Prophylactic Antibiotic Use Prior to Port Placement and Its Effect on Insertion-Related Infection Rates: A Five-Year Retrospective Review

Hubert E. Smith, S. Sabri, Neil K. Jain, Zuby J. Seyed, Quang H. Nguyen, Donna C. Buckley
{"title":"Prophylactic Antibiotic Use Prior to Port Placement and Its Effect on Insertion-Related Infection Rates: A Five-Year Retrospective Review","authors":"Hubert E. Smith, S. Sabri, Neil K. Jain, Zuby J. Seyed, Quang H. Nguyen, Donna C. Buckley","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1779492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Purpose The aim of this study was to compare insertion-related port infection rates between patients who received intraprocedural prophylactic antibiotics versus those who did not.\n Materials and Methods All patients who underwent port insertion by interventional radiology from 7/1/ 2015 through 7/1/2020 at a single U.S.-based Health System were identified using electronic medical records database. During this period, 2,099 patients underwent port placement at three hospitals within the same health system. One-thousand sixty-three patients who underwent port placement at one hospital received periprocedural antibiotics and 1,036 patients at the two other hospitals did not receive antibiotics. Retrospective data were reviewed on each patient including demographics, reason for port insertion, and evidence of port infection. All relevant data up to 30 days postinsertion were reviewed, including blood cultures, unplanned readmissions, emergency room visits, and clinic visits. Qualitative trends were evaluated for various subgroups including presence of bacteremia, time from insertion, and demographics. Patients with an obvious external source of infection were excluded.\n Results Insertion-related infection rate was 0.9% for the entire cohort, 1.23% for the antibiotic group, and 0.68% for the nonantibiotic group. The insertion-related infection for adult patients was 0.88% for the antibiotic group and 0.68% for the nonantibiotic group. The pediatric insertion-related infection rate was 7.69%, all of whom received intravenous antibiotics. No other clear qualitative differences were noted for analyzed subgroups.\n Conclusion This study demonstrates low insertion-related port infection rate with no clinically significant difference between the groups that did or did not receive antibiotics. Subgroup analysis showed an exceptionally high infection rate in the pediatric population despite receiving preprocedure antibiotics.","PeriodicalId":32940,"journal":{"name":"The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology","volume":"11 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1779492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare insertion-related port infection rates between patients who received intraprocedural prophylactic antibiotics versus those who did not. Materials and Methods All patients who underwent port insertion by interventional radiology from 7/1/ 2015 through 7/1/2020 at a single U.S.-based Health System were identified using electronic medical records database. During this period, 2,099 patients underwent port placement at three hospitals within the same health system. One-thousand sixty-three patients who underwent port placement at one hospital received periprocedural antibiotics and 1,036 patients at the two other hospitals did not receive antibiotics. Retrospective data were reviewed on each patient including demographics, reason for port insertion, and evidence of port infection. All relevant data up to 30 days postinsertion were reviewed, including blood cultures, unplanned readmissions, emergency room visits, and clinic visits. Qualitative trends were evaluated for various subgroups including presence of bacteremia, time from insertion, and demographics. Patients with an obvious external source of infection were excluded. Results Insertion-related infection rate was 0.9% for the entire cohort, 1.23% for the antibiotic group, and 0.68% for the nonantibiotic group. The insertion-related infection for adult patients was 0.88% for the antibiotic group and 0.68% for the nonantibiotic group. The pediatric insertion-related infection rate was 7.69%, all of whom received intravenous antibiotics. No other clear qualitative differences were noted for analyzed subgroups. Conclusion This study demonstrates low insertion-related port infection rate with no clinically significant difference between the groups that did or did not receive antibiotics. Subgroup analysis showed an exceptionally high infection rate in the pediatric population despite receiving preprocedure antibiotics.
移植前预防性使用抗生素及其对插入相关感染率的影响:五年回顾性研究
目的 本研究旨在比较术中预防性使用抗生素与未使用抗生素的患者之间与插入相关的端口感染率。材料和方法 使用电子病历数据库对 2015 年 1 月 7 日至 2020 年 1 月 7 日期间在美国一家医疗系统接受介入放射科端口插入手术的所有患者进行识别。在此期间,有 2099 名患者在同一医疗系统内的三家医院接受了端口置入手术。其中一家医院的 163 名接受端口置入术的患者接受了围手术期抗生素治疗,另外两家医院的 1036 名患者没有接受抗生素治疗。我们对每名患者的回顾性数据进行了审查,包括人口统计学、植入端口的原因以及端口感染的证据。此外,还审查了插管后 30 天内的所有相关数据,包括血液培养、非计划再入院、急诊就诊和门诊就诊。对不同亚组的定性趋势进行了评估,包括是否存在菌血症、插入时间和人口统计学特征。排除了有明显外部感染源的患者。结果 整个组群的插入相关感染率为 0.9%,抗生素组为 1.23%,非抗生素组为 0.68%。抗生素组成人患者的插入相关感染率为 0.88%,非抗生素组为 0.68%。小儿患者的插入相关感染率为 7.69%,他们都接受了静脉注射抗生素。所分析的亚组没有其他明显的质量差异。结论 本研究显示,插入相关的端口感染率较低,接受或不接受抗生素治疗的组别之间没有明显的临床差异。亚组分析表明,尽管在术前接受了抗生素治疗,但儿科人群的感染率还是特别高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信