ObjectivePerioperative prophylaxis, commonly with a third-generation cephalosporin plus ampicillin or piperacillin-tazobactam, is usually employed to prevent infections in liver transplantation (LT) recipients. Patients with a high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have an increased infection risk after LT. However, whether carbapenems could be used as surgical prophylaxis in these high-risk patients remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of carbapenems with that of cephalosporin or piperacillin-tazobactam for surgical prophylaxis in high-risk LT recipients with a MELD score ≥30.Design or MethodsThis retrospective study included adult patients with a MELD score ≥30 who underwent LT between May 2018 and September 2020. We comparatively analyzed the infection rate and outcome between patients using cefoperazone-sulbactam or piperacillin-tazobactam and those using carbapenems as surgical prophylaxis.ResultsThis study included 105 LT recipients. Seventy-eight and 27 patients used non-carbapenem and carbapenem antibiotics, respectively, as surgical prophylaxis. The corresponding infection incidence rates within 30 days were 38.5% and 66.7% (p = 0.011). Multivariate analysis revealed that reoperation and the Child–Pugh score were independent risk factors for infections within 30 days after LT. The following four risk factors were associated with the 180-day post-LT survival: MELD score, vascular complication, intra-abdominal bleeding, and infection with carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs). There was no significant difference in CRO infection incidence between the carbapenem and non-carbapenem groups (18.5% vs 11.5%; p = 0.345).ConclusionCarbapenem use as surgical prophylaxis was not associated with infection incidence within 30 days after LT, 180-day post-LT survival or CRO infection. Therefore, carbapenems are not superior to cephalosporin or piperacillin-tazobactam for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in LT recipients with a MELD score ≥30.
Read full abstract