Safety Of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Research Articles

Is antibiotic prophylaxis generally safe and effective in surgical and nonsurgical scenarios? Evidence from an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials.

The authors aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis through surgical and nonsurgical scenarios and assess the strength of evidence. The authors performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An evidence map was created to summarize the absolute benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in each scenario and certainty of evidence. Seventy-five meta-analyses proved eligible with 725 RCTs and 78 clinical scenarios in surgical and medical prophylaxis. Of 119 health outcomes, 67 (56.3%) showed statistically significant benefits, 34 of which were supported by convincing or highly suggestive evidence from RCTs. For surgeries, antibiotic prophylaxis may minimize infection occurrences in most surgeries except Mohs surgery, simple hand surgery, herniorrhaphy surgery, hepatectomy, thyroid surgery, rhinoplasty, stented distal hypospadias repair, midurethral sling placement, endoscopic sinus surgery, and transurethral resection of bladder tumors with only low to very low certainty evidence. For nonsurgery invasive procedures, only low to very low certainty evidence showed benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis for cystoscopy, postoperative urinary catheterization, and urodynamic study. For medical prophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis showed greater benefits in nonemergency scenarios, in which patients were mainly with weakened immune systems, or at risk of recurrent chronic infections. Antibiotics prophylaxis may increase antibiotic resistance or other adverse events in most scenarios and reached significance in cystoscopy, afebrile neutropenia following chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical and nonsurgical scenarios is generally effective and seems independent of surgical cleanliness and urgency of diseases. Its safety is not well determined due to lack of available data. Nevertheless, the low quality of current evidence limits the external validity of these findings, necessitating clinicians to judiciously assess indications, balancing low infection rates with antibiotic-related side effects.

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis

BackgroundThe role of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unclear. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in preventing VAP in an IMV population in intensive-care units (ICUs).MethodsWe searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to December 2021, to identify relevant studies assessing the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on the incidence of VAP, the mortality, and the duration of ICU stays and hospitalization to perform a meta-analysis.ResultsThirteen studies (2144 patients) were included, 12 of which were selected for the primary analysis, which revealed that treatment with prophylactic antibiotics resulted in a lower VAP rate compared with control groups [risk ratio (RR) = 0.62]. Bayesian network meta-analysis indicated that aerosolized tobramycin and intravenous ampicillin–sulbactam presented the greatest likelihood being the most efficient regimen for reducing VAP.ConclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis may reduce the incidence of VAP, but not the mortality, for adult patients undergoing IMV in ICUs. Tobramycin via nebulization and ampicillin–sulbactam via intravenous administration presented the greatest likelihood of being the most efficient regimen for preventing VAP. However, well-designed randomized studies are warranted before definite recommendations can be made.

The A2B trial, antibiotic prophylaxis for excision-graft surgery in burn patients: a multicenter randomized double-blind study

BackgroundThe indication for antibiotic prophylaxis in burn patients remains highly controversial, with no consensus having been reached. The objective of antibiotic prophylaxis is to reduce the risk of postoperative local and systemic infections. Burn surgery is associated with a high incidence of bacteremia, postoperative infections, and sepsis. However, antibiotic prophylaxis exposes patients to the risk of selecting drug-resistant pathogens as well as to the adverse effects of antibiotics (i.e., Clostridium difficile colitis). The lack of data precludes any strong international recommendations regarding perioperative prophylaxis using systemic antibiotics in this setting.The goal of this project is therefore to determine whether perioperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis can reduce the incidence of postoperative infections in burn patients.MethodsThe A2B trial is a multicenter (10 centers), prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. The trial will involve the recruitment of 506 adult burn patients with a total body surface area (TBSA) burn of between 5 and 40% and requiring at least one excision-graft surgery for deep burn injury. Participants will be randomized to receive antibiotic prophylaxis (antibiotic prophylaxis group) or a placebo (control group) 30 min before the incision of the first two surgeries. The primary outcome will be the occurrence of postoperative infections defined as postoperative sepsis and/or surgical site infection and/or graft lysis requiring a new graft within 7 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes will include mortality at day 90 postrandomization, skin graft lysis requiring a new graft procedure, postoperative bacteremia (within 48 h of surgery), postoperative sepsis, postoperative surgical site infection, number of hospitalizations until complete healing (> 95% TBSA), number of hospitalization days living without antibiotic therapy at day 28 and day 90, and multiresistant bacterial colonization or infection at day 28 and day 90.DiscussionThe trial aims to provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis for excision-graft surgery in burn patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04292054. Registered on 2 March 2020

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. This is an update of a review last published in 2017. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps delivery, or both. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (5 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised controlled trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium). Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the two included studies using the GRADE approach. Two studies, involving 3813 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, were included. One study involving 393 women compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. The other study involving 3420 women compared a single dose of intravenous amoxicillin and clavulanic acid with placebo using 20 mL of intravenous sterile 0.9% saline. The evidence suggests that prophylactic antibiotics reduce superficial perineal wound infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence), deep perineal wound infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.69; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) and probably reduce wound breakdown (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63; women = 2593; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). We are unclear about the effect on organ or space perineal wound infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.05; women = 3420; 1 study) and endometritis (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.64; 15/1907 versus 30/1906; women = 3813; 2 studies) based on low-certainty evidence with wide CIs that include no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics probably lower serious infectious complications (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.89; women = 3420; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). They also have an important effect on reduction of confirmed or suspected maternal infection. The two included studies did not report on fever or urinary tract infection. It is unclear, based on low-certainty evidence, whether prophylactic antibiotics have any impact on maternal adverse reactions (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.05; women = 2593; 1 study) and maternal length of stay (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; women = 393; 1 study) as the CIs were wide and included no effect. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain and probably reduce costs. Prophylactic antibiotics did not have an important effect on dyspareunia (difficult or painful sexual intercourse) or breastfeeding at six weeks. Antibiotic prophylaxis may slightly improve maternal hospital re-admission and maternal health-related quality of life. Neonatal adverse reactions were not reported in any included trials. Prophylactic intravenous antibiotics are effective in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in terms of superficial and deep perineal wound infection or serious infectious complications in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries without clinical indications for antibiotic administration after delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics slightly improve perineal pain and health consequences of perineal pain, probably reduce the costs, and may slightly reduce the maternal hospital re-admission and health-related quality of life. However, the effect on reduction of endometritis, organ or space perineal wound infection, maternal adverse reactions and maternal length of stay is unclear due to low-certainty evidence. As the evidence was mainly derived from a single multi-centre study conducted in a high-income setting, future well-designed randomised trials in other settings, particularly in low- and middle-income settings, are required to confirm the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Disparities in the regional, hospital and individual levels of antibiotic use in gallstone surgery in Sweden

BackgroundAntimicrobial resistance may be promoted by divergent routines and lack of conformity in antibiotic treatment, especially regarding the practice of antibiotic prophylaxis. The aim of the present study was to assess differences in gallstone surgery regarding antibiotic use in Sweden.MethodsThe study was based on data from the Swedish Register for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) 2005–2015. Funnel plots were used to test impact of grouping factors, including, hospital and surgeon and to identify units that deviated from the rest of the population.ResultsAfter adjusting for cofounders including age, gender, ASA classification, indication for surgery, operation time, gallbladder perforation and emergency status, there were 0/21 (0%) at the regional level, 18/76 (24%) at the hospital level and 128/1038 (12%) at the surgeon level outside the 99.9% confidence interval (CI). The estimated median odds ratios were 1.13 (95% CI 1.00–1.31) at the regional level, 1.93 (95% CI 1.70–2.19) at the hospital level and 2.38 (95% CI 2.26–2.50) at the surgeon level.ConclusionThere are significant differences between hospitals and surgeons, but little or no differences between regions. These deviations confirm the lack of standardization in regards to prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis and the need more uniform routines regarding antibiotic usage. Randomized controlled trials and large population-based studies are necessary to assess assessing the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in gallstone surgery.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps deliveries, or both. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (12 July 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 July 2017) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. We assessed methodological quality of the one included trial using the GRADE approach. One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. The trial compared the antibiotic intravenous cefotetan after cord clamping compared with no treatment. This trial reported only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. Seven women in the group given no antibiotics had endomyometritis and none in prophylactic antibiotic group, the risk reduction was 93% (risk ratio (RR) 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (mean difference (MD) 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41; low-quality evidence). Overall, the risk of bias was judged to be unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both endometritis and maternal length of stay. One small trial was identified reporting only two outcomes. Evidence from this single trial suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis may lead to little or no difference in endometritis or maternal length of stay. There were no data on any other outcomes to evaluate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis after operative vaginal delivery. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy.

Predisposing cardiac conditions, interventional procedures, and antibiotic prophylaxis among patients with infective endocarditis

Efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) for prevention of infective endocarditis (IE) in patients with predisposing cardiac condition (PCC) undergoing invasive procedures is still debated. We sought to assess the prevalence of PCC, the type of interventional procedures preceding the onset of symptoms, and the usefulness of AP in a large cohort of consecutive patients with definite IE. We examined 677 (median age 65.34 years; male 492 [73%]) consecutive patients with IE enrolled from July 2007 through 2010 into the Italian Registry of Infective Endocarditis. Predisposing cardiac condition was present in 341 patients (50%).Thirty-two patients (4.7%) underwent dental procedures. Of 20 patients with PCC undergoing dental procedure, 13 had assumed AP. Viridans group streptococci were isolated from blood cultures in 8 of 20 patients with PCC and prior dental procedure. Nondental procedures preceded IE in 139 patients (21%). They were significantly older and had more comordibities compared with patients undergoing dental procedures. Predisposing cardiac condition was identified in 91 patients. Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered to 67 patients. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent causative agent. Cardiac surgery was necessary in 85 patients (20 with prior dental and 65 with nondental procedure). Surgical mortality (12% vs 0%, P = .03) and hospital mortality (23% vs 3%, P = .001) were significantly larger among patients with nondental procedures. In a large unselected cohort of patients with IE, the incidence of preceding dental procedures was minimal. The number of cases potentially preventable by means of AP was negligible. Nondental procedures were more frequent than dental procedures and were correlated with poorer prognosis.

Antibiotics for preventing lower respiratory tract infections in high-risk children aged 12 years and under.

Antibiotics for preventing lower respiratory tract infections in high-risk children aged 12 years and under.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing surgical-site infection in plastic surgery: an evidence-based consensus conference statement from the American Association of Plastic Surgeons.

There is a growing concern for microbial resistance as a result of overuse of antibiotics. Although guidelines have focused on the use of antibiotics for surgery in general, few have addressed plastic surgery specifically. The objective of this expert consensus conference was to evaluate the evidence for efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic surgical procedures. THE AUTHORS: searched for existing high-quality systematic reviews for antibiotic prophylaxis in the literature from the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. All synonyms for antibiotics were combined with terms for relevant plastic surgery procedures. The searches were not limited by language, and included all study designs. In addition, supplemental hand searches were performed of bibliographies of relevant articles, and extensive "related articles." Meta-analyses were performed and reviewed by experts selected by the American Association of Plastic Surgeons to reach consensus recommendations. Database searches identified 4300 articles, from which 2042 full-text articles were identified for eligibility. De novo meta-analyses were performed for each plastic surgical category. In total, 67 studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine for breast surgery, 17 for head and neck surgery, 10 for orthognathic surgery, seven for rhinoplasty/septoplasty, 19 for hand surgery, five for skin surgery, and two for abdominoplasty. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended for clean breast surgery and for contaminated surgery of the hand or the head and neck. It is not recommended to reduce infection in clean surgical cases of the hand, skin, head and neck, or abdominoplasty.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics may be prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum or forceps deliveries, or both. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 August 2014). All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two review authors extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all review authors. For this update, we assessed methodological quality of the one included trial using the standard Cochrane criteria and the GRADE approach. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) using a fixed-effect model and all the review authors interpreted and discussed the results. One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. This trial identified only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. It reported seven women with endomyometritis in the group given no antibiotic and none in prophylactic antibiotic group. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the risk reduction was 93% (risk ratio (RR) 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (mean difference (MD) 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41). Overall, the risk of bias was judged as low. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both endometritis and maternal length of stay. The data were too few to make any recommendations for practice. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.

Efficacy and safety of fosfomycin-trometamol in the prophylaxis for transrectal prostate biopsy. Prospective randomized comparison with ciprofloxacin

ObjectiveProstate biopsy is the standardized diagnostic method for prostate cancer. However, although there is not a standardized protocol, there are recommendations in order to reduce the incidence of complications. The objective of the present work is to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prostate biopsy by comparing two antibiotic regimes: two doses of fosfomycin-trometamol 3g (FMT) every 48h with 10 doses of oral ciprofloxacin 500mg every 12h for 5 days. Material and methodsRandomized prospective study was performed with 671 patients who had undergone to walking transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Patients of group A (n=312) were treated with ciprofloxacin, and patients of group B (n=359) with FMT. Efficacy and tolerability of two prophylactic regimes were compared. Urine culture was carried out at 2 weeks after biopsy. Initially, patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were not treated with antibiotics; urine culture was repeated after 1 month, persistent bacteriuria was treated according to antibiogram. ResultsNo differences between groups were found in age (p=0.78), cancer presence (p=0.9) or number of biopsy cylinders (p=0.93). The mean number of cores obtained was 11.3±3.25 (range 6–20). Digestive intolerance was observed for 9 patients (2.9%) of group A and 10 patients (2.8%) in group B. One patient (.3%) of group A showed severe allergic reaction. In total, 167 patients (24.6%) had complications: 16 (2.4%) fever, 47 (6.9%) hemospermia, 81 (11.9%) hematuria, 7 (1%) rectal bleeding and 16 (2.4%) urinary retention. No statistically differences between groups were observed (27.6% vs. 22.6%; p=0.17). However, hemospermia was more frequent in group A (9.9% vs. 4.5%; p=0.006). Bacteriuria after biopsy was detected in 44 patients (6.6%), being more frequent in group B patients (4.2% vs. 8.6%; p=0.02) although a higher number of second treatment cycles were not needed (53.9% vs. 29%; p=0.17). The likelihood of resistance to ciprofloxacin in patients with bacteriuria in A was greater than that of FMT in B (69.2% vs. 41.9%; p=0.0004). ConclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis with FMT (2 doses of 3g) in prostate biopsy is an alternative as effective and safe as ciprofloxacin (10 doses of 500mg), which carries lower rate of resistance. According to our experience, this drug is a safe, well-tolerated, and easily manageable prophylactic option, facilitating patient compliance. More prospective multicenter studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Eficacia y seguridad de fosfomicina-trometamol en la profilaxis de la biopsia transrectal de la próstata: estudio prospectivo aleatorizado comparativo con ciprofloxacino

Objectiveprostate biopsy is the standardized diagnostic method for prostate cancer. However, although there is not a standardized protocol, there are recommendations in order to reduce the incidence of complications. The objective of the present work is to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prostate biopsy by comparing two antibiotic regimes: two doses of fosfomycin-trometamol 3g (FMT) every 48hours with 10 doses of oral ciprofloxacin 500mg every 12hours during 5 days. Material and methodsrandomized prospective study was performed with 671 patients who had undergone to walking transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Patients of group A (n=312) were treated with ciprofloxacin, and patients of group B (n=359) with FMT. Efficacy and tolerability of two prophylactic regimes were compared. Urine culture was carried out at 2 weeks after biopsy. Initially, patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria were not treated with antibiotics; urine culture was repeated after 1 month, persistent bacteriuria was treated according to antibiogram. Resultsno differences between groups were found in age (P=.78), cancer presence (P=.9) or number of biopsy cylinders (P=.93). The mean number of cores obtained was 11.3±3.25 (range 6-20). Digestive intolerance was observed for 9 patients (2.9%) of group A and 10 patients (2.8%) in group B. One patient (.3%) of group A showed severe allergic reaction. In total, 167 patients (24.6%) had complications: 16 (2.4%) fever, 47 (6.9%) hemospermia, 81 (11.9%) hematuria, 7 (1%) rectal bleeding and 16 (2.4%) urinary retention. No statistically differences between groups were observed (27.6% vs. 22.6%; P=.17). However, hemospermia was more frequent in group A (9.9% vs. 4.5%; P=.006). Bacteriuria after biopsy was detected in 44 patients (6.6%), being more frequent in group B patients (4.2% vs. 8.6%; P=.02) although a higher number of second treatment cycles were not needed (53.9% vs. 29%; P=.17). The likelihood of resistance to ciprofloxacin in patients with bacteriuria in A was greater than that of FMT in B (69.2% vs. 41.9%; P=.0004). Conclusionsantibiotic prophylaxis with FMT (2 doses of 3g) in prostate biopsy is an alternative as effective and safe as ciprofloxacin (10 doses of 500mg), which carries lower rate of resistance. According to our experience, this drug is a safe, well-tolerated, and easily manageable prophylactic option, facilitating patient compliance. More prospective multicenter studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and Safety Profile of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Usage in Clean and Clean-Contaminated Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

There is no consensus with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis usage in clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. This meta-analysis sought to assess the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis and to determine appropriate duration of prophylaxis. An English language literature search was conducted using PubMed and the Cochrane Collaboration for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the use of antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing clean and clean-contaminated plastic and reconstructive surgery. Data from intention-to-treat analyses were used where available. For the dichotomous data, results for each study were odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and combined for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method or the DerSimonian and Laird method. Study quality was critically appraised by 2 reviewers using established criteria. STATA version 12 was used for meta-analyses. Twelve RCTs involving 2395 patients were included, of which 8 trials were considered to be of high methodological quality. Effect of antibiotic prophylaxis in plastic and reconstructive surgery was found favorable over placebo in SSI prevention (13 studies; 2449 participants; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < 0.01) and the other wound complication (OWC) prevention (9 studies; 1843 participants; OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.84; P < 0.02). Subgroup analysis performed according to surgical wound type or the duration of prophylaxis did not modify the results except for the OWC with short-term antibiotic treatment. Compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, long-term administration showed no evidence of a difference in risk of SSI (7 studies; 1012 participants; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.63-1.55; P < 0.95), OWC (5 studies; 824 participants; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.46-1.86; P < 0.82), and adverse event relative to antibiotic administration (3 studies; 653 participants; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.01-4.92; P < 0.35). This meta-analysis of RCTs provides evidence supporting that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced postoperative SSI in clean plastic surgeries with high-risk factors and clean-contaminated plastic surgeries. Besides, a short-course administration regimen seemed to be of adequate efficacy and safety. High-quality prospective trials on larger scale are needed to further confirm these findings.

Ertapenem versus Cefotetan Prophylaxis in Elective Colorectal Surgery

Ertapenem, a long-acting carbapenem, may be an alternative to the recommended prophylactic antibiotic cefotetan. In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis with ertapenem, as compared with cefotetan, in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A successful outcome was defined as the absence of surgical-site infection, anastomotic leakage, or antibiotic use 4 weeks postoperatively. All adverse events were collected until 14 days after the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis. Of the 1002 patients randomly assigned to study groups, 901 (451 in the ertapenem group and 450 in the cefotetan group) qualified for the modified intention-to-treat analysis, and 672 (338 in the ertapenem group and 334 in the cefotetan group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. After adjustment for strata, in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of overall prophylactic failure was 40.2% in the ertapenem group and 50.9% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -10.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -17.1 to -4.2); in the per-protocol analysis, the failure rate was 28.0% in the ertapenem group and 42.8% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -14.8%; 95% CI, -21.9 to -7.5). Both analyses fulfilled statistical criteria for the superiority of ertapenem. In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, the most common reason for failure of prophylaxis in both groups was surgical-site infection: 17.1% in the ertapenem group and 26.2% in the cefotetan group (absolute difference, -9.1; 95% CI, -14.4 to -3.7). In the treated population, the overall incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was 1.7% in the ertapenem group and 0.6% in the cefotetan group (P=0.22). Ertapenem is more effective than cefotetan in the prevention of surgical-site infection in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery but may be associated with an increase in C. difficile infection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00090272 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery.

Vacuum and forceps assisted vaginal deliveries are reported to increase the incidence of postpartum infections and maternal readmission to hospital compared to spontaneous vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed to prevent these infections. However, the benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal deliveries is still unclear. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing infectious puerperal morbidities in women undergoing operative vaginal deliveries including vacuum and/or forceps deliveries. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (November 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003) and MEDLINE (1966 to November 2003). All randomised trials comparing any prophylactic antibiotic regimens with placebo or no treatment in women undergoing vacuum or forceps deliveries were eligible. Participants were all pregnant women without evidence of infections or other indications for antibiotics of any gestational age undergoing vacuum or forceps delivery for any indications. Interventions were any antibiotic prophylaxis (any dosage regimen, any route of administration or at any time during delivery or the puerperium) compared with either placebo or no treatment. Four reviewers assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality. Two reviewers extracted the data independently using prepared data extraction forms. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion and a consensus reached through discussion with all reviewers. We assessed methodological quality of the included trial using the standard Cochrane criteria and the CONSORT statement of randomised controlled trials. We calculated the relative risks using a fixed effect model and all the reviewers interpreted and discussed the results. One trial, involving 393 women undergoing either vacuum or forceps deliveries, was included. This trial identified only two out of the nine outcomes specified in this review. It reported seven women with endomyometritis in the group given no antibiotic and none in prophylactic antibiotic group. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but the relative risk reduction was 93% (relative risks 0.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 1.21). There was no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (weighted mean difference 0.09 days; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.41). The data were too few and of insufficient quality to make any recommendations for practice. Future research on antibiotic prophylaxis for operative vaginal delivery is needed to conclude whether it is useful for reducing postpartum morbidity.