头孢唑林3g与2g在肥胖患者结肠直肠手术中的手术感染发生率

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Curtis D Collins, Eric Hartsfield, Robert K Cleary, Rachel M Kenney, Michael P Veve, Kara K Brockhaus
{"title":"头孢唑林3g与2g在肥胖患者结肠直肠手术中的手术感染发生率","authors":"Curtis D Collins, Eric Hartsfield, Robert K Cleary, Rachel M Kenney, Michael P Veve, Kara K Brockhaus","doi":"10.1017/ice.2024.215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g surgical prophylaxis in patients weighing ≥120 kg that undergo elective colorectal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing a validated database of elective colorectal surgeries in Michigan acute care hospitals. Adults weighing ≥120 kg who received cefazolin and metronidazole for surgical prophylaxis between 7/2012 and 6/2021 were included. The primary outcome was SSI, which was defined as an infection diagnosed within 30 days following the principal operative procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with SSI; the exposure of interest was cefazolin 3 g surgical prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 581 patients were included; of these, 367 (63.1%) received cefazolin 3 g, while 214 (36.8%) received 2 g. Patients who received cefazolin 3 g had less optimal antibiotic timing (324 [88.3%] vs 200 [93.5%]; <i>P</i> = .043) and a higher receipt of at least 1 of the prophylaxis antibiotics after incision (22 [6%] vs 5 [2.3%]; <i>P</i> = .043). There was no SSI difference between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g cohorts (23 [6.3%] vs 16 [7.5%], <i>P</i> = .574). When accounting for age, smoking status, and surgical duration, cefazolin 3 g was not associated with a reduction in SSI (adjOR, .64; 95%CI, .32-1.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin 3 g, in combination with metronidazole, was not associated with decreased SSI compared to 2 g dosing in obese patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":13663,"journal":{"name":"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incidence of surgical infection in cefazolin 3 g versus 2 g for colorectal surgery in obese patients.\",\"authors\":\"Curtis D Collins, Eric Hartsfield, Robert K Cleary, Rachel M Kenney, Michael P Veve, Kara K Brockhaus\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ice.2024.215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g surgical prophylaxis in patients weighing ≥120 kg that undergo elective colorectal surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing a validated database of elective colorectal surgeries in Michigan acute care hospitals. Adults weighing ≥120 kg who received cefazolin and metronidazole for surgical prophylaxis between 7/2012 and 6/2021 were included. The primary outcome was SSI, which was defined as an infection diagnosed within 30 days following the principal operative procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with SSI; the exposure of interest was cefazolin 3 g surgical prophylaxis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 581 patients were included; of these, 367 (63.1%) received cefazolin 3 g, while 214 (36.8%) received 2 g. Patients who received cefazolin 3 g had less optimal antibiotic timing (324 [88.3%] vs 200 [93.5%]; <i>P</i> = .043) and a higher receipt of at least 1 of the prophylaxis antibiotics after incision (22 [6%] vs 5 [2.3%]; <i>P</i> = .043). There was no SSI difference between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g cohorts (23 [6.3%] vs 16 [7.5%], <i>P</i> = .574). When accounting for age, smoking status, and surgical duration, cefazolin 3 g was not associated with a reduction in SSI (adjOR, .64; 95%CI, .32-1.29).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin 3 g, in combination with metronidazole, was not associated with decreased SSI compared to 2 g dosing in obese patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"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.2024.215\",\"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.2024.215","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:比较体重≥120kg择期结直肠手术患者头孢唑林3g与2g手术预防的手术部位感染(SSI)发生率。方法:一项多中心、回顾性队列研究利用密西根急症护理医院的择期结直肠手术数据库进行。纳入2012年7月至2021年6月期间接受头孢唑林和甲硝唑手术预防的体重≥120 kg的成年人。主要结局是SSI,定义为在主要手术后30天内诊断出感染。多变量逻辑回归用于识别与SSI相关的变量;感兴趣的暴露是头孢唑林3g手术预防。结果:共纳入581例患者;其中367例(63.1%)服用头孢唑林3g, 214例(36.8%)服用头孢唑林2g。头孢唑林3g患者的最佳抗生素时间较短(324 [88.3%]vs 200 [93.5%]);P = 0.043),且切口后至少使用1种预防性抗生素的患者较多(22例[6%]vs 5例[2.3%];P = .043)。头孢唑林3g组与2g组SSI无差异(23例[6.3%]vs 16例[7.5%],P = 0.574)。当考虑到年龄、吸烟状况和手术持续时间时,头孢唑林3g与SSI的降低无关(adjOR, 0.64;95%可信区间,32 - 1.29)。结论:在接受择期结直肠手术的肥胖患者中,手术预防使用头孢唑林3g联合甲硝唑与降低SSI无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incidence of surgical infection in cefazolin 3 g versus 2 g for colorectal surgery in obese patients.

Objective: To compare the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g surgical prophylaxis in patients weighing ≥120 kg that undergo elective colorectal surgery.

Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed utilizing a validated database of elective colorectal surgeries in Michigan acute care hospitals. Adults weighing ≥120 kg who received cefazolin and metronidazole for surgical prophylaxis between 7/2012 and 6/2021 were included. The primary outcome was SSI, which was defined as an infection diagnosed within 30 days following the principal operative procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with SSI; the exposure of interest was cefazolin 3 g surgical prophylaxis.

Results: A total of 581 patients were included; of these, 367 (63.1%) received cefazolin 3 g, while 214 (36.8%) received 2 g. Patients who received cefazolin 3 g had less optimal antibiotic timing (324 [88.3%] vs 200 [93.5%]; P = .043) and a higher receipt of at least 1 of the prophylaxis antibiotics after incision (22 [6%] vs 5 [2.3%]; P = .043). There was no SSI difference between cefazolin 3 g and 2 g cohorts (23 [6.3%] vs 16 [7.5%], P = .574). When accounting for age, smoking status, and surgical duration, cefazolin 3 g was not associated with a reduction in SSI (adjOR, .64; 95%CI, .32-1.29).

Conclusions: Surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin 3 g, in combination with metronidazole, was not associated with decreased SSI compared to 2 g dosing in obese patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

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