Antibiotic prophylaxis in vascular surgery.

Vanderbilt University, Нашвилл, Michigan, United States
Annals of Surgery (Impact Factor: 7.19). 10/1978; 188(3):283-9. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-197809000-00003
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Preoperative and intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis of infection in peripheral vascular surgery has been widely used although controlled studies have been lacking. A randomized, a prospective, double-blind study of cefazolin versus placebo during 565 arterial reconstructive operations was performed at this hospital from February 1976 through August 1977. Among the 462 patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta and lower extremity vasculature, there was a highly significant difference in the infection rates: 6.8% for placebo recipients versus 0.9% for cefazolin recipients (p less than .001). Of the 18 infections, four involved vascular grafts and all four graft infections occurred in the placebo group. Over 8% of abdominal wounds of patients receiving placebo became infected versus 1.2% of cefazolin patients (p less than .05). Groin wounds were infected infrequently, 1.1% for placebo patients versus none for cefazolin patients. No infections occurred among 103 brachiocephalic procedures. Skin antisepsis was analyzed retrospectively. Infection rates were significantly higher (p less than .01) following hexachlorophene-ethanol versus a povidone-iodine skin preparation. Adverse effects of cefazolin were carefully monitored: no rash, phlebitis, or emergence of resistant strains was observed. A breif perioperative course of cefazolin and povidone-iodine skin antisepsis are recommended in vascular reconstructive surgery of the abdominal aorta and lower extremity vasculature.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: To evaluate the outcome of different therapeutic pathways to manage infrainguinal prosthetic graft infections. Methods: In this study a total of 66 patients treated between 1993 and 2009 (48 males and 18 females) were included. Subgroups were formed according to the following options of surgical management: excision of the grafts with or without arterial reconstruction (including prosthetic grafts and vein grafts), primary amputation, and surgical debridement with negative wound pressure therapy. Additionally, mortality, amputation rate, re-infection rate, and microbiological findings were analyzed. Results: Mean age was 65.64±11.33 y and follow up was 22.21±36.85 mo. Thirty-day survival rate was 89.5%±4.1%, overall limb salvage rate was 82.5%±5.1%. In the group with primary amputation, one patient (20%) died; however, in the group of surgical debridement with negative wound pressure therapy, mortality was nil. In the group with graft excision, seven patients died (14.3%); no difference between the study groups was found (p=0.058). Amputation rate was 10% (n=5), 0% and 20.4% (n=10), respectively, with a higher rate in the primary amputation group (p<0.001). Reinfection rate was 0%, 8.3% (n=1) and 14.2% (n=7) respectively; p=0.822. Also, no difference was found regarding bypass level or revascularization graft material. Conclusion: Mortality and amputation rate is still high after infrainguinal prosthetic graft infection. Our strategy to preserve the graft whenever possible showed no difference compared with more aggressive strategies.
    Surgical Infections 10/2014; 15(5):606-612. DOI:10.1089/sur.2013.099 · 1.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria 01/1982; 40(1). DOI:10.1590/S0004-282X1982000100006 · 1.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Surgical site infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections among surgical patients. The administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical site infections . The optimal timing of this procedure is still a matter of debate. While most studies suggest that it should be given as close to the incision time as possible, others conclude that this may be too late for optimal prevention of surgical site infections. A large observational study suggests that surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered 74 to 30 minutes before surgery. The aim of this article is to report the design and protocol of a randomized controlled trial investigating the optimal timing of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis. Methods/Design In this bi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland, we plan to include 5,000 patients undergoing general, oncologic, vascular and orthopedic trauma procedures. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: one receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (75 to 30 minutes before incision) and the other receiving surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room (less than 30 minutes before incision). We expect a significantly lower rate of surgical site infections with surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis administered more than 30 minutes before the scheduled incision. The primary outcome is the occurrence of surgical site infections during a 30-day follow-up period (one year with an implant in place). When assuming a 5% surgical site infection risk with administration of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the operating room, the planned sample size has an 80% power to detect a relative risk reduction for surgical site infections of 33% when administering surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the anesthesia room (with a two-sided type I error of 5%). We expect the study to be completed within three years. Discussion The results of this randomized controlled trial will have an important impact on current international guidelines for infection control strategies in the hospital. Moreover, the results of this randomized controlled trial are of significant interest for patient safety and healthcare economics. Trial registration This trial is registered on under the identifier NCT01790529.
    Trials 05/2014; 15(1):188. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-15-188 · 2.12 Impact Factor


Available from