Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Lower Uterine Segment Caesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Data-based Study

IF 0.2 Q4 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
S. Mandal, K. Karmakar, Mithilesh Haldar, T. Ganguly, A. Biswas, S. K. Dalui, S. Biswas
{"title":"Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Lower Uterine Segment Caesarean Section: A Prospective Observational Data-based Study","authors":"S. Mandal, K. Karmakar, Mithilesh Haldar, T. Ganguly, A. Biswas, S. K. Dalui, S. Biswas","doi":"10.7860/jcdr/2023/61361.18071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Any major surgery like lower uterine Caesarean Section (CS) can be hazardous due to postoperative nosocomial infection. Pregnant mothers are at greater risk during such surgical intervention as compared to vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is a standard practice across the globe to prevent such anticipated postoperative infection. Aim: To evaluate the prophylactic antimicrobial use with regards to the choice of antimicrobials, dose, route, timing and duration, any possible Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) as well as to assess the frequency of the postoperative morbidity due to infection (if any). Materials and Methods: A prospective observational databased study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology in collaboration with Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, Burdwan, West Bengal, India, from February 2016 to October 2017. Study was conducted on 1944 pregnant women of reproductive age group planned or scheduled for elective/emergency lower segment CS, but otherwise healthy and received prophylactic antimicrobials for the surgery. They were prospectively observed regarding the treatment they received with focus on antimicrobial agents from the period of antimicrobial prophylaxis during their stay at hospital to till their discharge. Demographic data, vital signs, indication of CS, postoperative infections and ADR if any were recorded in predesigned proforma. The study population was divided into two groups: group A included 995 mothers, who received ceftriaxone sodium (1 g intravenously) and metronidazole (15 mg/kg) infusion and group B included 949 mothers, who received ampicillin (2 g intravenously), metronidazole (15 mg/kg) infusion and injection gentamycin (5 mg/kg) for 0.5 hour before initiation of CS. The data were statistically analysed by standard statistical software Microsoft Excel 2010 and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) sotware version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) expressed as mean and standard deviation and percentage. Independent t- test and Chi-square test were used for analysis. Results: The mean age of group A was 22.36±3.07 years and group B was 22.76±2.47 years. Endomyometritis was documented in 4 (0.4%) from group A and 2 (0.21%) from the group B. Wound infection was present in 3 (0.3%) for group A and five (0.5%) for the group B. Infection related complications like chest infection seen in 7 (0.7%) for group A and in 3 (0.31%) for group B and urinary tract infection was noticed in 6 (0.6%) for group A and 5 (0.52%) for group B. Any incidence of maternal mortality was not evident among the two study groups and statistically insignificant ADR like vomiting and maculopapular rash (p-value=0.324) was observed in both the study groups with the use of above-mentioned antimicrobial therapy. Conclusion: Prophylactic use of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole and combination of triple antimicrobial therapy of ampicillin, metronidazole, and gentamycin therapy at the usual standard dose were commonly used antimicrobials at the present set up and they are safe and equally effective in decreasing considerably the incidence of post caesarean maternal infection thereby reducing their morbidity and mortality","PeriodicalId":15483,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","volume":"312 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7860/jcdr/2023/61361.18071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Any major surgery like lower uterine Caesarean Section (CS) can be hazardous due to postoperative nosocomial infection. Pregnant mothers are at greater risk during such surgical intervention as compared to vaginal delivery. Prophylactic antibiotic administration is a standard practice across the globe to prevent such anticipated postoperative infection. Aim: To evaluate the prophylactic antimicrobial use with regards to the choice of antimicrobials, dose, route, timing and duration, any possible Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR) as well as to assess the frequency of the postoperative morbidity due to infection (if any). Materials and Methods: A prospective observational databased study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology in collaboration with Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital, Burdwan, West Bengal, India, from February 2016 to October 2017. Study was conducted on 1944 pregnant women of reproductive age group planned or scheduled for elective/emergency lower segment CS, but otherwise healthy and received prophylactic antimicrobials for the surgery. They were prospectively observed regarding the treatment they received with focus on antimicrobial agents from the period of antimicrobial prophylaxis during their stay at hospital to till their discharge. Demographic data, vital signs, indication of CS, postoperative infections and ADR if any were recorded in predesigned proforma. The study population was divided into two groups: group A included 995 mothers, who received ceftriaxone sodium (1 g intravenously) and metronidazole (15 mg/kg) infusion and group B included 949 mothers, who received ampicillin (2 g intravenously), metronidazole (15 mg/kg) infusion and injection gentamycin (5 mg/kg) for 0.5 hour before initiation of CS. The data were statistically analysed by standard statistical software Microsoft Excel 2010 and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) sotware version 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) expressed as mean and standard deviation and percentage. Independent t- test and Chi-square test were used for analysis. Results: The mean age of group A was 22.36±3.07 years and group B was 22.76±2.47 years. Endomyometritis was documented in 4 (0.4%) from group A and 2 (0.21%) from the group B. Wound infection was present in 3 (0.3%) for group A and five (0.5%) for the group B. Infection related complications like chest infection seen in 7 (0.7%) for group A and in 3 (0.31%) for group B and urinary tract infection was noticed in 6 (0.6%) for group A and 5 (0.52%) for group B. Any incidence of maternal mortality was not evident among the two study groups and statistically insignificant ADR like vomiting and maculopapular rash (p-value=0.324) was observed in both the study groups with the use of above-mentioned antimicrobial therapy. Conclusion: Prophylactic use of ceftriaxone plus metronidazole and combination of triple antimicrobial therapy of ampicillin, metronidazole, and gentamycin therapy at the usual standard dose were commonly used antimicrobials at the present set up and they are safe and equally effective in decreasing considerably the incidence of post caesarean maternal infection thereby reducing their morbidity and mortality
子宫下段剖宫产术的抗菌预防:一项基于前瞻性观察数据的研究
简介:任何大手术,如下子宫剖宫产术(CS)可能是危险的,由于术后医院感染。与阴道分娩相比,孕妇在这种手术干预中面临更大的风险。预防性抗生素管理是全球预防这种预期的术后感染的标准做法。目的:从抗菌药物的选择、剂量、途径、时间和持续时间、可能发生的药物不良反应(ADR)以及术后感染发生率等方面对预防性抗菌药物的使用情况进行评价。材料与方法:2016年2月至2017年10月,在印度西孟加拉邦布尔德万医学院和医院的药学系与妇产科合作开展了一项前瞻性观察性数据库研究。对1944名育龄孕妇进行了研究,这些孕妇计划或计划进行选择性/紧急下节段CS手术,但其他方面健康,并接受了预防性抗菌药物。前瞻性地观察他们从住院期间的抗菌预防到出院期间所接受的以抗菌药物为重点的治疗。人口统计数据、生命体征、CS指征、术后感染和不良反应(如有)记录在预先设计的表格中。研究人群分为两组:A组995名母亲接受头孢曲松钠(1 g静脉注射)和甲硝唑(15 mg/kg)输注;B组949名母亲在CS开始前0.5小时接受氨苄西林(2 g静脉注射)、甲硝唑(15 mg/kg)输注和庆大霉素(5 mg/kg)注射。采用标准统计软件Microsoft Excel 2010和SPSS (statistical Package for The Social Sciences) 27.0版软件(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA)对数据进行统计分析,用均值、标准差和百分比表示。采用独立t检验和卡方检验进行分析。结果:A组患者平均年龄22.36±3.07岁,B组患者平均年龄22.76±2.47岁。Endomyometritis记录在4从A组(0.4%),2(0.21%)3组B .伤口感染在场的A组(0.3%),5例(0.5%)为B组感染相关的并发症,如胸部感染在7(0.7%)为A组和B组3例(0.31%),尿路感染是注意到在6 A组(0.6%),5例(0.52%),B组孕产妇死亡率的发生率没有明显的两个研究团体和统计无关紧要的ADR使用上述抗菌药物治疗两组患者均出现呕吐和黄斑丘疹(p值=0.324)。结论:预防性应用头孢曲松加甲硝唑,并联合氨苄西林、甲硝唑、庆大霉素三联抗微生物治疗常规标准剂量,是目前常用的抗微生物药物,安全有效,可显著降低剖宫产后产妇感染的发生率,从而降低产妇的发病率和死亡率
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
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
761
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Specialties Covered: Anaesthesia, Anatomy, Animal Research, Biochemistry, Biotechnology, Cardiology, Community, Dermatology, Dentistry, Education, Emergency Medicine, Endocrinology, Ethics, Ear Nose and Throat, Forensic, Gastroenterology, Genetics, Haematology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Health Management and Policy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Intensive Care, Internal Medicine, Microbiology, Nephrology / Renal, Neurology and Neuro-Surgery, Nutrition, Nursing/Midwifery, Oncology, Orthopaedics, Ophthalmology, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and Neonatology Pharmacology, Physiology, Pathology, Plastic Surgery, Psychiatry/Mental Health, Rehabilitation / Physiotherapy, Radiology, Statistics, Surgery, Speech and Hearing (Audiology)
×
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