The most common reactions were rash (PCN: n = 99, 26.5%; cephalosporin: n = 35, 30.7%), and hives (PCN: n = 71, 19.0%; cephalosporin: n = 24, 21.1%). Severe reactions included angioedema (PCN: n = 7, 1.9%; cephalosporin: n = 5, 4.4%), anaphylaxis (PCN: n = 8, 2.1%; cephalosporin: n = 7, 6.1%), bronchospasm (cephalosporin: n = 1, 0.9%), airway involvement (PCN: n = 1, 0.3%; cephalosporin: n = 1, 0.9%), serum sickness (PCN: n = 1, 0.3%), blisters (PCN: n = 1, 0.3%), and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) (PCN: n = 1, 0.3%). Low-risk history of allergy included gastrointestinal side effects (PCN: n = 9, 2.4%; cephalosporin: n = 3, 2.7%), positive family history (PCN: n = 7, 1.9%; cephalosporin: n = 1, 0.9%), and remote history of allergy (PCN: n = 2, 0.5%). There were 201 (53.9%) and 53 (46.5%) unknown reactions in PCN and cephalosporin groups, respectively. In the overall cohort, 3 patients (0.7%) were skin tested for drug allergy (PCN: n = 2, 0.5%; cephalosporin: n = 2, 1.8%). ConclusionClindamycin was largely administered in patients with non-severe HSRs, low-risk history or unknown reactions to PCN or cephalosporin, whom cefazolin could have been administered safely. Obtaining a detailed history of antibiotic allergy, allergy testing and/or direct oral challenge can de-label unsubstantiated PCN or cephalosporin allergy and ultimately reduce the incidence of SSIs by optimizing the rate of more effective antibiotic administration.

Feasibility of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy during periods of limited cefazolin supply.

In March 2019, the supply of cefazolin sodium (CEZ) became difficult owing to contamination of the drug substance. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the oral administration of cephalexin (CEX) in preventing infectious complications following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). From July 2018 to June 2019, 1 g of CEZ was administered intravenously within 30 min prior to LC (IV group). From July 2019 to June 2020, 0.5g of CEX was administrated orally within 2h prior to LC (oral group). We compared clinicopathologic variables and perioperative results between these two groups. During the period, 60 patients underwent elective LC; 35 from the oral group and 25 from the IV group. There was no significant difference in the surgical site infection (P =0.37), distant infection (P =0.23), and postoperative medical costs (P =0.11) between both groups. Postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly higher in the oral group (P =0.04), whereas the C-reactive protein value on the first day after the operation was significantly lower in the oral group (P < 0.01). During the period of limited CEZ supply, oral administration of CEX may be an alternative antibiotic prophylaxis in LC.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery

Infectious complications in surgery occupy a significant place among the causes of death and increase in the cost of medical care for various pathologies. Antibiotic prophylaxis takes one of the first places in the perioperative period, in addition to surgical treatment and compliance with the rules of asepsis and antiseptics. Laxers is a new drug in the cephalosporin group, consisting of a combination of cefoperazone and sulbactam. It has a wide range of action on gram(-) and anaerobic flora and antistaphylococcal activity, which is not inferior to cefoperazone. Due to sulbactam, it has antimicrobial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. This article describes the main properties and advantages of Laxers over other cephalosporins in this group as the drug of choice in the treatment of surgical pathologies and alternative antibiotic prophylaxis in the perioperative period in severe patients at risk of contamination of the operating field with hospital flora.

The Impact of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Weight Loss Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Although >10% of surgical patients receive alternative antibiotic prophylaxis for reported penicillin allergies, it is estimated that <20% of such cases represent true allergies that preclude standard prophylaxis. Each antibiotic class has a distinct impact on the intestinal microbiota and on postoperative metabolomics. The community structure and function of the microbiota are linked to the ability to lose weight after bariatric surgery. This study demonstrates differential weight loss after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy between patients who received standard (cefoxitin) and alternative (levofloxacin and metronidazole) perioperative prophylaxis. Multivariate analysis demonstrates that alternative prophylaxis is significantly and independently associated with diminished postoperative weight loss.

Alternative antimicrobials for prophylaxis of the Group B Streptococcus maternal-fetal disease.

GBS colonization is an important risk factor for maternal and neonatal infection morbidity and mortality. Intrapartum antibiotics may prevent vertical transmission of GBS from colonized mothers to their babies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cefazolin prophylactic regimen for GBS disease, comparing it to the established penicillin-based protocols, given the opportunity provided by the temporary unavailability of first-choice antibiotics in Brazil. A retrospective analysis was conducted at the Hospital Femina Obstetrics Service between January and December 2015. Ninety-eight pregnant women received standard penicillin (70 patients) or ampicillin (28 patients) antibiotic prophylaxis, and 251 pregnant women received an alternative prophylaxis with cefazolin during the study period. Risk factor, Maternal and neonatal outcomes were evaluated and compared between groups. No significant difference was found in maternal (RR = 0.71; IC 95%:0.30-1.68; p = 0.709) and neonatal (RR = 0.84; IC 95%:0.61-1.15; p = 0.271) outcomes between those patients using the alternative antibiotic prophylaxis in comparison to the standard antibiotics, with the dependent variable of maternal and neonatal outcomes grouped and controlled for potential confounding variables. The antibiotics used as alternatives to penicillin and ampicillin for the prevention of maternal-fetal GBS disease are poorly studied, and this study indicate that cefazolin can be an optimal choice, offering safety in the use of this antibiotic in situations where penicillins are contraindicated or unavailable.

A131 Alternative antibiotic prophylaxis impacts weight loss after Roux-en-y gastric bypass

A131 Alternative antibiotic prophylaxis impacts weight loss after Roux-en-y gastric bypass

Intrapartum Group B Streptococcus Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Penicillin Allergic Pregnant Women.

Objectives To estimate the prevalence of and identify modifiable risk factors for alternative antibiotics for group B Streptococcus (GBS) prophylaxis in penicillin-allergic women. Methods Retrospective cohort study of pregnant women within a health care network from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. Included women were GBS colonized, delivered at ≥ 37 weeks' gestation, and reported penicillin/cephalosporin allergy. The primary outcome was the use of alternate antibiotics GBS prophylaxis, defined per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines as antibiotics other than penicillin, ampicillin, or cefazolin. Results We identified 190 GBS-colonized pregnant women self-reporting a penicillin/cephalosporin allergy; 5% reported anaphylaxis, 44% high-risk symptoms (isolated hives, shortness of breath, swelling, or vomiting), and 51% low-risk symptoms (isolated rash, itching, or nausea). Two-thirds (63%) had alternative antibiotic prophylaxis. In adjusted analyses, nonwhite race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19–4.94) and high-risk allergic reaction (aOR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.30–4.49) were associated with higher odds of alternative antibiotics prophylaxis compared with low-risk allergic reaction. Low-risk allergic reaction group was less likely to receive alternative antibiotic prophylaxis (aOR: 0.36; 95 CI%: 0.19–0.66). Conclusion Alternative antibiotic use for GBS prophylaxis is frequent with penicillin/cephalosporin allergies. Efforts to confirm allergy and perform penicillin hypersensitivity testing may increase compliance with guidelines for antibiotic administration.

Is Antibiotic Prophylaxis Cost-effective for Dental Patients Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Routine antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) to prevent prosthetic joint infection remains controversial. The lack of prophylaxis guideline consensus from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association (ADA) contributes to clinician confusion. This cost-effectiveness decision model informs the AP debate and guideline development by comparing the benefits, harms, and costs of alternative prophylaxis strategies. A Markov state-transition model was developed comparing lifetime health outcomes and costs of alternative AP strategies for dental patients aged 65 y with a history of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Based on our interpretation of AP recommendations from the AAOS and ADA, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to compare the following strategies: no AP, AP for the first 2 y after a TKA, and lifetime AP. The no-AP strategy had the lowest average lifetime costs ($17,119) and quality-adjusted life years (11.2151). Compared with a no-prophylaxis strategy, the 2-y AP strategy had incremental costs of $56 and 0.0006 QALYs gained and was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = $95,100) when a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year was used. Based on the results of 1-way sensitivity analysis, the no-AP strategy was cost-effective when we modestly increased base case amoxicillin adverse event estimates that were substantially lower than estimates reported in previous models. When plausible combinations of important model parameters were varied, model results suggested that there may be clinical scenarios when AP may be appropriate for some medically at-risk patient populations. The results of cost-effectiveness decision modeling generally support questioning routine AP for dental patients with TKA. Sensitivity analyses suggest that prophylaxis may be cost-effective for patient populations with a higher medical risk of infection. This finding is consistent with the recommendations of the 2015 ADA practice guideline and the appropriate use criteria jointly developed by the AAOS and the ADA. The results of this decision modeling research support the contention that routine AP before invasive dental procedures to prevent prosthetic joint infection may not be cost-effective for patients without medical conditions, potentially conferring a higher infection risk. Model sensitivity analyses suggest that there may be clinical situations when medically at-risk patients benefit from AP.

Optimizing preoperative prophylaxis in patients with reported β-lactam allergy: a novel extension of antimicrobial stewardship.

Use of alternative second-line antibiotics is associated with adverse events in patients reporting β-lactam allergy. In the perioperative setting, we hypothesized that structured allergy histories, without the use of skin testing, can reduce alternative prophylactic antibiotic use. Assess the impact of structured allergy histories on patients with self-reported β-lactam allergy (SRBA) undergoing elective surgical procedures. Structured allergy histories were performed by a pharmacist and reviewed with an infectious diseases physician. Patients were deemed safe to proceed with cefazolin prophylaxis if they did not describe a history of type I-mediated or severe reaction. Antibiotic prophylaxis orders (with approval by the surgical team) were scheduled into the computerized order entry system to be given prior to first incision of the operation. Of the 485 patients with SRBA that underwent structured allergy histories, 117 (24.1%) reported a type I-mediated allergy history; 267 (55.1%) patients received cefazolin prophylaxis and none subsequently experienced an adverse reaction. After intervention implementation, the overall use of alternative antibiotic prophylaxis at Michael Garron Hospital (Toronto, Canada) among those with SRBA decreased from 81.9% to 55.9%. This drop was associated with the number of monthly assessments (P < 0.001) in a regression analysis. Using a simple structured history and the principles of prospective audit and feedback, we were able to increase the use of cefazolin perioperative prophylaxis without any serious adverse events and in the absence of skin testing or diagnostic challenges.

Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for dental patients with prosthetic joints: Comparisons of antibiotic regimens for patients with total hip arthroplasty

BackgroundClinician uncertainty concerning the need for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after undergoing dental procedures persists. Improved understanding of the potential clinical and economic risks and benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis will help inform the debate and facilitate the continuing evolution of clinical management guidelines for dental patients with prosthetic joints. MethodsThe authors developed a Markov decision model to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of alternative antibiotic prophylaxis strategies for dental patients aged 65 years who had undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA). On the basis of the authors’ interpretation of previous recommendations from the American Dental Association and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, they compared the following strategies: no prophylaxis, prophylaxis for the first 2 years after arthroplasty, and lifetime prophylaxis. ResultsA strategy of foregoing antibiotic prophylaxis before dental visits was cost-effective and resulted in lower lifetime accumulated costs ($11,909) and higher accumulated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (12.375) when compared with alternative prophylaxis strategies. ConclusionsThe results of Markov decision modeling indicated that a no-antibiotic prophylaxis strategy was cost-effective for dental patients who had undergone THA. These results support the findings of case-control studies and the conclusions of an American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs report that questioned general recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures. Practical ImplicationsThe results of cost-effectiveness decision modeling support the contention that routine antibiotic prophylaxis for dental patients with total joint arthroplasty should be reconsidered.

Culture Directed Antibiotic Prophylaxis Reduces Post-Prostate Biopsy Infectious Complications in the Community: A “How-to” for Urologists in the Trenches

IntroductionThe rate of post-prostate biopsy infection is increasing. We noted this trend in our practice and began using prebiopsy rectal swab cultures to direct antibiotic prophylaxis. Clinical investigation has shown that culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis is effective. We report our methods and results as validation that culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis works in the community. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of 686 consecutive patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy from March 2010 to April 2013. The electronic medical record was queried for the antibiotic prophylaxis used, rectal swab culture, post-biopsy infection, culture data and post-biopsy hospitalization if applicable. Prebiopsy rectal swab was incorporated into our practice in May 2012. Each patient received 3 days of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis or culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis. If antibiotic resistance to standard fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was identified, antibiotic prophylaxis was adjusted appropriately. ResultsOf 543 patients who received standard fluoroquinolone prophylaxis 17 (3.1%) had infectious complications. Eight patients were hospitalized for post-biopsy sepsis and 4 received outpatient treatment for urinary tract infection. A total of 143 patients underwent prebiopsy rectal swabs and received culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis. Compared to standard antibiotic prophylaxis no patient treated with culture directed antibiotic prophylaxis after a rectal swab had infectious complications (p = 0.03). However, 19.5% of the patients in this group had resistant bacteria requiring alternative antibiotic prophylaxis. ConclusionsA prebiopsy rectal swab to direct antibiotic prophylaxis decreased post-biopsy infectious complications in the community setting. The strategy is simple and it improves patient safety.

Changing antibiotic prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound‐guided prostate biopsies: are we putting our patients at risk?

To evaluate whether changing antibiotic prophylaxis from quinolone to penicillin antibiotics has affected infectious complication rates in those men undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUSgpb). This interventional study was designed to determine whether changing antibiotic prophylaxis had any bearing on developing serious infectious complications after taking TRUSgpb. As a secondary aim, we also investigated Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) rates in the same groups of men undergoing TRUSgpb. Men historically received ciprofloxacin 500 mg orally 1 h before their procedure followed by a 3-day course of 500 mg given twice daily (group A). Due to increasing local patterns of antimicrobial resistance to quinolones and concerns regarding potential antibiotic induced C. difficile infection, antibiotic prophylaxis was changed to a penicillin-based regimen comprising of co-amoxiclav 625 mg given orally 1 h before TRUSgpb followed by a three times daily course for 3 days (group B). Excluded from the study were those men given an alternative antibiotic prophylaxis than those given within the two distinct groups due to reasons of previous hypersensitivity reactions and/or clinical decision by the attending Urologist. Comparisons were made between the groups using two-tailed Fisher's exact tests. In all, 119 and 110 men were identified in groups A and B, respectively. Two men in group A (1.68%) developed sepsis after TRUSgpb requiring hospital admission and intravenous antibiotic treatment. The sepsis rate in group B was significantly higher than that of group A (eight of 110, 7.27%; P = 0.036). Escherichia coli was the only organism isolated from our cohort of patients. There were no incidences of C. difficile infections in either antibiotic prophylaxis groups. Ciprofloxacin appears to provide superior prophylaxis than co-amoxiclav in men undergoing TRUSgpb and was not associated with an increased risk of quinolone induced C. difficile infections. Changing antibiotic prophylaxis from a quinolone-based regime may therefore be putting our patients at an increased risk of serious infectious complications after TRUSgpb.

United Kingdom survey of antibiotic prophylaxis practice after publication of the ESCRS Endophthalmitis Study

The European Society of Cataract & Refractive Surgeons Endophthalmitis Study published preliminary results in 2006 showing a near 5-fold decrease in the rates of postoperative endophthalmitis with the use of intracameral cefuroxime. The study findings have generated considerable controversy, and 1 year later its recommendations had been heeded by only 6% of American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) members. This poll sought to gauge the uptake among surgeons in the United Kingdom and survey their response to its findings. Fifty-five percent of respondents were using intracameral cefuroxime; 48% had switched after publication of the ESCRS study. Of those remaining, 68% reported their main concern was the risk for dilution errors in the absence of a commercially preformulated preparation, with 67% stating they would switch if such a product became available. Sixty-eight percent considered the lack of a subconjunctival cefuroxime treatment arm within the study a major methodology flaw. Sixty-seven percent said they do not consider penicillin allergy a contraindication to intracameral cefuroxime use, with the remaining 33% opting for alternative antibiotic prophylaxis. The majority of United Kingdom and Ireland Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons members have switched to intracameral cefuroxime, despite the absence of previously preferred practice in the study design. The major barrier to its further use appears to be the lack of a commercially available preformulated preparation.