Use and Effectiveness of Peri-Operative Cefotetan versus Cefazolin Plus Metronidazole for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection in Abdominal Surgery Patients

Background: Current practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery recommend a cephamycin or cefazolin plus metronidazole for various abdominal surgeries. In February 2016, cephamycin drug shortages resulted in a change in The Johns Hopkins Hospital's (JHH) recommendation for peri...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Surgical infections 2018-05, Vol.19 (4), p.388-396
Hauptverfasser: Danan, Eleanor, Smith, Janessa, Kruer, Rachel M., Avdic, Edina, Lipsett, Pamela, Curless, Melanie S., Jarrell, Andrew S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Current practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery recommend a cephamycin or cefazolin plus metronidazole for various abdominal surgeries. In February 2016, cephamycin drug shortages resulted in a change in The Johns Hopkins Hospital's (JHH) recommendation for peri-operative antibiotic prophylaxis in abdominal surgeries from cefotetan to cefazolin plus metronidazole. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the percentage of abdominal surgeries adherent to JHH peri-operative antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines. A sub-group analysis investigated whether prophylaxis with cefazolin plus metronidazole was associated with a lower rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) versus cefotetan. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult inpatients who underwent an abdominal surgery at JHH in September 2015 (Study Period I: cefotetan) or February to March 2016 (Study Period II: cefazolin plus metronidazole). Results: Two hundred abdominal surgery cases were included in the primary analysis. A subset of 156 surgical cases were included in the sub-group analysis. The overall adherence rate to JHH guidelines was 75% in Study Period I versus 17% in Study Period II ( p  
ISSN:1096-2964
1557-8674
DOI:10.1089/sur.2018.010