Rates of post procedural prophylactic antibiotic use following cardiac implantable electronic device insertion and the impact on surgical site infections in Alberta, Canada.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Elissa Rennert-May, Jenine Leal, Zuying Zhang, Irina Rajakumar, Stephanie Smith, John M Conly, Derek Exner, Vikas Kuriachan, Derek Chew
{"title":"Rates of post procedural prophylactic antibiotic use following cardiac implantable electronic device insertion and the impact on surgical site infections in Alberta, Canada.","authors":"Elissa Rennert-May, Jenine Leal, Zuying Zhang, Irina Rajakumar, Stephanie Smith, John M Conly, Derek Exner, Vikas Kuriachan, Derek Chew","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01512-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The necessity of post procedural prophylactic antibiotics following clean surgeries is controversial. While most evidence suggests that there is no benefit from these additional antibiotics and guidelines do not support their use, there is a paucity of evidence as to how often they are still being used and their impact on infection outcomes. The current study assessed the use of prophylactic antibiotics following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations in the province of Alberta, and their impact on infection and mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a population-based cohort study in the province of Alberta. Administrative data was used to link all patients ≥ 18 who underwent outpatient CIED implantation from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2019 to antibiotics commonly used for surgical prophylaxis which were prescribed within 48 h of implantation. The primary outcome, explored with an adjusted Poisson model, was incidence of complex surgical site infection within one year of device implantation. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Post implantation prophylactic antibiotics were used 41% of the time overall, though the rate has been decreasing over time. The most commonly used prophylactic antibiotic was cefalexin (52%). When adjusted analyses were completed, there was no difference in the outcome of infection between those who did and did not receive post implantation prophylactic antibiotics (Relative Risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.46-1.17) and there was no difference in mortality (Relative Risk 0.8, 95% CI 0.63-1.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of prophylactic antibiotics following CIED implantation does not correlate to a reduced rate of complex surgical site infection or reduced mortality. The widespread use of these antibiotics, which is not guideline concordant, suggests the need for targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions for surgical prophylaxis to ensure that antibiotic use is being optimized. Further work should explore other adverse outcomes associated with this antibiotic usage and stewardship programs should explore interventions to educate and reduce antibiotic use for this indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":7950,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","volume":"13 1","pages":"147"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01512-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The necessity of post procedural prophylactic antibiotics following clean surgeries is controversial. While most evidence suggests that there is no benefit from these additional antibiotics and guidelines do not support their use, there is a paucity of evidence as to how often they are still being used and their impact on infection outcomes. The current study assessed the use of prophylactic antibiotics following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations in the province of Alberta, and their impact on infection and mortality.

Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study in the province of Alberta. Administrative data was used to link all patients ≥ 18 who underwent outpatient CIED implantation from January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2019 to antibiotics commonly used for surgical prophylaxis which were prescribed within 48 h of implantation. The primary outcome, explored with an adjusted Poisson model, was incidence of complex surgical site infection within one year of device implantation. All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome.

Results: Post implantation prophylactic antibiotics were used 41% of the time overall, though the rate has been decreasing over time. The most commonly used prophylactic antibiotic was cefalexin (52%). When adjusted analyses were completed, there was no difference in the outcome of infection between those who did and did not receive post implantation prophylactic antibiotics (Relative Risk 0.74, 95% CI 0.46-1.17) and there was no difference in mortality (Relative Risk 0.8, 95% CI 0.63-1.02).

Conclusions: The use of prophylactic antibiotics following CIED implantation does not correlate to a reduced rate of complex surgical site infection or reduced mortality. The widespread use of these antibiotics, which is not guideline concordant, suggests the need for targeted antimicrobial stewardship interventions for surgical prophylaxis to ensure that antibiotic use is being optimized. Further work should explore other adverse outcomes associated with this antibiotic usage and stewardship programs should explore interventions to educate and reduce antibiotic use for this indication.

加拿大艾伯塔省植入式心脏电子装置植入术后预防性抗生素使用率及其对手术部位感染的影响
背景:清洁手术后预防性使用抗生素的必要性存在争议。虽然大多数证据表明,这些额外的抗生素没有好处,指南也不支持使用它们,但缺乏证据表明它们仍在使用的频率及其对感染结果的影响。目前的研究评估了阿尔伯塔省心脏植入式电子装置(CIED)植入后预防性抗生素的使用及其对感染和死亡率的影响。方法:我们在阿尔伯塔省进行了一项基于人群的队列研究。管理数据用于将2011年1月1日至2019年12月31日期间接受门诊CIED植入的所有≥18岁的患者与植入后48小时内开具的外科预防常用抗生素联系起来。通过调整泊松模型,主要观察器械植入一年内复杂手术部位感染的发生率。全因死亡率是次要结果。结果:总体而言,种植后预防性抗生素的使用率为41%,尽管这一比例随着时间的推移而下降。最常用的预防性抗生素是头孢氨苄(52%)。当校正分析完成后,接受和未接受植入后预防性抗生素治疗的患者的感染结果没有差异(相对风险0.74,95% CI 0.46-1.17),死亡率也没有差异(相对风险0.8,95% CI 0.63-1.02)。结论:CIED植入后预防性抗生素的使用与复杂手术部位感染率的降低或死亡率的降低无关。这些抗生素的广泛使用与指南不一致,这表明需要针对外科预防采取有针对性的抗菌药物管理干预措施,以确保抗生素的使用得到优化。进一步的工作应该探索与这种抗生素使用相关的其他不良后果,管理项目应该探索干预措施,以教育和减少这种适应症的抗生素使用。
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
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
140
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control is a global forum for all those working on the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of health-care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance development in all health-care settings. The journal covers a broad spectrum of preeminent practices and best available data to the top interventional and translational research, and innovative developments in the field of infection control.
×
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