颈部消化道穿透性损伤患者延长预防性抗生素用量与改善疗效无关。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Surgical infections Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-25 DOI:10.1089/sur.2024.067
Tyler L Holliday, Saskya Byerly, Cory Evans, James E Babowice, Emily K Lenart, Sara Soule, Andrew J Kerwin, Dina M Filiberto
{"title":"颈部消化道穿透性损伤患者延长预防性抗生素用量与改善疗效无关。","authors":"Tyler L Holliday, Saskya Byerly, Cory Evans, James E Babowice, Emily K Lenart, Sara Soule, Andrew J Kerwin, Dina M Filiberto","doi":"10.1089/sur.2024.067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Literature currently supports the limited use of prophylactic antibiotics within the trauma population. However, data supporting limited (≤24 h) or extended (>24 h) use in penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries is lacking. We sought to describe the role of prophylactic antibiotics in this population and hypothesized there was no reduction in complications for patients on extended prophylactic antibiotics. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Using a single-center trauma registry, patients with penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Demographics, injuries, management, and prophylactic antibiotic utilization were collected. Patients were stratified by the utilization of extended prophylactic antibiotics. Outcomes included infection, leak, reinterventions, and mortality. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 436 patients with penetrating neck injuries, 72 (17%) patients were identified with aerodigestive injuries. Forty-one (57%) patients received extended (>24 h) prophylactic antibiotics, whereas 31 (43%) received limited (≤24 h) prophylactic antibiotics. There was no difference in the patient demographics or injury severity score between the two groups. Extended prophylactic antibiotic use was associated with higher rates of infection (22% vs. 3%, p = 0.036) and leak (15% vs. 0%, p = 0.034) and no difference in reintervention (20% vs. 3%, p = 0.068) or mortality (10% vs. 13%, p = 0.719) compared with limited prophylactic antibiotics. Median duration of extended antibiotic use was 7 days. Operative intervention was equivalent across extended prophylactic antibiotics and limited antibiotics groups (59% vs. 58%, p = 0.968). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There is insufficient evidence to support the extended (>24 h) use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with penetrating neck aerodigestive injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":22109,"journal":{"name":"Surgical infections","volume":" ","pages":"768-772"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics in Penetrating Neck Aerodigestive Injuries are Not Associated with Improved Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Tyler L Holliday, Saskya Byerly, Cory Evans, James E Babowice, Emily K Lenart, Sara Soule, Andrew J Kerwin, Dina M Filiberto\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/sur.2024.067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Literature currently supports the limited use of prophylactic antibiotics within the trauma population. However, data supporting limited (≤24 h) or extended (>24 h) use in penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries is lacking. We sought to describe the role of prophylactic antibiotics in this population and hypothesized there was no reduction in complications for patients on extended prophylactic antibiotics. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Using a single-center trauma registry, patients with penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Demographics, injuries, management, and prophylactic antibiotic utilization were collected. Patients were stratified by the utilization of extended prophylactic antibiotics. Outcomes included infection, leak, reinterventions, and mortality. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 436 patients with penetrating neck injuries, 72 (17%) patients were identified with aerodigestive injuries. Forty-one (57%) patients received extended (>24 h) prophylactic antibiotics, whereas 31 (43%) received limited (≤24 h) prophylactic antibiotics. There was no difference in the patient demographics or injury severity score between the two groups. Extended prophylactic antibiotic use was associated with higher rates of infection (22% vs. 3%, p = 0.036) and leak (15% vs. 0%, p = 0.034) and no difference in reintervention (20% vs. 3%, p = 0.068) or mortality (10% vs. 13%, p = 0.719) compared with limited prophylactic antibiotics. Median duration of extended antibiotic use was 7 days. Operative intervention was equivalent across extended prophylactic antibiotics and limited antibiotics groups (59% vs. 58%, p = 0.968). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> There is insufficient evidence to support the extended (>24 h) use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with penetrating neck aerodigestive injuries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical infections\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"768-772\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical infections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2024.067\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical infections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2024.067","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前的文献支持在创伤人群中有限使用预防性抗生素。然而,在颈部穿透性消化道损伤中,缺乏支持有限使用(≤24 小时)或延长使用(>24 小时)的数据。我们试图描述预防性抗生素在这一人群中的作用,并假设延长预防性抗生素使用时间不会减少患者的并发症。方法:利用单中心创伤登记系统,对五年内颈部穿透性气道损伤患者进行鉴定。收集了患者的人口统计学特征、伤情、治疗方法和预防性抗生素使用情况。根据预防性抗生素的使用情况对患者进行了分层。结果包括感染、渗漏、再干预和死亡率。结果:在436名颈部穿透伤患者中,有72名(17%)患者被确认为呼吸道损伤。41名(57%)患者接受了延长(>24小时)的预防性抗生素治疗,31名(43%)患者接受了有限(≤24小时)的预防性抗生素治疗。两组患者的人口统计学和受伤严重程度评分没有差异。与有限预防性抗生素相比,延长预防性抗生素的使用与较高的感染率(22% 对 3%,p = 0.036)和渗漏率(15% 对 0%,p = 0.034)相关,而在再干预率(20% 对 3%,p = 0.068)或死亡率(10% 对 13%,p = 0.719)方面没有差异。延长抗生素使用时间的中位数为 7 天。延长预防性抗生素组和限制性抗生素组的手术干预效果相当(59% vs. 58%,p = 0.968)。结论:没有足够的证据支持对颈部消化道穿透伤患者延长(>24 小时)使用预防性抗生素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extended Prophylactic Antibiotics in Penetrating Neck Aerodigestive Injuries are Not Associated with Improved Outcomes.

Background: Literature currently supports the limited use of prophylactic antibiotics within the trauma population. However, data supporting limited (≤24 h) or extended (>24 h) use in penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries is lacking. We sought to describe the role of prophylactic antibiotics in this population and hypothesized there was no reduction in complications for patients on extended prophylactic antibiotics. Methods: Using a single-center trauma registry, patients with penetrating aerodigestive neck injuries were identified over a 5-year period. Demographics, injuries, management, and prophylactic antibiotic utilization were collected. Patients were stratified by the utilization of extended prophylactic antibiotics. Outcomes included infection, leak, reinterventions, and mortality. Results: Of 436 patients with penetrating neck injuries, 72 (17%) patients were identified with aerodigestive injuries. Forty-one (57%) patients received extended (>24 h) prophylactic antibiotics, whereas 31 (43%) received limited (≤24 h) prophylactic antibiotics. There was no difference in the patient demographics or injury severity score between the two groups. Extended prophylactic antibiotic use was associated with higher rates of infection (22% vs. 3%, p = 0.036) and leak (15% vs. 0%, p = 0.034) and no difference in reintervention (20% vs. 3%, p = 0.068) or mortality (10% vs. 13%, p = 0.719) compared with limited prophylactic antibiotics. Median duration of extended antibiotic use was 7 days. Operative intervention was equivalent across extended prophylactic antibiotics and limited antibiotics groups (59% vs. 58%, p = 0.968). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the extended (>24 h) use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with penetrating neck aerodigestive injuries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Surgical infections
Surgical infections INFECTIOUS DISEASES-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Infections provides comprehensive and authoritative information on the biology, prevention, and management of post-operative infections. Original articles cover the latest advancements, new therapeutic management strategies, and translational research that is being applied to improve clinical outcomes and successfully treat post-operative infections. Surgical Infections coverage includes: -Peritonitis and intra-abdominal infections- Surgical site infections- Pneumonia and other nosocomial infections- Cellular and humoral immunity- Biology of the host response- Organ dysfunction syndromes- Antibiotic use- Resistant and opportunistic pathogens- Epidemiology and prevention- The operating room environment- Diagnostic studies
×
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