Effectiveness of Oral Prophylactic Antibiotics for Diagnostic Bronchoscopy: A Nationwide Database Study.

Tomohiro Akaba, Taisuke Jo, Jun Suzuki, Yuya Kimura, Hiroki Matsui, Kiyohide Fushimi, Etsuko Tagaya, Hideo Yasunaga
{"title":"Effectiveness of Oral Prophylactic Antibiotics for Diagnostic Bronchoscopy: A Nationwide Database Study.","authors":"Tomohiro Akaba, Taisuke Jo, Jun Suzuki, Yuya Kimura, Hiroki Matsui, Kiyohide Fushimi, Etsuko Tagaya, Hideo Yasunaga","doi":"10.1513/AnnalsATS.202407-796OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Although the guidelines generally omit routine antibiotic prophylaxis for diagnostic bronchoscopy, this recommendation is primarily based on studies with relatively small sample sizes conducted at single institutions. Moreover, the applicability of recent technical and procedural advancements to these guidelines remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate whether oral prophylactic antibiotic administration for diagnostic bronchoscopy reduces post-bronchoscopy infections among non-infectious diseases in the current setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan, we identified patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy with or without oral prophylactic antibiotics between April, 2020 and March, 2022. We employed the propensity score-stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable analyses to compare post-bronchoscopy infections between the groups. Stratified analyses were also conducted based on patient profiles and antibiotic types.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 68,660 eligible patients were divided into prophylaxis (N=10,426) and no prophylaxis (N=58,234) groups. Post-bronchoscopy infections were observed in 612 patients (0.89%). The stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis showed that the prophylactic group was significantly associated with a decrease in post-bronchoscopy infections (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.80). The instrumental variable analysis showed similar results (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.74). Oral antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with reduction in post-bronchoscopy infection in patients who were older than 70 years, underwent bronchoscopy for malignancy, underwent biopsy or bronchoalveolar lavage, or received aminopenicillin or fluoroquinolone for prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest a potential role for prophylactic antibiotics in reducing post-bronchoscopy infections among non-infectious cases. While prophylactic antibiotics may help prevent these infections, their use should be carefully considered in relation to individual patient profiles and the specific antibiotics being administered.</p>","PeriodicalId":93876,"journal":{"name":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of the American Thoracic Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202407-796OC","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

Rationale: Although the guidelines generally omit routine antibiotic prophylaxis for diagnostic bronchoscopy, this recommendation is primarily based on studies with relatively small sample sizes conducted at single institutions. Moreover, the applicability of recent technical and procedural advancements to these guidelines remains uncertain.

Objectives: To evaluate whether oral prophylactic antibiotic administration for diagnostic bronchoscopy reduces post-bronchoscopy infections among non-infectious diseases in the current setting.

Methods: Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national inpatient database in Japan, we identified patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy with or without oral prophylactic antibiotics between April, 2020 and March, 2022. We employed the propensity score-stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable analyses to compare post-bronchoscopy infections between the groups. Stratified analyses were also conducted based on patient profiles and antibiotic types.

Results: A total of 68,660 eligible patients were divided into prophylaxis (N=10,426) and no prophylaxis (N=58,234) groups. Post-bronchoscopy infections were observed in 612 patients (0.89%). The stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis showed that the prophylactic group was significantly associated with a decrease in post-bronchoscopy infections (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.80). The instrumental variable analysis showed similar results (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.74). Oral antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with reduction in post-bronchoscopy infection in patients who were older than 70 years, underwent bronchoscopy for malignancy, underwent biopsy or bronchoalveolar lavage, or received aminopenicillin or fluoroquinolone for prophylaxis.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a potential role for prophylactic antibiotics in reducing post-bronchoscopy infections among non-infectious cases. While prophylactic antibiotics may help prevent these infections, their use should be carefully considered in relation to individual patient profiles and the specific antibiotics being administered.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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