scholarly journals Analysis of Prophylactic Antibiotics Usage in Caesarean Section Delivery

2018 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 161
Author(s):  
Binti Muzayyanah ◽  
Yulistiani Yulistiani ◽  
Didik Hasmono ◽  
Nuraida Wisudani
Keyword(s):  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Surgical Incision ◽  
Caesarean Section Delivery

Caesarean section is the delivery through a surgical incision in the abdomen and uterus with various risks, such as Surgical Site Infection (SSI) which either occurs rapidly (24-48 hours postoperatively) or delayed. To reduce the risk of various post-cesarean section infections, prophylactic antibiotics are given. The administration of prophylactic antibiotics with recommended regimens, such as in developed countries as in the United States and Europe, with first generation of cephalosporins has not been applied in Dr. Iskak Hospital, Tulungagung. This hospital still used other types of antibiotics, such as cefotaxime or ceftriaxone. In addition, for several reasons, prophylactic antibiotics were continued with other antibiotics to reduce the risk of delayed infection. This study was designed to analyze the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics as recommended in cesarean section. This was a prospective observational study with consecutive sampling type, examined 41 mothers with cesarean section at the Department of Obstretics and Gynecology, Dr. Iskak Hospital, Tulungagung, Indonesia. This study was conducted from May to July, 2017. The results of the study showed that the effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotic use was 98% based on the clinical parameters and maternal laboratory outcome, which showed that SIRS was in normal category. Whereas, there was one mother (2%) who had SSI on day 10 postoperatively.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and use of prophylactic antibiotics in elective and emergency caesarean section at tertiary care hospital

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 2053
Author(s):  
K. Rama Lingam ◽  
Hari Babu Ramineni ◽  
Shaik Gulshan Firdous ◽  
P. Yamuna ◽  
B. Madhuri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Febrile Illness ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Lower Segment ◽  
Lower Segment Caesarean Section

Background: Post-operative infections in obstetrics and gynecological settings have been higher compared to other specialties. Women undergoing caesarean section have 5 to 20-fold greater risk for infection compared with vaginal delivery. Many studies reported antimicrobial prophylaxis prevent post-operative infections. Hence this study concentrates the evaluation of the prescribing antimicrobial use and to assess the frequency of post-operative morbidity related to infection in subjects undergoing caesarean section. The aim of the study was to analysis the effectiveness, prophylactic antibiotics (amoxicillin versus ceftriaxone) and to evaluate the post-operative (caesarean) infections in patients undergoing lower segment caesarean section (elective and emergency).Methods: This is a prospective observational study which assessed the effectiveness and use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing cesarean section at department of obstetrics and gynecology. The study was conducted over a period of one year.Results: The corresponding mean age of all the study population in amoxicillin group (n=113) was 56.5±28.5 and in ceftriaxone group (n=97) was 48.5±26.5 respectively. The participant who underwent previous cesarean section in amoxicillin group is 65.48% similarly in ceftriaxone group is 47.42%. The patients with fetal distress in ceftriaxone group are 14.77% and in amoxicillin group is 8.92%. Failed induction in amoxicillin group is 9.82% and in ceftriaxone group is 6.81%. The number of days in hospital stay in amoxicillin group is 42.42% and in ceftriaxone group is 45.94%. The post-operative complications in amoxicillin group reported, with Febrile Illness are 40% and wound Infection is 60%.Conclusions: Administration of pre-operative antibiotics significantly reduce post-operative infections. Use of ceftriaxone as a prophylactic antibiotic in patients undergoing lower segment caesarean section (elective and emergency) is more effective than Amoxicillin in preventing post-operative infections.

EVALUASI PENGGUNAAN ANTIBIOTIK PROFILAKSIS PADA PASIEN BEDAH SESAR (SECTIO CAESAREA) DI RSUD ULIN BANJARMASIN TAHUN 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 146
Author(s):  
Saftia Aryzki ◽  
Hidayatun Nisa ◽  
Dian Yunita Gamaliana
Keyword(s):  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Medical Records ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Sectio Caesarea ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Experimental Type ◽  
Third Generation Cephalosporins

 Cesarean section (Sectio Caesarea) is an attempt to remove the fetus through surgery on the abdominal wall and uterus. The use of inappropriate prophylactic antibiotics will lead to infection and resistance. The purpose of this study was to determine prophylactic antibiotic use, in cesarean section patients, to know prophylactic antibiotic use in cesarean section patients in accordance with antibiotic use guidelines (PPAB) Ulin Hospital in 2017, to know prophylactic antibiotic use in cesarean section patients in accordance with Permenkes RI Number 2406 / PER / XII / 2011. This research is a non-experimental type of descriptive study retrospectively by taking medical record data of cesarean section patients at Ulin Banjarmasin Hospital in 2017 with saturated sampling method, obtained a population of 99 medical records of cesarean section with a total sample of 99 medical records. The use of prophylactic antibiotics in Ulin Banjarmasin Public Hospital is a class of third generation cephalosporins namely ceftriaxone and cefotaxime with doses of 1-2 grams / day and duration of 3-5 days. Comparison of the percentage of prophylactic antibiotic use with the guidelines for drug use in Ulin Hospital in Banjarmasin in 2017 is the name and class of 100% is appropriate and 0% is not appropriate, the dose is 100% appropriate and 0% is not appropriate, the duration of administration is 69.70% is appropriate and 30.30% is not corresponding. Comparison of the percentage of prophylactic antibiotic use with Permenkes RI Number 2406 / PER / XII / 2011 is the name and class of 0% is appropriate and 100% is not appropriate, the dose is 0% is appropriate and 100% is not appropriate, the duration of giving 0% is appropriate and 100 % it is not in accordance with.

scholarly journals Survey of Surgeons Regarding Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Inguinal Hernia Repair

2018 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. P. MacCormick ◽  
J. A. Akoh
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Site Infection ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Hernia Surgery ◽  
Trust Network ◽  
Surgical Trainees ◽  
Infected Mesh

Purpose: The use of prophylactic antibiotics in the mesh repair of inguinal hernias remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the perception of surgeons about surgical site infection and how this affects their clinical practice. Methods: A SurveyMonkey of general surgeons and senior surgical trainees was conducted via the local trust network and the questionnaire was displayed on the website of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and Association of Surgeons in Training. Results: Eighty-one responses were received from surgeons who perform an average of 75 hernia repairs per year – the majority by open technique. Thirty-six (44.4%) used routine antibiotic prophylaxis, 40 (49.4%) selectively, and five (6.2%) not at all as the five surgeons who did not use antibiotics perceived their surgical site infection rate to be <1% and have never removed an infected mesh from a hernia wound. There was no clear difference between those who use prophylactic antibiotics routinely or selectively as the experience of mesh explantation is similar (56% versus 55% had 2–10 meshes removed respectively). Seventy-seven (95%) of surgeons felt a new specific set of guidelines was required. Conclusion: This study highlights the fact that in the absence of clear guidelines, most surgeons base their use of prophylactic antibiotics on their perceived risk or experience of surgical site infection. There is a strong need for a new set of guidelines to address the use of prophylactic antibiotics in groin hernia surgery.

scholarly journals Postdischarge antibiotic use for prophylaxis following spinal fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (7) ◽  
pp. 789-798
Author(s):  
David K. Warren ◽  
Katelin B. Nickel ◽  
Jennifer H. Han ◽  
Pam Tolomeo ◽  
Christopher J. Hostler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Surgical Admission ◽  
Significant Factors

AbstractObjective:Despite recommendations to discontinue prophylactic antibiotics after incision closure or <24 hours after surgery, prophylactic antibiotics are continued after discharge by some clinicians. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence and factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use after spinal fusion.Design:Multicenter retrospective cohort study.Patients:This study included patients aged ≥18 years undergoing spinal fusion or refusion between July 2011 and June 2015 at 3 sites. Patients with an infection during the surgical admission were excluded.Methods:Prophylactic antibiotics were identified at discharge. Factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use were identified using hierarchical generalized linear models.Results:In total, 8,652 spinal fusion admissions were included. Antibiotics were prescribed at discharge in 289 admissions (3.3%). The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (22.1%), cephalexin (18.8%), and ciprofloxacin (17.1%). Adjusted for study site, significant factors associated with prophylactic discharge antibiotics included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00–1.70), lymphoma (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.11–5.98), solid tumor (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.62–8.14), morbid obesity (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.09–2.47), paralysis (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.30–4.37), hematoma/seroma (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.17–7.33), thoracic surgery (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.93), longer length of stay, and intraoperative antibiotics.Conclusions:Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were uncommon after spinal fusion. Patient and perioperative factors were associated with continuation of prophylactic antibiotics after hospital discharge.

scholarly journals Association of β-Lactam Allergy Documentation and Prophylactic Antibiotic Use in Surgery: A National Cross-Sectional Study of Hospitalized Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christie M Bertram ◽  
Michael Postelnick ◽  
Christian M Mancini ◽  
Xiaoqing Fu ◽  
Yuqing Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Site Infection ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Surgical Prophylaxis ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract Alternative antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis are associated with increased adverse events and surgical site infection compared to cefazolin. In a sample of perioperative inpatients from 100 hospitals in the United States, cefazolin was 9-fold less likely to be used in patients with a documented β-lactam allergy whereas clindamycin was 45-fold more likely.

Infection risk in endovascular neurointerventions: a comparative analysis of 549 cases with and without prophylactic antibiotic use

2020 ◽  
Vol 132 (3) ◽  
pp. 797-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Karl Burkhardt ◽  
Omar Tanweer ◽  
Miguel Litao ◽  
Pankaj Sharma ◽  
Eytan Raz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Systemic Infection ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Infection Risk ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Oral Antibiotic ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference

OBJECTIVEA systematic analysis on the utility of prophylactic antibiotics for neuroendovascular procedures has not been performed. At the authors’ institution there is a unique setup to address this question, with some attending physicians using prophylactic antibiotics (cefazolin or vancomycin) for all of their neurointerventions while others generally do not.METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective review of the last 549 neurointerventional procedures in 484 patients at Tisch Hospital, NYU Langone Medical Center. Clinical and radiological data were collected for analysis, including presence of prophylactic antibiotic use, local or systemic infection, infection laboratory values, and treatment. Overall, 306 aneurysms, 117 arteriovenous malformations/arteriovenous fistulas, 86 tumors, and 40 vessel stenosis/dissections were treated with coiling (n = 109), Pipeline embolization device (n = 197), embolization (n = 203), or stenting (n = 40).RESULTSAntibiotic prophylaxis was used in 265 of 549 cases (48%). There was no significant difference between patients with or without antibiotic prophylaxis in sex (p = 0.48), presence of multiple interventions (p = 0.67), diseases treated (p = 0.11), or intervention device placed (p = 0.55). The mean age of patients in the antibiotic prophylaxis group (53.4 years) was significantly lower than that of the patients without prophylaxis (57.1 years; p = 0.014). Two mild local groin infections (0.36%) and no systemic infections (0%) were identified in this cohort, with one case in each group (1/265 [0.38%] vs 1/284 [0.35%]). Both patients recovered completely with local drainage (n = 1) and oral antibiotic treatment (n = 1).CONCLUSIONSThe risk of infection associated with endovascular neurointerventions with or without prophylactic antibiotic use was very low in this cohort. The data suggest that the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis seems unnecessary and that to prevent antibiotic resistance and reduce costs antibiotic prophylaxis should be reserved for selected patients deemed to be at increased infection risk.

Dual Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Where Do We Stand?

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (02) ◽  
pp. 100-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus M. Villa ◽  
Tejbir S. Pannu ◽  
Aldo M. Riesgo ◽  
Preetesh D. Patel ◽  
Michael A. Mont ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Postoperative Infection ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Total Knee

AbstractThe risk of surgical site infection in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been reduced with the use of prophylactic antibiotics. First or second generation cephalosporins are still recommended as the primary prophylactic choice, but with the rise in the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, evidence has emerged in favor of using dual antibiotics including vancomycin. However, it is unclear whether these combinations of antibiotic regimens further reduce postoperative infection rates. As a result, the objective of this review is to summarize the current literature concerning the use of dual prophylactic antibiotics in TKA. The most common dual prophylactic antibiotic combination is cefazolin (C) and vancomycin (V). In general, when comparing the effectiveness of single versus dual antibiotics, conflicting results have been reported. Three studies demonstrated no substantial decrease in overall postoperative infection rates with the use of dual antibiotics when compared with cefazolin alone. One found a significant decrease only in MRSA infection rates when using cefazolin and vancomycin (CV) (0.8% C alone vs. 0.08% CV, p < 0.05). Another investigation evaluated revision TKA patients who had combined cefazolin and vancomycin prophylaxis and showed a significant decline in both overall infection (7.89% [C] vs. 3.13% [CV]) and MRSA infection rates (4.21% [C] vs. 0.89% [CV]; p < 0.05). Concerning the safety profile of dual antibiotics, particular precautions must be adopted with the use of vancomycin because of the risk of acute kidney injury. Instead of vancomycin, an alternate less nephrotoxic antibiotic option might be teicoplanin. Unfortunately, this latter agent is only available outside of the United States. In conclusion, the value of dual antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of periprosthetic knee infections remains unclear primarily because all comparative studies performed between dual and single antibiotics have been of low evidence with retrospective designs. Larger multicenter randomized controlled trials are warranted.

A Comparative Study of Single Dose and Multiple Dose Antibiotic Prophylaxis In Caesarean Section

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
Dr. Poorvi Agarwal ◽  
Dr. Harshal Nimbannavar ◽  
Dr. Prajakta Khose ◽  
Dr. Supraja Subramanian ◽  
Dr. Himadri Bal
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Caesarean Section ◽  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Multiple Dose ◽  
Prophylactic Antibiotic ◽  
Dose Schedule ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Skin Incision ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group B

Background: Rampant antibiotic use brought about its own set of problems like the rise in incidence of antibiotic resistant strains, allergies and other complications of antibiotic use. Unfortunately in many of our set ups we are still stuck in prolonged post-operative antibiotic regimes. This study aims to fill that lacunae and thereby aid our gradual shift away from over reliance on prolonged antibiotic usage in prevention of SSI. Hence we decided to investigate the efficacy of the use of a single prophylactic intravenous dose of antibiotic vis a vis multiple doses in reducing post-operative infective morbidity in caesarean sections. Methods: The study included 200 patients at term, satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, reporting to the labour room and undergoing caesarean section. The patients were then divided into two groups of 100 each by simple randomization. Patients in Group A were given a single dose of Inj. Cefotaxime 1gm IV + Inj. Metronidazole 500 mg IV infusion 30 minutes before the skin incision. Group B cases were given the first dose of Inj. cefotaxime 1g IV + Inj. metronidazole 500 mg IV 30 minutes before the skin incision followed by injectables for 2 days: Inj. cefotaxime 1g IV BD and Inj. metronidazole 500mg IV TDS. Subsequently for the next 3 days Tablet Cefixime 200mg BD and Tablet Metronidazole 400mg TDS were administered orally. Results:  The present study did not show any significant difference in the post operative infection incidence between the single dose and multiple dose schedule. Conclusion: our study makes an important observation regarding use of antibiotic prophylaxis and its duration for prevention of post operative infections in mothers without compromising any safety aspects of either the mother or the child.  As noted in our study, there was no difference in the outcome as regards post operative infectious morbidity in patients of both the groups. Hence, based on the findings of our study we conclude that single dose prophylactic antibiotic should be the norm for caesarean sections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document