The utility of postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1111/pace.14561
Supavit Chesdachai, John R Go, Leslie C Hassett, Larry M Baddour, Daniel C DeSimone
{"title":"The utility of postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis following cardiovascular implantable electronic device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Supavit Chesdachai,&nbsp;John R Go,&nbsp;Leslie C Hassett,&nbsp;Larry M Baddour,&nbsp;Daniel C DeSimone","doi":"10.1111/pace.14561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is insufficient evidence regarding postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis use for more than 24 h following cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and its impact on infection prevention. However, this strategy remains a common practice in many institutions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that compared the outcomes of patients: (1) who received preoperative plus 24 h or more of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (intervention group); and (2) who received either preoperative only or preoperative plus less than 24 h of antibiotic prophylaxis (control group). Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and ROB-2 tools. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled using random-effect meta-analyses with inverse variance method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies that included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies with a total of 26,187 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes between the two groups, which included rates of CIED infection (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42, 1.42), mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69, 2.06), pocket hematoma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44, 3.00) or reintervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22, 3.46). Of note, the results were primarily impacted by the larger RCT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no benefit of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for more than 24 h following CIED implantation in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. This supports the practice advocated by current guidelines which foster antibiotic stewardship and may result in reductions of adverse drug events, selection for antibiotic resistance, and financial costs of prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":"940-949"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is insufficient evidence regarding postoperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis use for more than 24 h following cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) implantation and its impact on infection prevention. However, this strategy remains a common practice in many institutions.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies that compared the outcomes of patients: (1) who received preoperative plus 24 h or more of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (intervention group); and (2) who received either preoperative only or preoperative plus less than 24 h of antibiotic prophylaxis (control group). Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and ROB-2 tools. Risk ratio (RR) was pooled using random-effect meta-analyses with inverse variance method.

Results: Eight studies that included two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies with a total of 26,187 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes between the two groups, which included rates of CIED infection (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42, 1.42), mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69, 2.06), pocket hematoma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44, 3.00) or reintervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22, 3.46). Of note, the results were primarily impacted by the larger RCT.

Conclusions: There was no benefit of postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis for more than 24 h following CIED implantation in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. This supports the practice advocated by current guidelines which foster antibiotic stewardship and may result in reductions of adverse drug events, selection for antibiotic resistance, and financial costs of prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis.

心血管植入式电子设备植入术后全身性抗生素预防的应用:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:关于心血管植入式电子装置(CIED)植入后24小时以上的全身抗生素预防使用及其对感染预防的影响,目前证据不足。然而,这种策略在许多机构中仍然是一种常见的做法。方法:我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,包括比较患者结局的研究:(1)术前加术后24小时或更长时间抗生素预防(干预组);(2)术前单独或术前加抗生素预防治疗少于24 h的患者(对照组)。使用robins - 1和robins -2工具评估偏倚风险。风险比(RR)采用随机效应荟萃分析和反方差法进行汇总。结果:8项研究,包括2项随机对照试验(rct)和6项队列研究,共26187例患者纳入分析。总体而言,两组之间的结局没有差异,包括CIED感染率(RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.42, 1.42)、死亡率(RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69, 2.06)、口袋血肿(RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.44, 3.00)或再干预(RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.22, 3.46)。值得注意的是,结果主要受到较大RCT的影响。结论:在当前的系统评价和荟萃分析中,CIED植入术后24小时内未发现术后抗生素预防的益处。这支持了现行指南所提倡的做法,即促进抗生素管理,并可能减少药物不良事件、抗生素耐药性的选择和术后长期抗生素预防的财务成本。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信