To evaluate the feasibility of implementation of the refined window for routine antimicrobial prophylaxis (RAP) of 30-74 minutes before skin incision compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) standard of 0-60 minutes.
Prospective study on timing of routine antimicrobial prophylaxis in 2 different time periods.
Tertiary referral university hospital with 30,000 surgical procedures per year.
In all consecutive vascular, visceral, and trauma procedures, the timing was prospectively recorded during a first time period of 2 years (A; baseline) and a second period of 1 year (B; after intervention). An intensive intervention program was initiated after baseline. The primary outcome parameter was timing; the secondary outcome parameter was surgical site infection (SSI) rate in the subgroup of patients undergoing cholecystectomy/colon resection.
During baseline time period A (3,836 procedures), RAP was administered 30-74 minutes before skin incision in 1,750 (41.0%) procedures; during time period B (1,537 procedures), it was administered in 914 (56.0%; [Formula: see text]). The subgroup analysis did not reveal a significant difference in SSI rate.
This bundle of interventions resulted in a statistically significant improvement of timing of RAP even at a shortened window compared to the WHO standard.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Surgical site infection (SSI) is a potentially morbid and costly complication following major colorectal resection. In recent years, there has been growing attention placed on the accurate identification and monitoring of such surgical complications and their costs, measured in terms of increased morbidity to patients and increased financial costs to society. We hypothesize that incisional SSIs following elective colorectal resection are more frequent than is generally reported in the literature, that they can be predicated by measurable perioperative factors, and that they carry substantial morbidity and cost.
Over a 2-year period at a university hospital, data on all elective colorectal resections performed by a single surgeon were retrospectively collected. The outcome of interest was a diagnosis of incisional SSI as defined by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. Variables associated with infection, as identified in the literature or by experts, were collected and analyzed for their association with incisional SSI development in this patient cohort. Multivariate analysis by stepwise logistic regression was then performed on those variables associated with incisional SSI by univariate analysis to determine their prognostic significance. The incidence of SSI in this study was compared with the rates of incisional SSI in this patient population reported in the literature, predicted by a nationally based system monitoring nosocomial infection, and described in a prospectively acquired intradepartmental surgical infection data base at our institution.
One hundred seventy-six patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were identified for evaluation. The mean patient age was 62 +/- 1.2 years, and 54% were men. Preoperative diagnoses included colorectal cancer (57%), inflammatory bowel disease (20%), diverticulitis (10%), and benign polyp disease (5%). SSIs were identified in 45 patients (26%). Twenty-two (49%) SSIs were detected in the outpatient setting following discharge. Of all preoperative and perioperative variables measured, increasing patient body mass index and intraoperative hypotension independently predicted incisional SSI. Although we could not measure statistically increased length of hospital stay associated with SSI, a representative population of patients with SSI accumulated a mean of $6200/patient of home health expenses related to wound care. Our rates of SSI were substantially higher than that reported generally in the literature, predicted by the National Nosocomial Infection System, or described by our own institutional surgical infection data base.
The incidence of incisional SSI in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection in our cohort was substantially higher than generally reported in the literature, the NNIS or predicted by an institutional surgical infection complication registry. Although some of these differences may be attributable to patient population differences, we believe these discrepancies highlight the potential limitations of systematic outcomes measurement tools which are independent of the primary clinical care team. Accurate surgical complication documentation by the primary clinical team is critical to identify the true frequency and etiology of surgical complications such as incisional SSI, to rationally approach their reduction and decrease their associated costs to patients and the health care system.
Annals of Surgery 06/2004; 239(5):599-605; discussion 605-7. DOI:10.1097/01.sla.0000124292.21605.99 · 8.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999" presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.1,2 Part I, "Surgical Site Infection: An Overview," describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis. Part II, "Recommendations for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection," represents the consensus of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) regarding strategies for the prevention of SSIs.3 Whenever possible, the recommendations in Part II are based on data from well-designed scientific studies. However, there are a limited number of studies that clearly validate risk factors and prevention measures for SSI. By necessity, available studies have often been conducted in narrowly defined patient populations or for specific kinds of operations, making generalization of their findings to all specialties and types of operations potentially problematic. This is especially true regarding the implementation of SSI prevention measures. Finally, some of the infection control practices routinely used by surgical teams cannot be rigorously studied for ethical or logistical reasons (e.g., wearing vs not wearing gloves). Thus, some of the recommendations in Part II are based on a strong theoretical rationale and suggestive evidence in the absence of confirmatory scientific knowledge.It has been estimated that approximately 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in "ambulatory," "same-day," or "outpatient" operating rooms by the turn of the century.4 In recommending various SSI prevention methods, this document makes no distinction between surgical care delivered in such settings and that provided in conventional inpatient operating rooms. This document is primarily intended for use by surgeons, operating room nurses, postoperative inpatient and clinic nurses, infection control professionals, anesthesiologists, healthcare epidemiologists, and other personnel directly responsible for the prevention of nosocomial infections. This document does not: Specifically address issues unique to burns, trauma, transplant procedures, or transmission of bloodborne pathogens from healthcare worker to patient, nor does it specifically address details of SSI prevention in pediatric surgical practice. It has been recently shown in a multicenter study of pediatric surgical patients that characteristics related to the operations are more important than those related to the physiologic status of the patients.5 In general, all SSI prevention measures effective in adult surgical care are indicated in pediatric surgical care. Specifically address procedures performed outside of the operating room (e.g., endoscopic procedures), nor does it provide guidance for infection prevention for invasive procedures such as cardiac catheterization or interventional radiology. Nonetheless, it is likely that many SSI prevention strategies also could be applied or adapted to reduce infectious complications associated with these procedures. Specifically recommend SSI prevention methods unique to minimally invasive operations (i.e., laparoscopic surgery). Available SSI surveillance data indicate that laparoscopic operations generally have a lower or comparable SSI risk when contrasted to open operations.6-11 SSI prevention measures applicable in open operations (e.g., open cholecystectomy) are indicated for their laparoscopic counterparts (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Recommend specific antiseptic agents for patient preoperative skin preparations or for healthcare worker hand/forearm antisepsis. Hospitals should choose from products recommended for these activitie
American Journal of Infection Control 05/1999; 27(2):97-132; quiz 133-4; discussion 96. · 2.21 Impact Factor
Thijs A van Rheenen, Michel P J van den Bekerom, Denise Eygendaal
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.