减少常见腔内手术后抗菌药物使用的试点干预试验。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Daniel J Livorsi, Vignesh T Packiam, Qianyi Shi, Steven Y Alberding, Knute D Carter, James A Brown, James B Mason, Jeffrey P Weiss, Ryan L Steinberg
{"title":"减少常见腔内手术后抗菌药物使用的试点干预试验。","authors":"Daniel J Livorsi, Vignesh T Packiam, Qianyi Shi, Steven Y Alberding, Knute D Carter, James A Brown, James B Mason, Jeffrey P Weiss, Ryan L Steinberg","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Post-procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended by professional guidelines but is commonly prescribed. We sought to reduce use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endoscopic urologic procedures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A before-after, quasi-experimental trial with a baseline (July 2020-June 2022), an implementation (July 2022), and an intervention period (August 2022-July 2023).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three participating medical centers.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>We assessed the effect of a bundled intervention on excess post-procedural antimicrobial use (<i>ie</i>, antimicrobial use on post-procedural day 1) after three types of endoscopic urologic procedures: ureteroscopy and transurethral resection of bladder tumor or prostate. The intervention consisted of education, local champion(s), and audit-and-feedback of data on the frequency of post-procedural antimicrobial-prescribing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1,272 procedures were performed across all 3 sites at baseline compared to 525 during the intervention period; 644 (50.6%) patients received excess post-procedural antimicrobials during the baseline period compared to 216 (41.1%) during the intervention period. There was no change in the use of post-procedural antimicrobials at sites 1 and 2 between the baseline and intervention periods. At site 3, the odds of prescribing a post-procedural antimicrobial significantly decreased during the intervention period relative to the baseline time trend (0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.45). There was no significant increase in post-procedural unplanned visits at any of the sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation of a bundled intervention was associated with reduced post-procedural antimicrobial use at one of three sites, with no increase in complications. These findings demonstrate both the safety and challenge of guideline implementation for optimal perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis.This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04196777.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pilot intervention trial to reduce the use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endourologic surgeries.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel J Livorsi, Vignesh T Packiam, Qianyi Shi, Steven Y Alberding, Knute D Carter, James A Brown, James B Mason, Jeffrey P Weiss, Ryan L Steinberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2024.172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Post-procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended by professional guidelines but is commonly prescribed. We sought to reduce use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endoscopic urologic procedures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A before-after, quasi-experimental trial with a baseline (July 2020-June 2022), an implementation (July 2022), and an intervention period (August 2022-July 2023).</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three participating medical centers.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>We assessed the effect of a bundled intervention on excess post-procedural antimicrobial use (<i>ie</i>, antimicrobial use on post-procedural day 1) after three types of endoscopic urologic procedures: ureteroscopy and transurethral resection of bladder tumor or prostate. The intervention consisted of education, local champion(s), and audit-and-feedback of data on the frequency of post-procedural antimicrobial-prescribing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1,272 procedures were performed across all 3 sites at baseline compared to 525 during the intervention period; 644 (50.6%) patients received excess post-procedural antimicrobials during the baseline period compared to 216 (41.1%) during the intervention period. There was no change in the use of post-procedural antimicrobials at sites 1 and 2 between the baseline and intervention periods. At site 3, the odds of prescribing a post-procedural antimicrobial significantly decreased during the intervention period relative to the baseline time trend (0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.45). There was no significant increase in post-procedural unplanned visits at any of the sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation of a bundled intervention was associated with reduced post-procedural antimicrobial use at one of three sites, with no increase in complications. These findings demonstrate both the safety and challenge of guideline implementation for optimal perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis.This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04196777.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.172\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2024.172","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:专业指南并未推荐术后抗菌药预防,但处方却很普遍。我们试图减少常见内窥镜泌尿外科手术后抗菌药物的使用:设计:一项前后对比的准实验性试验,基线期(2020 年 7 月至 2022 年 6 月)、实施期(2022 年 7 月)和干预期(2022 年 8 月至 2023 年 7 月):三个参与试验的医疗中心:我们评估了捆绑干预对三种内窥镜泌尿外科手术(输尿管镜检查和经尿道膀胱肿瘤或前列腺切除术)术后抗菌药物超量使用(即术后第 1 天的抗菌药物使用)的影响。干预措施包括教育、地方冠军以及术后抗菌药物处方频率数据的审核和反馈:基线期间,3 个地点共进行了 1,272 例手术,而干预期间则为 525 例;基线期间有 644 例(50.6%)患者术后过量使用抗菌药物,而干预期间则为 216 例(41.1%)。在基线期和干预期之间,1 号和 2 号研究点的术后抗菌药物使用率没有变化。与基线时间趋势相比(0.09;95% CI 0.02-0.45),第 3 治疗点在干预期间开出术后抗菌药处方的几率明显下降。结论:捆绑干预措施的实施与术后非计划就诊率相关:结论:捆绑干预措施的实施与三个医疗点中一个医疗点术后抗菌药物使用量的减少有关,但并发症并未增加。这些研究结果表明,实施围手术期最佳抗菌药物预防指南既安全又具有挑战性。该试验已在 clinicaltrials.gov 上注册,编号为 NCT04196777。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A pilot intervention trial to reduce the use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endourologic surgeries.

Objective: Post-procedural antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended by professional guidelines but is commonly prescribed. We sought to reduce use of post-procedural antimicrobials after common endoscopic urologic procedures.

Design: A before-after, quasi-experimental trial with a baseline (July 2020-June 2022), an implementation (July 2022), and an intervention period (August 2022-July 2023).

Setting: Three participating medical centers.

Intervention: We assessed the effect of a bundled intervention on excess post-procedural antimicrobial use (ie, antimicrobial use on post-procedural day 1) after three types of endoscopic urologic procedures: ureteroscopy and transurethral resection of bladder tumor or prostate. The intervention consisted of education, local champion(s), and audit-and-feedback of data on the frequency of post-procedural antimicrobial-prescribing.

Results: 1,272 procedures were performed across all 3 sites at baseline compared to 525 during the intervention period; 644 (50.6%) patients received excess post-procedural antimicrobials during the baseline period compared to 216 (41.1%) during the intervention period. There was no change in the use of post-procedural antimicrobials at sites 1 and 2 between the baseline and intervention periods. At site 3, the odds of prescribing a post-procedural antimicrobial significantly decreased during the intervention period relative to the baseline time trend (0.09; 95% CI 0.02-0.45). There was no significant increase in post-procedural unplanned visits at any of the sites.

Conclusions: Implementation of a bundled intervention was associated with reduced post-procedural antimicrobial use at one of three sites, with no increase in complications. These findings demonstrate both the safety and challenge of guideline implementation for optimal perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis.This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04196777.

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
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
289
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology provides original, peer-reviewed scientific articles for anyone involved with an infection control or epidemiology program in a hospital or healthcare facility. Written by infection control practitioners and epidemiologists and guided by an editorial board composed of the nation''s leaders in the field, ICHE provides a critical forum for this vital information.
×
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