Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-21T10:59:14.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis on the Incidence of Infections in Clean Surgical Wounds in Hospitals Undergoing Renovation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Osvaldo Iribarren  and
Miguel Araujo
Osvaldo Iribarren*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, Surgery Service and Office of Nosocomial Infections Control, Saint Paul Hospital, School of Medicine, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile
Miguel Araujo
Affiliation:
Department of Sanitary Technologies Evaluation, Ministry of Health, Santiago, Chile
*
Department of Surgery, Surgery Service and Office of Nosocomial Infections Control, Saint Paul Hospital, School of Medicine, Universidad Católica del Norte, Larrondo 1080, Videla s/n, Coquimbo, IV Region, Chile (oiribarren@123.cl)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To measure the effect of cephazolin prophylaxis on the rate of surgical site infection among patients with clean surgical wounds, categorized by risk group, in a hospital undergoing renovation.

Design.

Randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Setting.

Saint Paul General Hospital, Coquimbo, Chile, during a period when it was undergoing significant interior remodeling.

Patients.

General surgery patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis before clean wound surgery between March 2003 and May 2004 and a matched control group of patients who did not receive such prophylaxis.

Results.

A total of 303 patients participated in the study. The rate of infection among patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of 1 in the prophylaxis group was 7.3%, whereas among ASA 1 patients in a no-prophylaxis control group it was 10.3% (P = .40). In the prophylaxis group, the ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients combined had an infection rate of 10.5%, whereas in the no-prophylaxis group these patients had a rate of 30.0% (relative risk, 0.33 [95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.96]; P = .03). Both the ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients were protected from infection by prophylaxis; these patients had 1.7 and 2.2 times, respectively, more risk of developing a surgical site infection than did ASA 1 patients after a clean surgical procedure, but the ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients who did not receive prophylaxis had 4.3 and 4.8 times, respectively, greater risk of infection (relative risk, 0.91 [95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.99]; P = .02). Prophylaxis significantly reduced the rate of infection in the ASA 2 and ASA 3 groups.

Conclusions.

We recommend the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis with cephalosporins in ASA 2 and ASA 3 patients undergoing clean wound surgery during a period when significant renovations are being performed in the hospital.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 27 , Issue 12 , December 2006 , pp. 1372 - 1376
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cisneros, JM, Rodriguez Baño, J, Mensa, J, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2002; 207:335–340.Google Scholar
2. Geroulanos, S, Marathias, K, Kriaras, J, et al. Cephalosporins in surgical prophylaxis. J Chemother 2001; 13(Spec 1):23–66.Google Scholar
3. Dellinger, EP, Gross, PA, Barret, TL, et al. Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Clin Infect Dis 1994; 18:422–427.Google Scholar
4. Polk, H, Cristmas, B. Prophylactic antibiotics in surgery and surgical wound infections. Am Surg 2000; 66:105–111.Google Scholar
5. Mah, MW, Pyper, AM, Oni, GA, et al. Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on wound infection after cesarean section in situation of expected higher risk. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29:85–88.Google Scholar
6. De La Lalla, F. Surgical prophylaxis in practice. J Hosp Infect 2002; 50(Suppl):S9–S12.Google Scholar
7. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:217–278.Google Scholar
8. Sanchez, FJ, Seco Gil, J, Lozano, J. Antimicrobial prophylaxis and hernia repair: results of quantitative systematic review. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2001; 19:107–113.Google Scholar
9. Vega, D, Tellado, JM. Evidence-based medicine on surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 1999; 17(Suppl 2):32–58.Google Scholar
10. D'Amico, DF, Parimbelli, P, Ruffolo, C. Antibiotic prophylaxis in clean surgery: breast surgery and hernia. J Chemother 2001; 13(Spec 1):108–111.Google Scholar
11. Platt, R, Zalenik, DF, Hopkins, CC, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for herniorrhaphy and breast surgery. N Engl J Med 1990; 322:153–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Nichols, RL. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. Curr Opin Infect Dis 1994; 7:647–652.Google Scholar
13. Fatica, CA, Gordon, SM, Zins, LE. The role of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconst Surg 2002; 109:2570–2573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Knight, R, Charbonneau, P, Ratzer, E, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics are not indicated in clean general surgery cases. Am J Surg 2001; 182:682–686.Google Scholar
15. Division of Nosocomial and Occupational Infections Laboratory, Centre for Disease Control. Health Canada. Ottawa, Canada: Division of Nosocomial and Occupational Infections Laboratory, Centre for Disease Control; March 24, 1999.Google Scholar
16. National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance system (NNIS) System Report. Am J Infect Control 2002; 30:458–475.Google Scholar
17. Howard, R. Surgical infections. In Principles of Surgery. Mexico: Editorial Interamericana; 1995:149–169.Google Scholar
18. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections Office, Saint Paul Hospital. Annual Report 2002. Coquimbo, Chile: Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections Office, Saint Paul Hospital; 2002.Google Scholar
19. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, et al. Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20:247–280.Google Scholar
20. Machin, D, Campbell, M, Fayers, P. Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Blackwell Science; 1997.Google Scholar
21. Geffers, C, Gastmeir, P, Dastchner, F, et al. Prevention of postoperative wound infections: evidence based recommendations. Zentralbl Chir 2001; 126:84–92.Google Scholar
22. Dallal, GE. Radomization.com Web site. Available at: http://www.randomization.com. Accessed October 27, 2006.Google Scholar
23. Chilean Ministry of Health. Guidelines for Clinical Trials With Pharmacological Products Used in Human Beings. Chilean Ministry of Health; 2001.Google Scholar
24. Iribarren, O, Ferrada, M, Dorn, L. ¿Las construcciones y obras civiles aumentan el riesgo de infección de herida operatoria? Revista Chilena de Cirugía 2004; 56:210–215.Google Scholar
25. Sanchez, RO, Hernandez, JM. Infections control during construction and renovation in the operating room. Semin Perioper Nurs 1999; 8:208–214.Google Scholar
26. Trilla, A. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Wenzell, RP. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1997.Google Scholar