SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases / 2019 / Cilt: 09 - Sayı: 03

Pattern of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Site Infections in at two Teaching Hospitals, Islamabad, Pakistan

Zakir KHAN
Naveed AHMED
Asim-ur- REHMAN
Faiz Ullah KHAN
Hazir RAHMAN
Pages
104–111
Publication Date
2019-09-15
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

J Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 9(3):104-111.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To investigate the utilization pattern of Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) for the prevention of surgical infections in most common abdominal and orthopedic surgical procedures.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Out of total 1512 surgical procedures about, 56.9% (n=860) of patients performed abdominal followed by 652 (43.1%) orthopedic surgical procedures.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:J Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 9(3):104-111.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2019 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Surgery · perioperative · antibiotic

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the utilization pattern of Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) for the prevention of surgical infections in most common abdominal and orthopedic surgical procedures. Methods: A prospective observational and non-intervention study was conducted at two teaching hospitals (PIMS and SIH) in Islamabad, Pakistan. Prescriptions records were reviewed to assess the utilization pattern of SAP during the nine-month duration. Data regarding most common surgical procedures, antimicrobial utilization, dose, route and administration timing of SAP were extracted for analysis. Observed practices were compared with standard treatment guidelines. Results: Out of total 1512 surgical procedures about, 56.9% (n=860) of patients performed abdominal followed by 652 (43.1%) orthopedic surgical procedures. A total of 212 (14%) surgical procedures were completely correct in all steps. SAP were given in 1474 (97.5%) of surgical procedures. In 712 of the participants (48.3%) were given Ceftriaxone following by Cefazolin (n=247, 16.7%). Abdominal surgeries were majorly managed with Ceftriaxone (59%) while the orthopedic surgeries managed with Ceftriaxone (31.3%) and Cefazolin (30%). Appropriate choice of SAP was observed in (n=275; 18.6%) procedures and about half (n=719, 49%) received antibiotics within optimal timing. The appropriate choice/selection of SAP according to the guidelines was greater in orthopedic surgical procedures (n=212; 14.8%) than abdominal surgeries (n=63; 4.3%); p≤0.001. Compliance with respect to timing was significantly lower in an orthopedic surgical procedure (n=301) as compared to abdominal surgeries (n=418); p≤0.001. Similarly, a statistically significant difference observed between PIMS and SIH with respect to SAP practices; p≤0.001. Conclusions: Inappropriate choice, the timing of administration and combination of SAP were observed in the current study. J Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 9(3):104-111.

🔖

Cite This Article

KHAN, Z., AHMED, N., REHMAN, A., KHAN, F. U., RAHMAN, H. (2019). Pattern of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Surgical Site Infections in at two Teaching Hospitals, Islamabad, Pakistan. Journal of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Cilt: 09 - Sayı: 03, 104–111. https://ajindex.com/articles/89022

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Alemkere G. Antibiotic usage in surgical prophylaxis: A prospective observational study in the surgical ward of Nekemte Referral Hospital. PloS one 2018; 13(9):e0203523
  2. Ayele Y, Taye H. Antibiotic utilization pattern for surgical site infection prophylaxis at Dil Chora Referral Hospital Surgical Ward, Dire Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes 2018; 11(1):537
  3. Ban KA, Minei JP, Laronga C, et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update. J Am College of Surgeons 2017; 224(1):59-74
  4. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surgical infections, 2013. 14(1): p. 73-156
  5. Hosoglu S, Aslan S, Akalin S, Bosnak V. Audit of quality of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Pharmacy World & Science 2009: 31(1):14-17
  6. Nabovati E, Vakili-Arki H, Taherzadeh Z, Hasibian MR, Abu-Hanna A, Eslami S. Drug-drug interactions in inpatient and outpatient settings in Iran: a systematic review of the literature. DARU J Pharmaceutic Sci 2014: 22(1):52
  7. Butt SZ, Ahmad M, Saeed Hamid, Saleem Z, Javaid Z. Post-surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: Impact of pharmacist’s educational intervention on appropriate use of antibiotics. J Infect Public Health 2019.
  8. Khan Z, Ahmed N, Rehman AU, Khan FU, Rahman H. Utilization of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Three Common Abdominal Surgeries, Adherence to Standard Guidelines and Surgeons' Perception in Teaching Hospitals, Islamabad, Pakistan. MDPI preprint 2019: 2019060119.
  9. Nausheen S, Hammad R, Khan A. Rational use of antibiotics--a quality improvement initiative in hospital setting. J Pak Med Assoc 2013; 63(1):60
  10. Atif M, Azeem M, Sarwar MR, et al. WHO/INRUD prescribing indicators and prescribing trends of antibiotics in the accident and emergency department of Bahawal Victoria hospital, Pakistan. Springerplus 2016; 5(1):1928
  11. Hansen S, Sohr D, Piening B, et al. Antibiotic usage in German hospitals: results of the second national prevalence study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68(12):2934-2939
  12. World Health organization ATC/DDD Methodology. 2018. World Health organization (WHO) ATC/DDD Methodology. 2018. Available from. Accessed 12 December 2018
  13. Martin C, Pourriat J. Quality of perioperative antibiotic administration by French anaesthetists. J Hosp Infect 1998; 40(1):47-53.