Site Loader

Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is really complex and critical.Complex because a batch of elements are responsible for its success. Critical because if non applied suitably it can take to infection that may take to sepsis, organ failure and decease. Administration of antibiotic prior to surgery to forestall post-surgical site infection is known as surgical antibiotic ( antimicrobic ) prophylaxis. To to the full understand the construct of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis, I have outlined the rules related to surgical site infection, its prevalence, pathophysiology and hazard factors to give an overview of the subject.

1.1 Difference between infection and surgical site infection

The onslaught of organic structure tissues by microorganisms can do assorted types of diseases ; such a procedure is described as infection. Infection can besides include secernment of toxin of different types of microorganism in their host ‘s tissues or even the procedure by which these micro-organisms differentiate and multiply inside their hosts. Infection can be caused by different types of micro-organism, runing from parasites, Fungis, bacteriums to viruses and can be classified in different ways.One of most common ways used to sort infections are infection continuance. Those short continuance infection or short term infections are called Acute Infection. On the other manus, those with longer continuance are called Chronic Infections.

Surgical site infection is a type of wellness attention associated infection in which a lesion infections occur after an invasive “ surgical “ process. ( Gibbons, et al. , 2011 )

1.2 Surgical infection history

The sawboness seldom operated boulder clay 1860 ‘s, as surgical site infection was complicated and so unsafe. Erichsen, from University College Hospital in London coined the phrase ‘hospitalism ‘ for what we now call healthcare-associated infection ‘ . Erichsen, the caput sawbones at University College Hospital in London produced a ‘hard striking ‘ book that first described the job in 1874. ( Newsom, 2008 )

Between 1870 and 1873 – 36 % of those holding major amputations died ( In four major London Hospitals this was 38 % .Such statistics were awful. Figures collected from ‘all the great centres of civilisation ‘ ( England, France, Germany, America ) for amputations in the largest infirmaries to be operated by adept sawboness showed a 30 – 50 % decease rate after major amputations. In fact it was safer to be operated on at place, than in infirmary. ( Newsom, 2008 )

In 1867, Lister, the celebrated English sawbones who was foremost one to utilize antiseptic substance during surgical operation, placed carbolic acid into unfastened breaks to sterilise the lesion and to forestall sepsis and hence the demand for amputation. In 1871, Lister began to utilize carbolic spray in the operating room to cut down taint. The technique of spraying the air in the operating room with carbolic acid was used merely briefly, as it was recognized that sources in the air were non the chief job. Lister perfected the inside informations of the antiseptic method and continued his research. He developed the surgical usage of a unfertile ( germ-free ) yarn for shuting lesions and introduced gauze dressings. Antisepsis became a basic rule for the development of surgery. Amputations became less frequent, as did decease from infections. ( Medscape, 2012 )

World War I ( WWI ) resulted in new types of lesions from high-speed slug and shrapnel hurts coupled with taint by the clay from the trenches. Such fortunes made surgical site infection more complicated.

2-Pathophysiology of surgical site infection: –

Although immense progresss in antiseptic steps, antibiotics and preoperative safeguards, surgical site infection still accounts for high morbidity and mortality.

One of the best manner to diminish the rate of surgical site infection ( SSI ) and obtaining the most desirable surgical results is distributing the cognition and apprehension of pathophysiology among involved wellness attention professionals ( sawboness, nurses, anesthesia forces, runing room staff, etc.. ) .

There are multiples of synergistic tracts that lead to specific responses which at the terminal battle against the development of the infection. All these were clearly explained by Charles Brunicardi and his co-workers. ( Brunicardi, et al.,2005 )

2.1 Primary Pathway ( Immuno-inflammatory ) :

Immune system consists of web of cells that battles against occupying pathogens. Immune system response can be subdivided into natural unsusceptibility ( through cells that circulate in blood vass or lymph ) or specific unsusceptibility.Leukocytes ( white blood cells ) , that can be farther classified into ( basophils, eosinophils, neutrophils, macrophages ) constitutes the primary defence line that quickly migrates to infection site, steeping ( by macrophages ) the occupying pathogen in a procedure called phagocytosis.On the other manus, the natural slayer cells ( NKL ) and cytokines ( Interleukin1, Interleukin 6, tumour mortification factor alpha ) are the constituents of specific unsusceptibility.Those cells can assail the abnormally spliting cells ( malignant neoplastic disease cells ) or virus without any anterior sensitisation.

The inflammatory tract is so activated after the migration of scavenger cells to occupying pathogen via let go ofing more chemical couriers ( cytokines, NKL ) to alarm all other heavy mechanisms. ( Brunicardi, et al.,2005 )

2.2 Neuro-Endocrine Nerve pathway:

Once the chief uninterrupted barrier is violated through surgical scratch ( stress factor ) lead to activation of sympathetic nervous system ( Neuro pathway ) , that lead to let go of of endogenous neurotransmitters ( epinephrine & A ; nor-adrenaline ) which bind to adrenergic receptors ( alpha 1 ) taking to vasoconstriction, therefore restricting blood supply to injury site to forestall the spread of occupying pathogen through circulation.

Again such emphasis factor, lead to activation of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system ( HPA ) .Hypothalamus ( portion of the encephalon with extremely specialised cells of of import maps ) start to release adrenocorticotropic hormone factor into circulation ( CRF ) .Corticotropin factor stimulates pituitary secretory organ to let go of adrenocorticotropic endocrine ( ACTH ) , so ACTH send signals to adrenal secretory organ to let go of glucocorticoid endocrine. After series of metamorphosis glucocorticoid is converted to cortisol that acts to cut down the immune system response and stamp down the redness ( negative feedback suppression procedure ) .

The equilibrium between those two tracts ( immune-inflammatory & amp ; neuro-endocrine ) help the organic structure to chief province of homeostasis ( stableness ) one time the invading pathogen violates the normal physiological barriers of the human organic structure. ( Brunicardi, et al.,2005 )

3- Incidence and prevalence:

Surgical site infection is the 2nd most common type of wellness attention associated infection. ( Wenzel,2007 ) .Surgical site infections ( SSIs ) are non an nonextant entity ; they account for 14-16 % of the estimated 2 million nosocomial infections impacting hospitalized patients in the United States. ( Medscape 2012 ) Surgical site infections have been shown to compose up to 20 % of all of healthcare-associated infections. At least 5 % of patients undergoing a surgical process develop a surgical site infection. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Guidelines CG 74 ( NICE CG74 )

About 15 million surgical processs are yearly performed in United States, about 300,000 to 500,000 SSI occur each twelvemonth. ( Cruse, 1981 )

4-Morbidity and mortality of surgical site infection

Surgical Site infection can incur more suffer to the patient, protraction of lesion mending procedure, drawn-out hospitalization, prolonged antibiotic usage and absence from work. ( Gagliardi, et al.,2009 ) .Kirkland and his co-workers have quantified such morbidity that can be incurred by surgical site infection. They proved that patients who develop surgical site infection holding 60 % more chance to remain in intensive attention unit than those who do n’t develop SSI.Also, those patients who develop surgical site infection holding 5 times higher opportunity to be readmitted to the infirmary due to SSI complication. Death opportunity is doubled in patient who develops surgical site infection compared to those who do n’t. ( Kirkland, et al. , 1999 )

5-Bacteria most normally involved in SSI: –

One of most common microorganisms that are involved in SSI is Staphylococcus aureus, infirmary studies to CDC shows that 20 % of SSI is caused by Staphylococcus aureus. ( Table 1 ) ( Wenzel,2007 ) .On the other manus, about 37 % of SSI that occur in community infirmaries are caused by staphylococci aureus. ( Deverick, 2011 ) . Recently, methicillin-resistant staphylococci aureus ( MRSA ) became common pathogen in many third attention infirmaries, academic establishments and community infirmaries.

( Deverick, 2011 ) .

Table 1

The 10 most common types of pathogens that are responsible for SSIs in infirmaries that have been describing to CDC

Causative Pathogen

1-S aureus

2-Coagulase-negative staphylococcus

3-Enterococci

4-Pseudomonas aeruginosa

5-Escherichia coli

6-Enterobacter species

7-Proteus Mirabilis

8-Streptococci

9-Klebsiella pneumonia

10-Candida albicans

Above table represents the consequences of National Nosocomial Infection Survelliance ( NINS ) concluding study that was published on May 1996 in the American Journal of Infection Control.

6-When surgical site infection can happen: –

All types of surgical site infection ( SSI ) can happen within 30 yearss post-surgery if no implant was placed, but those surgeries which involve implants or joint replacings can demo surgical complication ( SSI ) within one twelvemonth and still infection is related to scratch. Implant is defined by National Healthcare Surveillance Network ( NHSN ) as a nonhuman -derived implantable foreign organic structure ( antique: prosthetic bosom valve, nonhuman vascular transplant, mechanical joint prosthetic device ) which is for good placed for a patient to ease or reconstruct the impaired map. Most surgical site infection without implants can develop within 21 yearss post-surgery. ( Sands, et al. , 1996 )

7-How pathogens overcome host defence mechanisms: –

Most of normally involved SSI pathogens have intrinsic virulency factors that lead to their ability to do infection. Many Gram-positive orgnanisms, including staphylococci auerus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, and Enterococcus faecalis, possess microbic surface constituents acknowledging adhesive matrix molecules that allow better adhesion to host proteins like collagen, fibrin, and other extracellular matrix proteins. ( Liu, et al. , 2004 )

In add-on to the above, most of these pathogens have the ability to bring forth really thin biofilm that protect such pathogens from both the host immune system and many antibiotics. ( Christensen, et Al, 1987 )

Exotoxins ; are bacterial toxins that are secreted to destruct the tissues of the host, can besides take to increasing the virulency of the occupying pathogen such as, Staphylococci and Streptococci. ( Mills, et al.1984 ) .On the other side, Gram-negative beings produce endotoxins that stimulate cytokine production and systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the host. ( Morrison, et al1987 ) .Other intrinsic factors that may lend to virulency are polysaccharide capsule or other surface constituents that to boot inhibit phagocytosis ( Kasper, 1987 )

8-Hazard of intraoperative microorganism taint: –

Despite legion factors that contribute to the hazard of surgical site infection, the answerability of measure of pathogens polluting surgical lesion intraoperative remains one of the most constituted hazard factors. The addition in grade of surgical lesion taint, the higher the jeopardy for infection. If appropriate steps are taken into consideration, such as antimicrobic prophylaxis, wound taint with with greater than 105 is required to do surgical site infection. ( Houang, et al.,1991 )

Even though, bacterial inoculant that will do surgical site infection may be much lower when foreign stuff is placed. ( James, et Al, 1961 ) Procedures that requires utilizing surgical suturas lessening required inoculant for staphylococci auerus by two-thirds ( from 106 to 102 being ) . ( Elek, et al 1957 )

9-How surgical site infection can happen: –

The possibility of surgical site infection happening depends on many factors. First one is micro-organisms features ( e.g. : grade of taint, virulency of pathogen ) , another factor can lend to infection is type of surgery ( e.g. : it involves foreign stuff arrangement, ) , in add-on to that, immune position of the patient has great function in SSI development, as those with compromised immune system such as HIV patients or diabetics have higher hazard of SSI compared with those who have integral immune position.

Types through which surgical site can acquire contaminated: –

Patient ‘s vegetation related ( In vivo ) taint: –

The maximal hazard of infection can happen during the continuance of clip between surgical lesion scratch and closing ( Wong, 2004 ) , while surgical lesion is unfastened. Almost 20 per centum normal bacterial tegument vegetation nowadayss in skin creases, like hair follicles, perspiration secretory organs, and greasy secretory organs. ( Tuazon, 1984 )

Advanced asepsis processs before and during surgery can assist to diminish but ne’er guarantee acquiring rid of the taint of surgical site by endogenous skin vegetation of surgical patient. Because of that, Gram-positive coccus bacteriums from patient ‘s normal vegetations at or near site of surgery still the major cause of surgical site infection. ( Altemeier, et al. , 1968 )

Sometimes, bacterial taint of the surgical site by natural vegetations from distant site of the patient can go on seldom ( e.g. : caput, ) , post-surgical infection of the surgical site secondary to remote beginning of infection is so rare cause of surgical site infection ( ex: in rare occasions Streptococcus pneumonia in patients with infirmary acquired pneumonia can take to surgical site infection. ) ( Edwards, 1976 )

External environment related taint

Surgical site infections can be caused by external polluting beginning occasionally.it can go on either because non-sterile operating theater environment, septic surgical staff, or non-sterile surgical equipment. SSI that develops due to external beginning does n’t happen often, but a batch of exogenic SSI epidemics have been identified. ( Berkelman, et al.,1982 ) .

As pre-and perioperative asepsis steps have been advanced, most of surgical site infection are non developed due to external beginnings. Rarely some environmental pathogens are implicated in surgical site infection in the operating theater.Rhodococcus species, was the chief cause in an explosion of SSI after coronary arteria beltway transplant surgery due to colonisation of an operating theater staff by her Canis familiaris. ( Richet, et al.,1991 ) . In another good documented event by Lowry and his co-workers, tap H2O was contaminated with Legionella species, which resulted in prosthetic valves surgical infection. ( Lowry, et al.1991 ) .

10-Risk factors that addition possibilities of surgical site infection development:

Many of the patients undergoing surgical process suffer from other comorbidities that may ensue in suppression of their unsusceptibility taking to higher hazard of surgical infection.

Controling different chronic medical conditions ( ex: diabetes mellitus ) patients suffer from anterior to surgery will diminish rate of surgical site infection.Actually risk factors can be categorized into 3 categories:

Class 1: Host related hazard factors

These hazard factors are either obligatory hazard factor, that ca n’t be modified such as age of the patient.Age of patient is straight relative to hazard of surgical site infection development. Many clinical tests correlated the age with SSI.One experimental test that was conducted among 142 infirmaries defined the age as independent hazard factor for surgical site infection.Out of 163624 patients who participated in the test, 7035 patients were found to hold SSI within one month of the surgery. Patients aged 40 and supra have statistically important higher hazard of infection than those below age of 40 old ages ( OR 1.24 ) [ Surgical site infection, NICE guidelines.October 2008 ]

Non-obligatory hazard factors that can be controlled are so of import in cut downing rate of surgical infection. Prolonged hospitalization prior to surgery, increases the opportunity of the patient to develop nosocomial infection, decreases the unsusceptibility, hence addition rate of surgical infection. ( Wong, 2004 ) .

Diabetess mellitus is considered to be one of most of import factors that should be controlled prior to surgery. High blood glucose prior to surgery serves as an optimal media for growing of bacteriums and infection particularly at scratch site. Chronic diabetic patients may besides hold suppressed immune system. In National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System where 84691 patients were involved, they concluded that, diabetic patients holding two to three creases addition in possibility of developing SSI ( Culver, et al. , 1991 ) .

Cigarette smoke has been shown to increase hazard of development surgical site infection. Smoking surcease is compulsory prior to surgery and supplying equal surcease advice is of import post-surgery. Carbon monoxide and nicotine have vasoconstrictive consequence on blood vass that lead to diminish in tissue oxygenation. A retrospective experimental test involved 3008 patients who underwent cardiac surgery, found that tobacco users have important more hazard of sternal SSI ( OR 1.39 ) ( Ridderstolpe, 2001 ) .Patient medicine before surgery may hold function in development of surgical site infection. Medicine that alter unsusceptibility such as corticoids and immunosuppressant drugs are the most concerned.

Class 2: Procedure related hazard factors

Complex processs that last for longer continuances ( Cardiac surgeries and entire hip replacing ) have higher opportunity to develop infections.

Procedures that fail to keep equal oxygenation so patient suffers from hypoxia still holding higher SSI rates.

Surgeries where patient temperature so they can endure hypothermia and pH alterations, that may be besides good media for bacterial growing and development of SSI.

Operation theater system should form and accurately specify the all standards that may forestall SSI, such as figure of people inside the operation room, antiseptic technique, patient oxygenation and airing monitoring,

Class3: Wound attention related hazard

Wound degree of hazard was classified by National Academy of scientific discipline into 4 degrees, runing from clean, clean-contaminated, and contaminated to soil.

The relation between wound category and SSI was studied in one retrospective analysis for big infection surveillance, they found dirty lesion will hold higher SSI compare to clean lesions rate per 100 operation was ( 2.1 vs. 7.1 ) for clean and dirty processs severally. ( Culver, et al.,1991 )

Besides techniques used for lesion closing after surgery should be unfertile.wounds should be covered with unfertile dressing for 24-48 hours.Dressing should be changed if the lesion is seeping excessively much.

Post-operative blood transfusion can take to increase in hazard of surgical site infection.

One survey demonstrated that transfusion of even individual unit of blood can be associated with increased infection. ( Hill, et al.,2003 ) .

11-Surgical Site Infection categorization: –

Incisional SSI: It is subdivided into either superficial SSI which involve merely the tegument or hypodermic tissues of the scratch, or deep SSI, that involve deeper bed like facia or musculuss. ( Anderson,2011 )

Organ/space SSI: It includes infections in a tissue deep to fascia that was opened or manipulated during the operation.

12-Antibiotic usage history

a-The antediluvian Egyptians were foremost to utilize casts to dress lesions.

b- in 1847 Ignaz Semmelweis used chlorine manus wash.

c- in 1864 Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of the disease

d- in 1867 Joseph Lister adopted asepsis rules to the pattern of surgery and noticed the presence of casts in urine inhibited bacterial growing.

e- in 1881 Paul Vuillemin used the term antibiosis.

f- in 1890 Rudolf Emmeric and Oscar low discovered “ pyocyanase “ the first antibiotic, but it did n’t work frequently.

g- in 1928 Alexander Felming discovered penicillinum notatum ability to suppress staphylococcus auerus.

H-in 1935 Gerhard Domagk discovered “ prontasil ” the first sulfa drug used.

I-in 1942 Howard Florey and Ernist Chain discovered penicillin.

K-in 1943 the first aminoglycoside antibiotic was released and called streptomycin.

L-in 1955 the Tetracycline was discovered

M-in 1957 Nystatin fungicide was discovered.

N-in 1961 John Burke introduced the construct of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery when bing tegument lesions.

13-Other state of affairss disinfectants are used in prophylaxis other than surgery

Normally antimicrobic prophylaxis are used in many different topographic points to forestall a batch of infections and, hence its usage is restricted to the bar of infections that are rare, but carry a high mortality or those that are common, but non fatal ( Stone et al.,1979 ) .Antibiotic prophylaxis used in other state of affairss like bar of perennial arthritic febrility with uninterrupted penicillin injections, malignant neoplastic disease patients who develop neutropenia undergoing bone marrow graft, and sulfonamide in bar of bacterial meningitis.

14-Surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis definition

It is the disposal of antibiotic ( antimicrobic ) one to two hours prior to surgical scratch to forestall post-operative infection or complication.

15-Aim of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis: –

Approximately half million surgical site infection occurs each twelvemonth merely in United States each twelvemonth ( Wenzel, 1992 ) . Patients who develop surgical site infection are five times more likely to be readmitted to hospital due to infection or its complication ( Kirkland, infection complication than those who did n’t develop surgical site infection. In add-on to that patients who develop surgical site infection will hold higher chance to pass more clip in intensive attention unit than those who did n’t develop surgical site infection.

The effects of infection besides causes a batch of job for patient due to trouble, redness, delayed lesion healing, drawn-out hospitalization, clip lost from work and sometimes failure of prosthetic device and decease.

Economically, attention for patients with surgical site infection is much higher than those who did n’t develop surgical site infection.in USA, it is estimated that surgical site infection will be US $ 5155 compared to US $ 1733 in patients who did n’t develop surgical site infection. ( Perencevich,2003 )

So antimicrobic prophylaxis became criterions of perioperative attention for surgical patients among most of establishments and infirmaries worldwide to forestall surgical site infection and its complications, to better lesion healings, to shorten hospitalization, to diminish patient ‘s hurting and suffer.

16-Advantages of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis: –

1-Decrease rate of surgical site infection and its complication.

2-Decrease length of hospitalization

3-Decrease the overall cost of attention that will be directed to handle surgical site infection or even the implant of another prosthetic devise due to infection of old prosthetic device.

4-Decrease patient hurting and suffer.

5-Avoid other type of infection like pneumonia, endocarditis, sepsis, endocarditis or urine infection in surgical patients particularly those with comorbidities or have been on ventilator or tracheotomy. ( Arozullah A, 2001 )

17-Indications for surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

A system that classify different types of processs harmonizing to their possible hazard for doing infection or even its complication has improved the survey of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis.This categorization system divide processs into:

A-Clean

B-Clean-contaminated

C-Contaminated

D-Dirty

By and large approved indicant for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis are contaminated and clean-contaminated surgery.On the other manus, clean surgery seldom use antimicrobic prophylaxis unless it includes interpolation of an unreal device or prosthetic stuff particularly when patients have suppressed immune system, or in patients whom effect of infection is normally really serious like neurosurgery ( ex: craniotomy ) , unfastened bosom surgery, and ophthalmic surgery. ( Howar JM, 1964 )

18-Principals of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

For antibiotic to be given prior to surgery to forestall postoperative infection, a batch of rules should be sought and followed.first rule is to look into if the surgery truly necessitate prophylaxis and that such pattern is grounds based.

Second rule, is to find precisely the pathogen that will be most likely involved in post-operative infection, this can be done through revising the local infirmary surveillance informations and antibiotic bio gm.

Third rule, to choose the appropriate antibiotic that will aim the antecedently defined pathogen.Never usage antibiotics with broad spectrum of activities.

Forth rule, which considered is the most of import, is to administrate the right dosage of antibiotic at right clip “ 60 proceedingss before scratch “

Fifth one is to avoid utilizing surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis to get the better of hapless surgical technique.

Last rule, to revise and reexamine antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines as both cost and infirmary oppositions patterns alteration over clip.

18.1 Timing of antimicrobic prophylaxis:

The chief end of antimicrobic prophylaxis is to accomplish serum and tissues drug concentrations that exceed minimal repressive concentration for the likely pathogen to do infection during the whole operation. Nine old ages ago ( in January 2003 ) Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup ( SIPGWW ) to reexamine current guidelines of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis, aid to better them and make consensus among issues of contentions.

Bratzler and Houck in 2004 published the consensus places of SIPGWW and it includes that: “ extract of the i¬?rst antimicrobic dosage should get down within 60 min before surgical scratch and that contraceptive disinfectants should be discontinued within 24 H after the terminal of surgery ” .

It is established long clip ago, since 1961 when Burke found that he could n’t acknowledge experimental scratch contaminated staphylococcus auerus from those had non been contaminated with microorganisms when the antibiotic is administered within 3 hours of bacterial vaccination to experimental scratch. ( BURKE, 1961 ) .

Besides Stone et al,1976 proved that surgical site infection rate is the lowest when antibiotic is administered 1 hr before scratch during assorted type of operations including GI, bilious and colon. ( Stone, et al.1976 )

A batch of clinical tests have been conducted to bespeak importance of these rules to ease success of surgeries without postoperative complications. Steinberg and his co-workers conducted randomised prospective test among 4472 patients who underwent different operations, cardiac, hip/knee, arthroplasty and hysterectomy instances.

His chief aim was to find optimum clip for surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis disposal associated with hazard of surgical site infection. ( Steinberg, et al. , 2009 )

The chief observation of his work, he found that rate of surgical site infection is straight relative to interval of clip between the antibiotic extract and scratch ( overall association between timing and infection hazard P = 0.04 ) . Table ( 2 ) shows the relationship between surgical site infection and timing of antimicrobic disposal before scratch.

Table 2 the correlativity between timing of disposal of antibiotic and SSI

Hazard of infection

Relative Hazard

“ Phosphorus ” value

Timing of antibiotic before scratch

No administered OR given more than 120 proceedingss before scratch.

4.7 %

2.54

0.07

61-120 min before scratch

2.4 %

1.49

0.26

31- 60 min before scratch

2.4 %

1.48

0.13

0 – 30 min before scratch

1.6 %

Reference value

1 – 30 min after scratch

4 %

2.44

0.09

& gt ; 31 min after scratch

6.8 %

4.12

0.002

Table 2 Beginning: ( Steinberg, J.P. , Annals of SurgeryA 2009 ; 250: 10-16 )

Beginning: ( Stienberg, J.P. , Annals of SurgeryA 2009 ; 250: 10-16 )

So he concluded that there is consistent relationship between timing of antimicrobic prophylaxis and surgical site infection hazard with a tendency of lowest hazard of such infection when disinfectant is injected within 30 proceedingss prior to scratch.

Kasteren and et Al, have demonstrated that immense impact of delayed antimicrobic prophylaxis after surgery following entire hep arthroplasty.. Among 1922 patients who underwent elected entire hip arthroplasty in 11 infirmaries that participated in the Dutch intercession undertaking, Surgical Prophylaxis and Surveillance, SSIs ( superi¬?cial and deep ) occurred in 50 patients ( 2.6 % ) . The highest odds ratios for SSI were found in patients who received prophylaxis after scratch.

So timing of antimicrobic disposal is so critical factor in forestalling surgical site infection and such importance facilitated its usage as quality index for sawboness to forestall surgical site infection. Even though, there is no rigorous regulations in topographic point to assist such rule to be monitored closely and document exact timing of disposal, as physicians can easy administrate antibiotic 5 proceedingss before scratch to avoid any legal duties, but still such close disposal may non guarantee equal tissue and serum degrees at the clip of flora misdemeanor.

18.2 Duration of surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

A batch of research have been conducted in this country to optimise surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis.Longer continuance of antibiotic prophylaxis non merely associated with really high cost, but it can take to development of virulent and immune strains of bacteriums. The pattern of go oning antibiotic prophylaxis while surgical drains are unmoved is of unproved benefit. Most surveies comparing single-dose prophylaxis with multiple-dose prophylaxis have non shown benefit of extra doses. ( McDonald,1998 )

Most of published guidelines clearly recommends that surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis should be discontinued after wound closing, and many surveies that compare individual dose prophylaxis versus multiple doses failed to demo any benefits with multiple doses ( Harbarth, 2000 ) .The understanding of of the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project ( NSIPP ) , stand foring more than 12 nursing and surgical societies, is that prophylaxis should non widen beyond 24 hours after wound closing. ( Bratzler, 2004 )

Cardiac surgery are the lone surgery that have been proven that 48-72 hours surgical antibiotic prophylaxis is important to optimise prophylaxis and prevent post-operative infections. American society of health- system druggists ( ASHP ) advise go oning antimicrobic prophylaxis for cardiac surgeries up to 72 hours after the operation. ( ASHP guidelines on antimicrobic prophylaxis,1999 ) .

Tamayo and his co-workers have performed research late in 2008 comparing the individual dosage versus multiple doses in patients undergoing elected coronary beltway grafting, valve operations or both. The survey was good conducted randomized double blinded and included 838 patients who underwent cardiac surgery in Valladolid university infirmary in Spain. The chief end of the survey to compare individual dosage of cefazolin ( 2 gram. ) versus multiple doses of cefazolin ( lading dosage which is 2 gram. followed by 1 gram. every 8 hr. ) through sensing of surgical site infection during 12 months follow up period. A sum of 419 patients received single-dose cefazolin, andA another 419 received the 24-hour intervention. Surgical site infectionA occurred in 35 ( 8.3 % ) patients having individual doses and 15A ( 3.6 % ) patients administered the 24-hour intervention ( PA = .004 ) . Such consequences were in favour of the recommendation of ASHP that cardiac surgery patients need more than 24 hr surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.

Many other societies still recommend usage of surgical antibiotic for upper limit of 24 hour. like American The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons has besides issued such a statement, explicitly saying that grounds does non back up go oning contraceptive antibiotics until all drains or catheters are removed.

18.3 Dose of Antibiotic in surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

The dosage of antibiotic should be adequate to let equal tissue and blood concentration above the MIC ( minimal inhibitory concentration ) of the likely pathogen to do surgical site infection. Dose should be calculated on the footing of organic structure weight, adjusted organic structure weight or organic structure mass index ( used for corpulent patients when their existent organic structure weight is 30 % more than ideal organic structure weight ) .

Normally a individual criterion curative doses of antibiotic is sufficient for prophylaxis under most fortunes. ( Gestural 104, JULY 2008 )

Remaking ( 2nd dosage ) of antibiotic is recommended in long continuance surgeries, re-adminstration is advised one to two times the half life of the antibiotic with same dosage used ab initio. Merely in certain fortunes where there is terrible injury or gross taint widening prophylaxis from 24-48 hour is good. ( Dellinger,1991 ) .

18.4 Choice of Antibiotic in surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

Antibiotic supposed to be used for surgical prophylaxis, should aim the most likely pathogen ( known from hospital anti-biogram ) that will do post-surgical site infection.Wide spectrum antibiotics should n’t be used in prophylaxis and better to be reserved for terrible infections. ( Anon. ,2009 ) .

The pick of antibiotic depends on multiple of factors: –

1-Should lucifer the infirmary anti-bio gm ( Haley, et al. , 1981 ) and current recommendation in literature.

2-Should have the least side effects.

3-Should mark suspected pathogen and non all pathogen nowadayss in the vegetation.

4-if two antibiotics are similar in the above standards, so pick should prefer least expensive.

5-History of patient allergic reaction to certain antibiotic ( antique: penicillin or Mefoxin )

Antibiotic prophylaxis is strongly recommended for all clean-contaminated surgeries, and in certain clean surgeries in which surgical site infection and its complication would ensue in ruinous results for the patient. ( Antique: patients undergoing entire joint replacings ) ( Bratzler, 2005 ) .In surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis, the chosen antibiotic should cover most likely pathogen to do infection. Most of surgical site infection occurs due to misdemeanor of patient ‘s ain vegetation. Prophylaxis does n’t necessitate to cover all bacterial types bing in patient ‘s vegetation, as some species are non-pathogenic, or low in Numberss or both. ( Munckhof, 2005 ) .

In dirty or contaminated surgical processs ( ex: rupture saddle sore vesica ) the patients do n’t necessitate any prophylaxis because they are already having antibiotic for intervention of bing infection or sepsis. ( Anon. , 2009 )

Cephalosporin are the most common used antibiotics for surgical prophylaxis against surgical site infection. One ground that makes them popular in surgical prophylaxis is their activity against most common tegument beings like staphylococci and streptococcic species usually found on tegument.In some surgeries where anaerobiotic bacteriums can be found, antibiotic combination may be recommended. ( Anon,2009 ) .Table 3 nowadayss recommendations of prophylaxis based on type of surgery.

Table 3

Antibiotic Prophylaxes to Prevent Surgical Site Infections

Surgery

Common pathogens

Recommended antimicrobials*

Cardiothoracic

Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococcus

Cefazolin, Ceftin Na ( Zinacef ) , or Vancocin

Gastrointestinal

Enteric Gram-negative bacteriums, anaerobes, enterococci

Cefoxitin ( Mefoxin ) , cefotetan ( Cefotan ) , ampicillin/sulbactam ( Unasyn ) , or cefazolin plus Flagyl

Gynecologic ( vaginal, abdominal, or laparoscopic hysterectomy )

Enteric Gram-negative bacteriums, group B streptococcus, enterococci, anaerobes

Cefoxitin, cefotetan, cefazolin, or ampicillin/sulbactam

Orthopedic

S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococcus

Cefazolin, Ceftin Na, or Vancocin

Vascular

S. aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococcus, enteral Gram-negative B

Cefazolin or Vancocin

*-Antibiotics are given intravenously within one hr before surgery, except for Vancocin or fluoroquinolones ( extract should get down one to two hours before scratch ) .

Beginning ( Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery2009.Treatment Guidelines from The Medical Letter, 7 ( 82 ) , pp. 47-52 )

18.4.1 Screening of B-Lactam allergic reaction

Although many patients have penicillin allergy documented in their medical files. The symptoms or fortunes associated with that allergic reaction are seldom doctumented.Alot of surveies have showed that incidence of “ true “ drug allergic reaction is lower than that recorded in patient ‘s medical records. ( Hung, 1994 )

Because B-lactam antibiotics are normally used for prophylaxis, the medical history of patients should be accurate to find if patient had true allergic reaction ( Urticaria, atrophedema, pruritis, bronchospasm, hypotension or arrhythmia ) or non.

Sometimes some inauspicious reactions can happen with any type of antibiotics ( ex: drug febrility, drug-induced hypersensitivity reactions, toxic cuticular necrolysis ) ( Robinson,2002 ) .

In patients who are allergic to cephalosporin, they should n’t be given penicillin as surgical prophylaxis as there is cross-sensitivity between penicillin and Mefoxin ( about 10 % ) .So supplying accurate and full patient ‘s history of allergic reaction is so of import in prophylaxis to forestall post-operative infection,

18.4.2 Alternate disinfectant in instance of B-lactams allergic reaction

In surgeries where prophylaxis is directed at gram positive coccus, such as orthopaedic surgeries affecting entire joint replacing, vascular, cardiothoracic and neurosurgical operations with implants ( Intra Cranial Pressure device ) , an option to cephalosporin for patients with documented allergic reaction to Mefoxins are clindamycin or vancomycin.The determination to utilize either Vancocin or clindamycin depends on hospital anti-biogram, local antimicrobic opposition forms and local incidence of infections caused by beings such as Clostridium difficile and Staphylococcus cuticle.

18.4.3 Vancomycin usage in surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis

Over the past 20 old ages, the pattern of utilizing antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis has improved significantly, with such antimicrobic agents accounting for about half of all antibiotics prescribed in infirmaries. ( Bloxham, 1997 ) .

Cefazolin and B-lactam antibiotics have the highest portion of those prescriptions targeted for surgical prophylaxis due to their well-established efficaciousness and safety. ( SING Guidelines 104, july 2008 ) .

As a consequence of inappropriate frequent usage of antibiotics by many doctors, the bacterial vegetation in some hospitalized patients may include multi-resistant bacteriums such as methicillin immune staphylococci auerus ( MRSA ) .Evaluation so needs to be made for each patient about whether or non prophylaxis with Vancocin is needed. ( Treatment guidelines medical missive, 2009 )

Vancomycin may be considered for patients with b-lactam allergic reaction or in establishments with high rates of methicillin immune Staphylococcus auerus ( MRSA ) or in instances where there are addition in rate of surgical site infection caused by MRSA.

Frequent and inappropriate usage of Vancocin consequences in outgrowth of immune strains such as Vancocin immune enterococci ( VRE ) , vancomycin-intermediate staphylococci auerus ( VISA ) and vancomycin immune staphylococci auerus ( VRSA ) ( Munckhof,2005 ) .

The chief issue is that, the guidelines and literature do n’t clearly specify the rate of MRSA infection in establishments above which intervention with Vancocin should be necessary ( Finkelstein et al, 2002 ) . Furthermore the, surveies from establishment with high prevalence of MRSA did n’t supply equal grounds that Vancocin is superior to cefazolin in cut downing surgical site infection. The concluding determination to utilize Vancocin for high hazard surgeries should include penchant of the sawboness, recommendation of the infective disease doctor, and infection control doctors.

18.4.4 MRSA testing before Vancocin usage

Preoperative designation and decolonisation of methicillin immune staphylococcal auerus did n’t demo to hold consistent positive consequence in cut downing surgical site infection. ( Bode, 2010 )

Medical missive advisers, did n’t work out this issue, as they acknowledge this dissension. ( Treatment guidelines medical missive,2009 ) .Society of Thoracic Surgeons recommends everyday usage of topical mupirocin “ Bactroban ” for all patients be aftering to undergo cardiothoracic processs in the absence of documented trials negative for MRSA.The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, recommends that patients at hazard of colonisation by methicillin immune staphylococci auerus ” MRSA ” or methicillin sensitive staphylococci auerus “ MSSA ” should be tested and treated preoperatively ( Evans,2009 )

18.4.5 Patients at hazard of MRSA colonisation

1-Patients late discharged from infirmary or long term installation.

2-Patients with old MRSA colonisation.

3-Patients with old MRSA infection.

4-patients on chronic haemodialysis.

5-Intravenous drug users. ( Daum, et al,2007 )

19-Complications of antibiotic usage in surgical antibiotic prophylaxis

Using antibiotics in surgical prophylaxis can do a batch of complications and inauspicious reactions if non used carefully and.

19.1 Disinfectants allergy

Allergy ( type 1 anaphylactic reaction ) that is driven by immunoglobuline E, occurs normally within 30 to 60 proceedingss of disposal of the drug ( Antibiotic ) is considered life endangering. The most common type of antibiotics that are associated with allergic reactions are b-lactam antibiotics ( penicillin and Mefoxins ) .

As both penicillin, and Mefoxin are often used in surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis, the possibility of allergic reactions is at that place. Patient ‘s history of allergic reaction should be carefully obtained through medical record and inquiring patient ‘s themselves or their relations before undergoing surgery to minimise such hazard. Serious allergic reactions include, skin roseolas, urtications, atrophedema and bronchospasm. The possibility of penicillin-allergic patients to demo the same symptoms if Mefoxin is usage is less than 1 % with first coevals Mefoxin, so it is better to avoid utilizing Mefoxin for penicillin allergic patients. By comparing chemical entities of 2nd and 3rd coevals Mefoxin to penicillin, they have wholly different side ironss which minimize hazard of cross responsiveness. Alternate antibiotics that can be used are azithromycin, Garamycin or in rare instances vancomycin if patients with life endangering allergy to b-lactams.

19.2 Disinfectants inauspicious drug reactions

Cefazolin may be associated with increased INR ( international normalized ratio ) in nutritionally lacking patients and hepatic patients ( Lexicomp 2011 ) .Prolonged usage of most of antibiotics ( more than 2 months ) can do clostridia difficile associated diarrhoea and pseudomembranous inflammatory bowel disease even it is really rare with b-lactams and most frequent with flouroquinolones.Other antibiotics like Vancocins have more serious inauspicious effects like nephrotoxicity particularly in patients with preexistent nephritic impairment.Nuerotoxicity and ototoxicity can be encountered with Vancocin particularly in dehydrated and advanced age patients.

19.3 Antimicrobial drug-drug interactions

Antibiotics sometimes can interact with other medicines taking to either antagonising the consequence of the other drug or potentiating its consequence. Antibiotics besides can displace drugs from their protein binding, so more free drug will be available in circulation which can do toxicity. One illustration is cefazolin ability to displace antie-eplieptic drug ( diphenylhydantoin ) from its protein binding sites that can take to higher concentration of free diphenylhydantoin in the blood above its maximal curative index which will do patient ‘s toxicity. ( Wolf, et al,2006 ) .

19.4 Increase cost of the antibiotics

Surgical site infection by far will increase the cost over the authorities, infirmaries and patients.Antibiotic prophylaxis have clearly demonstrated the direct economic impact on health care system, and indirect impact on patients ( ex, labour costs due to absence from work and loss of productiveness ) , nevertheless the magnitude of economic SSI-related load varies widely across assorted surveies chiefly due to difference in state specific healthcare reimbursement systems, in the methodological analysis of the surveillance and the survey. So I will non discourse the economic impact of antibiotic by cut downing surgical site infection, alternatively I will shortly notice on the increased cost of antibiotics if used unsuitably. If antibiotics are used for longer continuance ( more than recommended by guidelines ) the direct cost will increase.

20. Single dose versus multiple dosage prophylaxis

Two old ages ago, Slobogean and his co-workers from university of British Columbia in Vancouver conducted a test comparing single-dose versus multiple-dose prophylaxis for the surgical intervention of the closed break. The survey evaluated the cost of individual dosage of cefazolin ( 1 gram ) versus four preoperative doses of ceafazolin ( 1 gram ) .The individual dosage prophylaxis had a cost of 2576 USD, while multiple dose prophylaxis had a cost of 2596 USD.The writer concluded that individual dosage prophylaxis is more cost-efficient than multiple-dose prophylaxis presuming similar infection rate between two groups.

In other words, giving individual dosage of antibiotic is every bit effectual as multiple-dose and will cut down the cost on wellness attention systems, authorities and patients.

Chapter 2: Purpose AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Purpose: –

To look into current standard pattern of attention of our infirmary sawboness by look intoing surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines that are developed by infective disease infirmary commission are right implemented to assist make fulling the spread and bettering our standard pattern of attention.

2.2 Aim: –

To measure the standard pattern of attention of sawboness in HMC sing the pick and continuance of antibiotics used for surgery prophylaxis.

To compare the current pattern of attention with those recommended by the infirmary infective disease expert ‘s guidelines for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.

To place any spreads, if present, either in current pattern of attention and in the recommended guidelines of our infirmaries, if applicable.

To supply suited grounds or recommendations for the sawboness and the ID commission that may assist to better our pattern

Chapter 3: Method

This is experimental retrospective survey that was conducted in the operating theater of Hamad General Hospital in Qatar, between April 2011 to June 2011.

Hamad General infirmary ( HGH ) composed of nine operation theaters, the surgeries are performed day-to-day except Friday.Operation theaters are located in land floor which is really near to other of import units like surgical intensive attention unit, trauma intensive attention unit and exigency section.

The population of the survey was selected utilizing purposive sampling ( non-probability sampling ) that involves knowing choice of the patients of involvement from a population to represent a sample stand foring the population and exclude those who did n’t fit the intent of the survey. The population of the survey was made up of all patients scheduled for major surgery that require antibiotic prophylaxis “ Clean or Clean-contaminated surgeries “ during the survey period. Contaminated surgeries will be excluded as the antibiotic will be administered as curative intercession.Operation theatre log books were reviewed during that survey period, and patient ‘s wellness card Numberss who underwent surgeries that have well-defined prophylaxis regimen in our infirmary guidelines were recorded by me and cross-checked by competent senior theater nurse.

The informations used in this survey were collected from operation theaters log books “ No computerized informations base in operation theatre “ , patient ‘s medical records, patient ‘s medicine profile in electronic medical record ( eMR ) , patient ‘s microbiological civilizations and infected work-up in electronic Medical Records.

The patient ‘s features were besides collected including patient designation figure ( HC ) , sex, day of the month of birth, type of surgery, antibiotic allergic reaction, history of chronic unwellness, antibiotic type, antibiotic dosage, antibiotic path of disposal, and continuance of antibiotic usage. The patient microbiological informations were checked to be certain that there is no current infection, and the antibiotics prescribed are merely used for surgical prophylaxis.

The informations aggregation sheet was generated from the above mentioned beginnings. The information was stored electronically in an Excel spread sheet in the research worker ‘s hospital computing machine with protected watchwords. Descriptive statistics were used to sum up all demographic and clinical features of the patients. Associations between two or more than two categorical variables were assessed utilizing Chi-square trial. For little cell frequences appropriate Fisher exact trial was applied. Quantitative variables means between the two and more than two groups were analyzed utilizing odd t trial and one manner analysis of discrepancy ( ANOVA ) . Pictorial presentations of cardinal consequences were made utilizing appropriate statistical graphs. P- value smaller than 0.05 was considered as statistically important. All Statistical analyses were done utilizing statistical bundles SPSS 19.0 ( ( SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL ) . Surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis guidelines for the specific surgeries included in our survey are attached in appendix 1.

Chapter 4: Consequences

4.1 Patient ‘s features: –

In all, 250 patients charts were reviewed over 3 months period,149 patients were excluded, they involved operations that have no clear regimens for antibiotic prophylaxis in our guidelines, malignant neoplastic disease surgeries, babies less than one twelvemonth of age, contaminated and soiled processs. The staying 101 patient ‘s medical records were analyzed and the pharmaceutics database was reviewed.

Demographic feature of the patients are shown in table 4 and diagram 1 while age distribution is show in table 5.

Table 4: Demographics and other clinical variables

Variable

Frequency

Percentage %

Gender

Male

Female

81

20

80.2

19.8

Allergy

No known allergic reaction

Allergy to certain drug

100

1

99.0

1.0

Diagram 1 which represents the gender distribution among survey participants.

Table 5: Age distribution among patients

Average Age ( old ages ) , N= 101

39.9

Median

35.7

Standard divergence

16.9

Minimum

17

Maximum

77.7

4.2 Surgery types and surgery category: –

In this survey, about 14 types of surgery were analyzed and evaluated harmonizing to our infirmary infective disease surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines. Table 6 represent these types, besides it shows surgery category ( clean or clean-contaminated ) distribution in this survey. Diagram 2 shows different surgery frequence in the survey. Open decrease internal arrested development surgery has been often performed during the survey 27.7 % , while appendectomy came subsequently with 13.9 % .On the other manus, entire hip replacing surgery was performed with last rate during survey period 1 % .

Table 6: – Surgery category & A ; surgery type distribution in the survey: –

Variable

Frequency

Percentage ( % )

Surgery category

Clean

Clean contaminated

55

46

54.5

45.5

Surgery type

ORIF

Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Open Appendectomy

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Coronary bypass

Transdermal nephrolithotomy

Craniotomy

Extra ventricular drainage arrangement

Mesh fix of inguinal hernia

Clef lip roof of the mouth

Entire hip replacing

Entire articulatio genus replacing

Trans Ureteral resection of prostate

Aortal valve replacing

28

10

14

10

11

5

5

2

2

4

1

3

4

2

27.7

9.9

13.9

9.9

10.9

5.0

5.0

2.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

ORIF: Open Reduction Internal Fixation ; CABG: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft

Diagram 2: Differenty type of surgery frequence in the survey

4.3 Overall usage of antibiotics in the survey & A ; antibiotic use frequence: –

Overall usage of antibiotic in our survey was 89.1 % , most normally used antibiotic were cefazolin, Ceftin and Rocephin. Least used antibiotics were co-amoxicalve ( Amoxicillin+clavulinic acid ) , metronidazole, vancomycin and Cipro. Antibiotic usage in the survey is represented in table 7.

Table 7: represents antibiotic usage in our survey and usage frequence for each antibiotic.

Frequency

Percentage %

Antibiotic usage

Yes

No

90

11

89.1

10.9

Antibiotic types

CEFAZOLIN

Cefuroxime

Ceftriaxone

Co-amoxicalve

Metronidazole

Vancomycin

Ciprofloxacin

45

18

17

6

2

1

1

44.6

17.8

16.8

5.9

2.0

1.0

1.0

4.4 Overall conformity rate to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines and grounds for non-compliance: –

Overall rate of conformity in this survey was 46.5 % . Antibiotic continuance was longer than recommended in guidelines in 59.3 % of processs, while antibiotic choice for the surgery needed prophylaxis was inappropriate in 31.5 % of the processs. Prophylaxis was n’t initiated in 9.2 % of surgeries that have clear indicants in guidelines for the prophylaxis. All these informations are represented in table 8.Rerpresentation of such conformity rate grounds are shown in Diagram 3.

Table 8: represents overall conformity to our surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.

Variables

Frequency

Percentage ( % )

Did the pattern lucifer protocol

Yes

No

47

54

46.5

53.5

Reason that pattern did n’t fit the protocol: –

Antibiotic continuance

Antibiotic pick

Prophylaxis was n’t given

32

17

5

59.3

31.5

9.2

Diagram 3: – Different elements that were measured in non-compliant surgeries

4.5 Conformity rate ( primary results ) and its association with surgery category and surgery type: –

4.5.1 Association between surgery category with our infirmary guidelines recommendations ( Compliance rate ) :

It was observed that the rate of conformity was significantly higher among clean surgery than clean contaminated group ( 66 % vs. 34 % ; p=0.03 ) . In this survey, 44.4 % of clean processs were shown to be non-compliant to surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis guidelines in our infirmaries, while 55.6 % of clean-contaminated processs were shown to be non-compliant.

4.5.2 Association between surgery types with our infirmary guidelines recommendations ( Compliance rate ) :

Due to little Numberss of surgeries in our survey, so I complied different type of surgeries to their chief surgical class for illustration: inguinal hernia, cholecystectomy, appendectomy belongs to general surgery. While craniotomy and excess ventricular drainage arrangement were compiled under neurosurgery, overall the terminal consequence was non-statistical important difference in conformity rate to our infirmary guidelines between all different surgeries ( P= 0.231 ) .Table 9 represents association between both surgery category & A ; surgery type with conformity rate to surgical antibiotic guidelines in our HGH infirmary. The relationship between antibiotic usage and its conformity with our infirmary guidelines has been studied. Overall, 89.1 % of surgeries in our survey used antibiotic prophylaxis, those who were adherent with guidelines were merely 40.6 % , while 48.5 % of operations who used antibiotic did n’t follow the infirmary guidelines. On the other hand,10.9 % of surgeries did n’t utilize antibiotic during our survey, those who were compliant with guidelines represented merely 5.9 % , while those surgeries did n’t follow guidelines were 5 % . ( the surgeries which supposed to affect antibiotic prophylaxis harmonizing to infirmary guidelines, but sawboness did n’t make so. )

Table 9: Association of surgery category and surgery types with primary result

Variables

Did the surgery prophylaxis lucifer protocol

Yes

Frequency ( % )

NO

Frequency ( % )

Surgery category

Clean

Clean contaminated

31 ( 66 )

16 ( 34 )

24 ( 44.4 )

30 ( 55.6 )

Surgery type

Ortho surgery

GI surgery

Coronary bypass

OMF

Surgery involve unreal device

Neurosurgery

Urologic surgery

15 ( 31.9 % )

18 ( 38.3 )

7 ( 14.9 % )

0 ( 0 )

2 ( 4.3 )

3 ( 6.4 )

2 ( 4.3 )

13 ( 24.1 % )

18 ( 33.3 )

4 ( 7.4 % )

4 ( 7.4 )

4 ( 7.4 )

4 ( 7.4 )

7 ( 13 )

aˆ Chi-Square trial

*p & lt ; 0.05 ( important )

4.6 4.4 Association between different types of antibiotic used during prophylaxis and conformity with our infirmary guidelines

In this survey, cefzolin has been used most often in surgical prophylaxis with usage rate of 44.6 % through whole processs. In 51.1 % of processs cefazolin usage was in harmony with guidelines recommendations, while in 38.9 % its usage did n’t follow the guidelines of our infirmary. While Cipro and Vancocin are least used antibiotic during this survey.Table 10 shows association between different types of antibiotic and conformity with our infirmary guidelines.

Table 10: – Association between different antibiotic types and infirmary guidelines conformity

Antibiotic type

Did antibiotic usage matched the infirmary protocol

Yes

%

No

%

Cefazolin

51.1

38.9

Cefuroxime

27.7

9.3

Ceftriaxone

6.4

25.9

Co-amoxicalve

0

11.1

Metronidazole

2.1

1.9

Vancomycin

0

1.9

Ciprofloxacin

0

1.9

Chapter 5: Discussion

6.1 Rate of conformity with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis infirmary guidelines: –

Surgical disinfectant prophylaxis usage to cut down the rate of surgical site infection is proven to be effectual and good established in the literature. ( Polk, et al.,2000 ) .In past old ages, many research workers had detailed how to maximise the prophylaxis, rules of prophylaxis, and guidelines to optimise the patient ‘s attention and sawbones ‘s pattern. ( ASHP, 1991 ) .

Although guidelines are in topographic point many old ages ago, many surveies have shown that inappropriate prophylaxis and hapless conformity to guidelines still major issue. ( Talon, et al. , 2001 ) .It is of import to measure and measure current pattern of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in order to better wellness attention results and cut down the spread between both pattern and grounds based recommendations. ( Wenzel, et al. , 1994 )

this research did n’t measure timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis ; alternatively it evaluated the conformity rate for both antibiotic choice and antibiotic continuance of 102 different processs that have specific recommendations in our hospital surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines.

In this survey, the conformity rate of antibiotic choice with our infirmary infective disease guidelines was 83.2 % , while conformity rate of antibiotic continuance with our infirmary guidelines was 68.3 % .This lucifer with other published documents that tried to measure surgical antibiotic prophylaxis among their establishments.one twelvemonth ago, IMAI-KAMATA and his co-workers from Tokyo medical university school, tried to turn to the factors responsible for attachment to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis among 2373 patients and found that attachment rate for antibiotic choice was 53-84 % while that to antibiotic continuance was 38-68 % ( Imai-kamata, et al.,2011 ) .

In another 3 hebdomads period survey which included 470 patients, was conducted in France and involved 2 periods, separated by period of targeted information, and enforcement of importance of guidelines applications, for both periods before and after targeted information, merely 49 % of prophylaxis shown to be appropriate. ( D’EscrivanA ,2005 )

Another retrospective survey involved 205 patients was conducted among orthopaedic injury patients in Canada to measure attachment to antibiotic prophylaxis, found that less than 32 % of patients received their prophylaxis as recommended. ( Lundine, et al.,2010 ) .

In add-on to all of the above, seven old ages surveillance survey conducted in northern France from voluntary surgery wards take parting in INCISO surveillance web which involved 8029 patients to measure non-compliance to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis found that merely 35 % of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuance was appropriate. ( Astagneau, et al. , 2009 ) .

6.2 Antibiotic pick for surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis:

This survey showed that cefazolin was the antibiotic with highest usage frequence among 101 processs which was evaluated. It is used in 44.6 % of all process performed, such determination goes in conformity with other published literature that proved cephalosporin antibiotics are the preferable pick in most of surgical processs. ( Bratzler, et al.,2004 )

This survey showed that Rocephin ( 3rd coevals Mefoxin ) was the 3rd most common antibiotic used in surgical prophylaxis with 16.8 % of entire antibiotic use. Another test that was conducted in Germany to mensurate attachment to surgical antimicrobic prophylaxis guidelines, and involved 29 infirmaries found that many of disinfectants used were wide spectrum affecting 3rd coevals Mefoxin. ( Hohmann, et al. , 2011 ) .Broad spectrum antibiotic for surgical prophylaxis is non recommended, as such sort of antibiotic should be used merely in terrible infection or through empirical observation in acute infection while waiting for the

Post Author: admin