Advertisement

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Redosing Reduces Surgical Site Infection Risk in Prolonged Duration Surgery Irrespective of Its Timing

  • Daniela Bertschi
  • Walter P. Weber
  • Jasmin Zeindler
  • Daniel Stekhoven
  • Robert Mechera
  • Lilian Salm
  • Marco Kralijevic
  • Savas D. Soysal
  • Marco von Strauss
  • Edin Mujagic
  • Walter R. MartiEmail author
Original Scientific Report

Abstract

Background

Long-duration surgery requires repeated administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis (amp). Amp “redosing” reduces incidence of surgical site infections (SSI) but is frequently omitted. Clinical relevance of redosing timing needs to be investigated. Here, we evaluated the effects of compliance with amp redosing and its timing on SSI incidence in prolonged duration surgery.

Methods

Data from >9000 patients undergoing visceral, trauma, or vascular surgery with elective or emergency treatment in two tertiary referral Swiss hospitals were analyzed. All patients had to receive amp preoperatively and redosing, if indicated. Antibiotics used were cefuroxime (1.5 or 3 g, if weight >80 kg), or cefuroxime and metronidazole (1.5 and 0.5 g, or 3 and 1 g doses, if weight >80 kg). Alternatively, in cases of known or suspected allergies, vancomycin (1 g), gentamicin (4 mg/Kg), and metronidazole or clindamycin (300 mg) with or without ciprofloxacin (400 mg) were used. Association of defined parameters, including wound class, ASA scores, and duration of operation, with SSI incidence was explored.

Results

In the whole cohort, SSI incidence significantly correlated with duration of surgery (ρ = 0.73, p = 0.031). In 593 patients undergoing >240 min long interventions, duration of surgery was the only parameter significantly (p < 0.001) associated with increased SSI risk, whereas wound class, ASA scores, treatment areas, and emergency versus elective hospital entry were not. Redosing significantly reduced SSI incidence as shown by multivariate analysis (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37–0.96, p = 0.034), but exact timing had no significant impact.

Conclusions

Long-duration surgery associates with higher SSI incidence. Irrespective of its exact timing, amp redosing significantly decreases SSI risk.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Hospital of Aarau, the University of Basel, the Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Hippocrate Foundation, and the Nora van Meeuwen-Häfliger Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.

Funding

This work was partially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Hospital of Aarau, the University of Basel, the Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation, the Hippocrate Foundation, and the Nora van Meeuwen-Häfliger Foundation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest to be disclosed.

Supplementary material

268_2019_5075_MOESM1_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Young PY, Khadaroo RG (2014) Surgical site infections. Surg Clin North Am 94:1245–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW et al (2017) Centers for disease control and prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection. JAMA Surg 152:784–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM et al (2013) Clinical praxis guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 70:195–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allegranzi B, Zayed B, Bischoff P et al (2016) New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis 16:e288–e303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prospero E, Barbadoro P, Marigliano A et al (2011) Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis: improved compliance and impact on infection rates. Epidemiol Infect 139:1326–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith BP, Fox N, Fakhro A et al (2012) “SCIP”ping antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in trauma: the consequences of noncompliance. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 73:452–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hohmann C, Eickhoff C, Radziwill R et al (2012) Adherence to guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery patients in German hospitals: a multicenter evaluation involving pharmacy interns. Infection 40:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Putnam LR, Chang CM, Rogers NB et al (2015) Adherence to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis remains a challenge despite multifaceted interventions. Surgery 158:413–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Knox MC, Edye M (2016) Educational antimicrobial stewardship intervention ineffective in changing surgical prophylactic antibiotic prescribing. Surg Infect 17:224–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murri R, de Belvis AG, Fantoni M et al (2016) Impact of antibiotic stewardship on perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Int J Qual Health Care 28:502–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levy SM, Phatak UR, Tsao K et al (2013) What is the quality of reporting of studies of interventions to increase compliance with antibiotic prophylaxis? J Am Coll Surg 217:770–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinberg JP, Braun BI, Hellinger WC (2009) Timing of antimicrobial prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infections: results from the trial to reduce antimicrobial prophylaxis errors. Ann Surg 250:10–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ho VP, Barie PS, Stein SL (2011) Antibiotic regimen and the timing of prophylaxis are important for reducing surgical site infection after elective abdominal colorectal surgery. Surg Infect 12:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Jonge SW, Gans SL, Atema JJ et al (2017) Timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in 54,552 patients and the risk of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96:e6903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng H, Chen BPH, Soleas IM et al (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect 18:722–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scher KS (1997) Studies on the duration of antibiotic administration for surgical prophylaxis. Am Surg 63:59–62Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ohge H, Takesue Y, Yokoyama T et al (1999) An additional dose of cefazolin for intraoperative prophylaxis. Surg Today 29:1233–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zanetti G, Giardina R, Platt R (2001) Intraoperative redosing of cefazolin and risk for surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. Emerg Infect Dis 7:828–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    James M, Martinez EA (2008) Antibiotics and perioperative infections. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 22:571–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miliani K, L’Hériteau F, Astagneau P et al (2009) Non-compliance with recommendations for the practice of antibiotic prophylaxis and risk of surgical site infection: results of a multilevel analysis from the INCISO surveillance network. J Antimicrob Chemother 64:1307–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kasatpibal N, Whitney JD, Dellinger EP et al (2017) Failure to redose antibiotic prophylaxis in long surgery increases risk of surgical site infection. Surg Infect 18:474–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goede WJ, Lovely JK, Thompson RL et al (2013) Assessment of prophylactic antibiotic use in patients with surgical site infections. Hosp Pharm 48:560–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weber WP, Marti WR, Zwahlen M et al (2008) The timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Ann Surg 247:918–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weber WP, Mujagic E, Zwahlen M et al (2017) Timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 17:605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenthal R, Weber WP, Zwahlen M et al (2009) Impact of surgical training on incidence of surgical site infection. World J Surg 33:1165–1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weber WP, Zwahlen M, Reck S et al (2009) The association of preoperative anemia and perioperative blood transfusion with the risk of surgical site infection. Transfusion 49:1964–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML et al (1999) Centers for Disease control and prevention (CDC) hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection. Am J Infection Control 27:97–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Doyle DJ, Garmon EH (2018) American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA Class). StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island, FLGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    R Core Team (2018) R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Bertschi
    • 1
  • Walter P. Weber
    • 2
  • Jasmin Zeindler
    • 2
  • Daniel Stekhoven
    • 3
  • Robert Mechera
    • 2
  • Lilian Salm
    • 4
  • Marco Kralijevic
    • 2
  • Savas D. Soysal
    • 2
  • Marco von Strauss
    • 4
  • Edin Mujagic
    • 2
  • Walter R. Marti
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Visceral SurgeryKantonsspital ChurChurSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.NEXUS Personalized Health TechnologiesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Visceral SurgeryKantonsspital AarauAarauSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations