Antibiotic prophylaxis is necessary after certain dental or medical treatments to prevent infection.
the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 4 against
While antibiotic prophylaxis is considered necessary for certain high-risk patient groups or procedures, its routine necessity is widely debated, restricted, or found to lack benefit in other contexts.
Bacterial endocarditis developed in 24 patients during follow-up in the Natural History Study. It occurred significantly more often in patients with ventricular septal defect (1.5/1000 patient-years) and aortic stenosis (1.8/1000 patient-years) than in those with pulmonary stenosis (0.2/1000 patient-years). Complications, especially emboli and aortic regurgitation, occurred in 50% of the patients. Overall mortality was 25%. Incidence rates were significantly greater for males than for females and greater for patients over 20 years of age than for younger patients. Patients who had had ventricular septal defect treated surgically had a lower incidence of endocarditis than non-surgical patients, whereas surgery did not reduce the incidence in patients with aortic stenosis. The estimated risk of contracting bacterial endocarditis prior to 30 years of age in a patient with medically-treated ventricular septal defect is 9.7%; the risk estimate for surgical patients in 2.0%. Although data regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics were not available for patients in the Natural History Study, these results certainly suggest that continued antibiotic prophylaxis for dental and certain surgical procedures is mandatory for patients with aortic stenosis, even after successful cardiac surgery. It is the authors opinion that prophylaxis is probably less necessary for patients who have pulmonary stenosis, whether surgically treated or not, and for patients with documented complete closu
Almost 50 years after its introduction, perioperative prophylaxis is still controversial. Whereas a clear benefit was established for certain surgical operations especially for those of the categories ‘clean-contaminated’ and ‘contaminated’, e.g. elective colonic surgery [1], there was no general consensus on the use of antibacterial prophylaxis for elective operations of the category ‘clean’. This is because studies including sufficient number of patients for meaningful statistical analysis are absent. Moreover, the traditional classification of surgical procedures according to Cruse [2] into ‘clean’, ‘clean-contaminated’, ‘contaminated’ and ‘dirty’ does not adequately describe the risk of infection. Numerous patients and surgical conditions, such as duration of operation, blood loss etc. have been demonstrated to correlate with risk of infection [3]. Such risk factors can also lead to infectious complications even in ‘clean’ operations [4]. The significance of each factor, however, is not yet quantified. This is especially true for open operations and endoscopic procedures in urology [5]. Prospective randomised studies are absent. Currently, most studies are poorly designed. The differentiation between therapy and prophylaxis is not clear. Evaluation of risk factors is unsatisfactory, and the terms ‘bacteriuria’ and ‘infection’ are not critically used [6]. In addition, many of these studies lack knowledge of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the antimicrobial agents,
The importance of prevention in late hematogenous infection is well understood but, because responsibility lies with general practitioners and other specialists, the orthopedic surgeon is usually not much interested. In both our and other countries, discussions are taking place on whether and to what extent antibiotic prevention should be carried out. Antibiotic prophylaxis of hematogenous infection is not indicated for all patients with joint arthroplasty, but only for a limited, defined group of patients at high risk. In these, however, the present state of knowledge suggests that prevention is necessary. A preventive treatment of late hematogenous infection is used for a procedure or a disease associated with risks in all the patients involved within two years of prosthetic joint implantation and, after this period, only in immunosuppressed patients. Surgery on the urogenital tract associated with the risk of bacteremia includes prostate gland surgery, operations for urinary bladder tumors, nephrolithotomy, extracorporeal lithotripsy and prostate biopsy. Certain conditions, such as urinary catheter presence, intermittent catheterization, urethral stent presence, urine retention and a history of urinary tract infection or prostate inflammation, pose an increased risk of bacterial colonization for the urogenital system. Dental procedures associated with a risk of bacteremia include tooth extraction, surgery on the parodontium, surgical extraction of an impacted tooth, dental
The diagram of the mortality of acute pancreatitis is characterized by two distinct peaks, in a similar manner to other generalized acute inflammatory responses. In the first phase, which is characterized by "hyper-inflammatory" mechanisms, death occurs due to overwhelming SIRS and subsequent multi-organ failure. The second peak of death is usually detected much later, at least two weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis. Infection in necrotising pancreatitis is frequently observed in this so-called "compensatory antiinflammatory" phase. Since there has been no effective therapy evolved to prevent the activation of inflammatory and proteolytic cascades, the treatment of acute pancreatitis is merely symptomatic. Adequate fluid resuscitation and analgesia are the mainstays of treatment. In case of development of multi-organ failure, extensive medical and ventilatory supportive therapy is usually necessary. However, recent studies suggested certain methods might decrease the incidence of infection in pancreatic necrosis, which is usually due to bacterial translocation from the gut. Numerous attempts have been published in the literature to decrease the frequency of septic complications. Furthermore, the outcome of studies favouring antibiotic prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis were debatable. The development of multi-resistant strains of Gram-positive bacteria and Candida, due to long-term antibiotic use, is a strong argument against the indication of prophylactic antibiotic
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: One of the ways to avoid infection after surgical procedures is through antibiotic prophylaxis. This occurs in cholecystectomies with certain risk factors for infection. However, some guidelines suggest the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for all cholecystectomies, although current evidence does not indicate any advantage of this practice in the absence of risk factors. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the incidence of wound infection after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies and the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in these procedures. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 439 patients with chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis, accounting for different risk factors for wound infection. RESULTS: There were seven cases of wound infection (1.59%). No antibiotic prophylaxis regimen significantly altered infection rates. There was a statistically significant correlation between wound infection and male patients (p=0.013). No other analyzed risk factor showed a statistical correlation with wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: The nonuse of antibiotic prophylaxis and other analyzed factors did not present a significant correlation for the increase in the occurrence of wound infection. Studies with a larger sample and a control group without antibiotic prophylaxis are necessary.
Objectives Our purpose is to address whether antimicrobial prophylaxis is necessary before certain dental procedures for patients at increased risk for acquiring infective endocarditis (IE). Methods We reviewed recommendations for IE prophylaxis made by the American Heart Association (AHA) from 1995 to the present time. We also compared and contrasted the current recommendations from the AHA, European Society of Cardiology (ESC), United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and a consortium of French organisations. We further reviewed recent papers that have observed the incidence of IE since these current recommendations were published. Results Beginning in the 1990s, questions were raised about the advisability of using antimicrobial prophylaxis before certain dental procedures to prevent IE. Various groups in Europe and the US were increasingly aware that there were not any clinical trials showing the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of such prophylaxis. In the early to mid-2000s, the AHA, ESC and French consortium published guidelines recommending restriction of prophylaxis before dental procedures to patients with highest risk for developing IE and/or the highest risk for an adverse outcome from IE. The NICE guidelines eliminated recommendations for prophylaxis before dental procedures. Studies published after these changes were instituted have generally shown that the incidence of IE has not changed, although two recent reports have observed
Everything we examined (6)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.