Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Acute Surgical Procedures – The Current Praxis in Czech Republic
Authors:
O. Ryska; Z. Šerclová; E. Konečná; J. Fulík; T. Kneifl; P. Dytrych; J. Marx; F. Antoš
Authors‘ workplace:
Chirurgická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice Na Bulovce, Praha
Published in:
Rozhl. Chir., 2011, roč. 90, č. 7, s. 402-407.
Category:
Monothematic special - Original
Overview
Introduction:
Surgical site infections (SSI) are currently one of the most frequent postoperative complications. Emergent surgery is generally subject to a higher risk of SSI. Antibiotic prophylaxis is one of many measures that should be taken to prevent postoperative infection. However, due to possible adverse effects it must be applied only in indicated cases. Many guidelines have been published abroad, but still missing in Czech Republic. Standard use of prophylaxis can be currently followed due to compliance with SCIP (Surgical Care Improvement Project) measurements and reflects the quality of surgical care.
Objectives:
The aim of our study was to evaluate the current clinical praxis of prophylactic antibiotic administration in Czech Republic in emergent surgery for diagnosis: acute appendicitis, small bowel obstruction and perforated gastroduodenal ulcer and evaluate the SCIP criteria adherence.
Method:
The survey was sent to 149 surgical departments. The questionnaire included 7 questions and feedback was considered to be anonymous. The compliance with 3 main SCIP measurements (INF-1, INF-2, INF-3) was evaluated by the patients with acute appendicitis as a indication for emergent surgery.
Results:
Overall, 85 (57%) completed questionnaires were received back. According to a survey results, antibiotic prophylaxis is always administered in 15% of patients operated for acute appendicitis, 27% operated for small bowel obstruction and 47% of patients with gastroduodenal perforation. No prophylaxis is given in 11 (13%) hospitals for either of the mentioned diagnoses. Antibiotics are mostly (46 %) administered at induction of general anesthesia and extended to 24 hours. The SCIP measurements adherence was as follows: INF-1 – 4.7%; INF-2 – 86 %; INF-3 – 81 % of evaluated departments. All of 3 (all-or-none) criteria were fulfilled only at 3 (3.5%) surgical departments.
Conclusion:
The clinical praxis of antibiotic prophylaxis in urgent surgical procedures in Czech Republic is highly variable and mostly ignores the current international guidelines (SCIP). There is a need of local specific guideline concerning antibiotic prophylaxis guaranteed by scientific company.
Key words:
antibiotic prophylaxis – surgical site infection – emergent surgery
Sources
1. Burke, J. P. Infection control–a problem for patient safety. N. Engl. J. Med., 2003; 348: 651–656.
2. Perencevich, E. N., Sands, K. E., Cosgrove, S. E., et al. Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 2003; 9: 196–203.
3. National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). NCBI Medline thesaurus, available from url: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=mesh
4. Burke, J. F., et al. The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery, 1961, 50: 161–168.
5. Kujath, P., Bouchard, R., Scheele, J., et al. Current perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Chirurg, 2006, Jun; 77(6):490, 492–498.
6. Goossens, H., Ferech, M., Vander Stichele, R., Elseviers, M. Outpatient antibiotic use in Europe and association with resistance: a crossnational database study. Lancet, 2005; 365(9459): 579–587.
7. Beniwal, R. S., Arena, V. C., Thomas, L., et al. A randomized trial of yogurt for prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Dig. Dis. Sci., 2003, Oct; 48(10): 2077–2082.
8. Hogenauer, C., Hammer, H. F., Krejs, G. J., et al. Mechanism and management of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Clin. Infect. Dis., 1998, 27: 702–710.
9. Carignan, A., Allard, C., Pépin, J., Cossette, B., Nault, V., Valiquette, L. Risk of Clostridium difficile infection after perioperative antibacterial prophylaxis before and during an outbreak of infection due to a hypervirulent strain. Clin. Infect. Dis., 2008, Jun 15; 46(12): 1838–1843.
10. Bratzler, D. W., Houck, P. M. Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroup, et al: Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: An advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin. Infect. Dis., 2004; 38: 1706–1715.
11. Cruse, P. J., Foord, R., et al. The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg. Clin. North Am., 1980, 60: 27–40.
12. SŅrensen, L. T., Hemmingsen, U., Kallehave, F., et al. Risk factors for tissue and wound complications in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann. Surg., 2005 Apr; 241 (4): 654–658.
13. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. A national clinical guideline. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, www.sign.ac.uk, 2008.
14. Bratzler, D. W., Houck, P. M., et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am. J. Surg., 2005 Apr; 189 (4): 395–404.
15. Andersen, B. R., Kallehave, F. L., Andersen, H. K. Antibiotics versus placebo for prevention of postoperative infection after appendicectomy. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2005 Jul 20; (3): CD001439.
16. Dellinger, E. P., Gross, P. A., Barrett, T. L., et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect. Dis., 1994; 18 (3): 422–427.
17. de Vries, E. N., Prins, H. A., Crolla, R. M., den Outer, A. J., van Andel, G., van Helden, S. H., Schlack, W. S., van Putten, M. A., Gouma, D. J., Dijkgraaf, M. G., Smorenburg, S. M., Boermeester, M. A.; SURPASS Collaborative Group Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N. Engl. J. Med., 2010 Nov, 11; 363 (20): 1928–1937.
18. de Vries, E. N., Hollmann, M. W., Smorenburg, S. M., Gouma, D. J., Boermeester, M. A. Development and validation of the SURgical PAtient Safety System (SURPASS) checklist. Qual. Saf. Health Care, 2009 Apr;18 (2): 121–126.
19. Bratzler, D. W., Hunt, D. R. The surgical infection prevention and surgical care improvement projects: national initiatives to improve outcomes for patients having surgery. Clin. Infect. Dis., 2006; 43(3): 322–330.
20. Hall, M. C. Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) Module 1: Infection Prevention.
http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/531895.
21. Stulberg, J. J., Delaney, C. P., Neuhauser, D. V., Aron, D. C., Fu, P., Koroukian, S. M. Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and the association with postoperative infections. JAMA, 2010 Jun, 23; 303 (24): 2479–2485.
22. Berenguer, C. M., Ochsner, M. G. Jr., Lord, S. A., et al. Improving surgical site infections: using National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to institute Surgical Care Improvement Project protocols in improving surgical outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Surg., 2010 May; 210 (5): 737–743.
23. Meeks, D. W., Lally, K. P., Carrick, M. M., et al. Compliance with guidelines to prevent surgical site infections: As simple as 1-2-3? Am. J. Surg., 2010, Jun 21.
Labels
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryArticle was published in
Perspectives in Surgery
2011 Issue 7
Most read in this issue
- Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Acute Surgical Procedures – The Current Praxis in Czech Republic
- Arthritis Sternoclavicularis as a Cause of Mediastinitis
- Surgical Management of Perforations during Colonoscopy
- 750 Satisfied Patients? Stapled Haemorrhoidopexy (Longo Procedure) for the Treatment of Haemorrhoids and Anal Canal Prolapse: A Review of our 10-year Experience