Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis and prevention of hepatobiliary surgical site infections

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 1037-1041
Author(s):  
Conor M. Stack ◽  
Howard S. Gold ◽  
Sharon B. Wright ◽  
Linda M. Baldini ◽  
Graham M. Snyder

AbstractObjectiveTo characterize the microbiology of hepatobiliary surgical site infections (SSIs) and to explore the relationship between specific antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens and the development of SSIs.DesignRetrospective matched case-control study comparing patient, procedure, and antimicrobial prophylaxis characteristics among patients undergoing a hepatobiliary surgical procedure with and without an SSI.SettingA tertiary referral acute-care facility.MethodsPatients undergoing procedures defined as “BILI” (bile duct, liver, or pancreas surgery) using National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions, excluding those undergoing concomitant liver transplantation, from January 2013 through June 2016 were included in the study population. The SSIs were identified through routine infection control surveillance using NHSN definitions. All patients who developed an SSI were considered cases. Controls were selected randomly matched 2:1 with cases based on fiscal quarter of the procedure. Logistic regression modeling was performed to explore variables associated with SSI, including antimicrobial prophylaxis received.ResultsAmong 975 procedures, 80 (8.2%) resulted in an SSI. Most cases involved an organism nonsusceptible to standard prophylaxis regimens, including cefazolin (68.8%), cefazolin plus metronidazole (61.3%), and ampicillin-sulbactam (52.5%). In a multivariate model, antimicrobial coverage against Enterococcus spp (aOR, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–2.04; P=.40) and against Pseudomonas spp (aOR, 2.40; 95% CI, 0.56–10.29; P=.24) were not protective against the development of an SSI. The presence of a documented β-lactam allergy was significantly associated with the development of an SSI (aOR, 3.54; 95% CI, 1.36–9.19; P=.009).ConclusionsAlthough SSIs at the study institution were associated with pathogens nonsusceptible to the most commonly used prophylaxis regimens, broader-spectrum coverage was not associated with a reduction in SSIs.

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 542-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Bukusuba ◽  
Archileo N. Kaaya ◽  
Abel Atukwase

Background: Stunting affects close to 2.4 million children in Uganda, and it is among the major contributors to the annual loss in productivity of the equivalent of US$899 million. Objective: This study sought to identify the key underlying causes of the persistently high stunting rates in a region of Uganda known to have low poverty rates and a high agricultural output. Methods: A matched case–control study was conducted in Buhweju district, southwest Uganda to compare prior exposures between stunted children (cases) and nonstunted children (controls). Results: The sample comprised 56 cases and 112 controls, totaling 168 children aged 6 to 59 months. There were almost equal numbers of boys and girls in the sample. Boys were significantly more likely to be stunted compared to girls (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.2; P < .05). Stunted children were significantly less likely to be introduced to complementary foods at an appropriate age and their primary caregivers lacked knowledge about stunting. The odds of stunting were 2.4 times greater for children in food-insecure households compared to those in food-secure households (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1-5.0; P < .05) and 4.5 times greater among children who resided in poor quality houses (OR: 4.5, 95% CI: 1.4-13.0; P < .05). Conclusion: Low access to appropriate complementary diets, sex of child, food insecurity, poor socioeconomic status, and low knowledge about stunting were the main predictors of childhood stunting in the study population.


The Knee ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1198-1203
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Everhart ◽  
James C. Kirven ◽  
John Higgins ◽  
Andrew Hair ◽  
Ajit A.M.W. Chaudhari ◽  
...  

Lung Cancer ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. S235
Author(s):  
Ai-jun Tan ◽  
Shang-pu He ◽  
Ming-xi Huang ◽  
Guo-Guang Li ◽  
Luyuan Shi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document