Present and future of prophylactic antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis

2012

Kun Jiang, Wei Huang, Xiao-Nan Yang, and Qing Xia

Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information 

Abstract

AIM: 

To investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the reduction of mortality of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients, which is highly questioned by more and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.

METHODS: 

An updated meta-analysis was performed. RCTs comparing prophylactic antibiotics for SAP with control or placebo were included for meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were pooled for estimation, and re-pooled estimation was performed by the sensitivity analysis of an ideal large-scale RCT.

RESULTS:

Currently available 11 RCTs were included. Subgroup analysis showed that there was significant reduction of mortality rate in the period before 2000, while no significant reduction in the period from 2000 [Risk Ratio, (RR) = 1.01, P = 0.98]. Funnel plot indicated that there might be apparent publication bias in the period before 2000. Sensitivity analysis showed that the RR of mortality rate ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 with a relatively narrow confidence interval (P < 0.05). However, the number needed to treat having a minor lower limit of the range (7-5096 patients) implied that certain SAP patients could still potentially prevent death by antibiotic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION:

Current evidences do not support prophylactic antibiotics as a routine treatment for SAP, but the potentially benefited sub-population requires further investigations.

NIH-World Journal of Gastroenterology

Current concepts of prophylactic antibiotics in trauma: a review.

2012

Lane JC, Mabvuure NT, Hindocha S, Khan W.

Source

Department of Plastic Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital, Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7EH, UK.

Abstract

Traumatic injuries cause 5.8 million deaths per year globally. Before the advent of antibiotics, sepsis was considered almost inevitable after injury. Today infection continues to be a common complication after traumatic injury and is associated with increases in morbidity and mortality and longer hospital stays. Research into the prevention of post-traumatic infection has predominantly focused on thoracic and abdominal injuries. In addition, because research on sepsis following musculoskeletal injuries has predominantly been on open fractures. There is a paucity of research into the prevention of soft tissue infections following traumatic injuries. This review analyses the evidence for the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of soft tissue injuries. Emphasis is placed on assessing the strength of the presented evidence according to the Oxford Level of Evidence scale.

PubMed

Influence of prophylactic antibiotics on tissue integration versus bacterial colonization on poly(methyl methacrylate).

Nov 2012

Subbiahdoss G, Aleyt T, Kuijer R, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC.

Source

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen - The Netherlands.

Abstract

Purpose: Biomaterial-associated infections (BAI) remain a major concern in modern health care. BAI is difficult to treat and often results in implant replacement or removal. Pathogens can be introduced on implant surfaces during surgery and compete with host cells attempting to integrate the implant. Here we studied the influence of prophylactically given cephatholin in the competition between highly virulent Staphylococcus aureus and human osteoblast-like cells (U-2 OS, ATCC HTB-94) for a poly(methyl methacrylate) surface in vitro using a peri-operative contamination model. 

Method: S. aureus was seeded on the acrylic surface in a parallel plate flow chamber prior to adhesion of U-2 OS cells. Next, S. aureus and U-2 OS cells were allowed to grow simultaneously under shear (0.14 1/s) in a modified culture medium containing cephatholin for 8 h, the time period this drug is supposed to be active in situ. Subsequently, the flow was continued with modified culture medium for another 64 h. 

Results: In the absence of cephatholin, highly virulent S. aureus caused U-2 OS cell death within 18 h. In contrast, the presence of cephatholin for 8 h resulted in survival of U-2 OS cell up to 72 h during simultaneous growth of U-2 OS cells and bacteria. Not all adhering bacteria were killed however, but they showed a delayed growth. 

Conclusions: These findings are in line with the recalcitrance of biofilms against antibiotic treatment observed clinically, and represent another support for the use of in vitro co-culture models in mimicking the clinical situation.

PubMed

Pediatric fingertip injuries: do prophylactic antibiotics alter infection rates?

Pediatric fingertip injuries: do prophylactic antibiotics alter infection rates?

Pediatr Emerg Care. 2008 Mar

Altergott C, Garcia FJ, Nager AL.
Department of Pediatrics, Division of Emergency Medicine, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90027, USA. caltergott@chla.usc.edu

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Fingertip injuries are common in the pediatric population. Considerable controversy exists as to whether prophylactic antibiotics are necessary after repair of these injuries. Our goal was to compare the rate of bacterial infections among subgroups treated with and without prophylactic antibiotics. The study hypothesis was that infection rates were similar in the 2 groups.

METHODS: This was a prospective randomized control trial of pediatric patients presenting to an urban children's hospital with trauma to the distal fingertip, requiring repair. Patients were randomized to 2 groups: group 1 received no antibiotics, and group 2 received antibiotics (cephalexin). Repairs were performed in a standardized fashion, and all patients were reevaluated in the same emergency department in 48 hours and again by phone 7 days after repair. The primary outcome measure was the rate of infection at 7 days after repair.

RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients were initially enrolled in the study, 11 patients were withdrawn before study completion, 69 subjects were randomized to the no-antibiotic group, and 66 subjects were randomized to the antibiotic group. There was 1 infection in each group at 7 days after repair. The infection rate was 1.45% (95% confidence interval, 0.04%-7.81%) for the no-antibiotic group and was 1.52% (95% confidence interval, 0.04%-8.16%) for the antibiotic group, not statistically significant (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that routine prophylactic antibiotics do not reduce the rate of infection after repair of distal fingertip injuries.

Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins