Skip Navigation

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for Surgery: An Advisory Statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project

  1. W. Bratzler Dale,
  2. M. Houck Peter, and
  3. for the Surgical Infection Prevention Guidelines Writers Workgroupa
  1. Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Seattle, Washington
  1. Reprints or correspondence: Dr. Dale W. Bratzler, Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality, 14000 Quail Springs Pkwy., Ste. 400, Oklahoma City, OK 73134-2627 (dbratzler{at}okqio.sdps.org).
 
Next Section

Abstract

In January 2003, leadership of the Medicare National Surgical Infection Prevention Project hosted the Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup (SIPGWW) meeting. The objectives were to review areas of agreement among the most-recently published guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, to address inconsistencies, and to discuss issues not currently addressed. The participants included authors from most of the groups that have published North American guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis, as well as authors from several specialty colleges. Nominal group process was used to draft a consensus paper that was widely circulated for comment. The consensus positions of SIPGWW include that infusion of the first antimicrobial dose should begin within 60 min before surgical incision and that prophylactic antimicrobials should be discontinued within 24 h after the end of surgery. This advisory statement provides an overview of other issues related to antimicrobial prophylaxis, including specific suggestions regarding antimicrobial selection.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the second most common cause of nosocomial infections [1, 2]. Up to 2%–5% of patients undergoing clean extraabdominal operations and up to 20% undergoing intraabdominal operations will develop an SSI [3]. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that ∼500,000 SSIs occur annually in the United States [4]. Patients who develop SSIs are up to 60% more likely to spend time in an intensive care unit, 5 times more likely to be readmitted to the hospital, and 2 times more likely to die than are patients without an SSI [5]. Health care costs are substantially increased for patients who develop SSIs [1, 5–8].

In August 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the CDC implemented the national Surgical Infection Prevention (SIP) project [9]. The goal of the SIP project is to decrease the morbidity and mortality associated with postoperative SSIs by promoting appropriate selection and timing of administration of prophylactic antimicrobials. A panel of experts in surgical infection prevention, hospital infection control, and epidemiology developed 3 performance measures for national surveillance and quality improvement [9]. These measures are (1) the proportion of patients who have parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis initiated within 1 h before the surgical incision, (2) the proportion of patients who are provided a prophylactic antimicrobial agent that is consistent with currently published guidelines, and (3) the proportion of patients whose prophylactic antimicrobial therapy is discontinued within 24 h after the end of surgery. For the purposes of national surveillance, the SIP project focuses on operations commonly performed on Medicare patients and for which there is no controversy over the need for antimicrobial prophylaxis. These operations include coronary artery bypass grafting; other open-chest cardiac surgery, excluding transplant surgery; vascular surgery, including aneurysm repair, thromboendarterectomy, and vein bypass; general abdominal colorectal surgery; hip and knee arthroplasty (excluding revisions); and abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy [9].

Several guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery have been published [10–16]. Although there is considerable agreement in recommendations for antimicrobial selection and timing (table 1), inconsistencies exist, and several important issues are not addressed. In January 2003, leadership of the national SIP project hosted a meeting of the Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Authors from most of the groups that have published North American guidelines and representatives of several additional specialty societies interested in surgical infection prevention attended the meeting. The objectives of the meeting were to review areas of agreement, to address issues of inconsistency, and to discuss issues not currently addressed in published guidelines.

Table 1.
View larger version:
Table 1.

Summary of previously published guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis for operations targeted for national surveillance.

This advisory statement summarizes the workgroup meeting and subsequent discussions, provides an overview of current guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis, and provides expert consensus on issues that are inconsistent or not addressed in the guidelines. Specific recommendations regarding the national performance measures and antimicrobial prophylaxis for operations targeted in the national SIP project are discussed. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the literature of antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery, because published guidelines provide such reviews and because the workgroup discussions were generally limited to operations being evaluated in the national project.

Previous SectionNext Section

General Recommendations

Timing of the first dose of antimicrobial therapy. The goal of antimicrobial prophylaxis is to achieve serum and tissue drug levels that exceed, for the duration of the operation, the MICs for the organisms likely to be encountered during the operation. As early as 1961, Burke [18] demonstrated that, when antimicrobials were administered before incision, experimental incisions contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus could not be distinguished from incisions that had not been contaminated. He found that antimicrobials were effective in reducing lesion size if administered no later than 3 h after bacterial contamination was introduced. In 1969, Polk and Lopez-Mayor [19] reported a randomized trial of antimicrobial prophylaxis administered to patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal tract surgery that demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of wound and intraabdominal sepsis among treated individuals. In 1976, Stone et al. [20] demonstrated the lowest SSI rates among patients undergoing gastrointestinal, biliary, and colon operations when antimicrobials were administered within 1 h before incision. Administration of the first antimicrobial dose postoperatively resulted in SSI rates almost identical to those among patients who did not receive prophylaxis [20]. Ideally, the antimicrobial should be administered as near to the incision time as possible to achieve low SSI rates [18–26].

On the basis of published evidence, the workgroup endorsed the national performance measure that infusion of the first antimicrobial dose should begin within 60 min before incision. However, when a fluoroquinolone or vancomycin is indicated, the infusion should begin within 120 min before incision to prevent antibiotic-associated reactions. Although research has demonstrated that administration of the antimicrobial at the time of anesthesia induction is safe and results in adequate serum and tissue drug levels at the time of incision, there was no consensus that the infusion must be completed before incision. When a proximal tourniquet is required, however, the entire antimicrobial dose should be administered before the tourniquet is inflated.

Duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis. The majority of published evidence demonstrates that antimicrobial prophylaxis after wound closure is unnecessary, and most studies comparing single-dose prophylaxis with multiple-dose prophylaxis have not shown benefit of additional doses [3, 10–14, 27–29]. Prolonged use of prophylactic antimicrobials is associated with emergence of resistant bacterial strains [30–32]. For the majority of operations being evaluated in the SIP project, the guidelines cited in this article recommend that prophylaxis end within 24 h after the operation. The single guideline exception is the preferred regimen of antimicrobial prophylaxis for cardiothoracic surgery recommended by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), which recommends continuing prophylaxis for up to 72 h after the operation [12]. This ASHP recommendation was based on expert opinion, and its authors suggest that prophylaxis for ⩽24 h may be appropriate [12]. On the basis of published evidence, the workgroup endorsed the national performance measure that prophylactic antimicrobials should be discontinued within 24 h after the end of surgery.

Screening for β-lactam allergy. Although many patients have drug allergies documented in their medical records, the symptoms or circumstances associated with the allergies are rarely documented. Several studies have demonstrated that the incidence of true drug “allergy” is lower than that recorded in medical records [33–35]. Because β-lactam antimicrobials often represent agents of choice for prophylaxis, the medical history should be adequate to determine if the patient likely had a true allergy (e.g., urticaria, pruritus, angioedema, bronchospasm, hypotension, or arrhythmia) or a serious adverse drug reaction (e.g., drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, drug fever, or toxic epidermal necrolysis) [36].

In operations for which cephalosporins represent appropriate prophylaxis, alternative antimicrobials should be provided to those with a high likelihood of serious adverse reaction or allergy on the basis of patient history or diagnostic tests such as skin testing. However, the incidence of adverse reactions to cephalosporins among patients with reported penicillin allergy is rare, and penicillin skin tests do not predict the likelihood of allergic reactions to cephalosporins in patients reporting penicillin allergy. Practical approaches to patients with a history of antibiotic allergy have been previously published [36–38].

Antimicrobial choice for β-lactam allergy. Recommendations for patients with confirmed β-lactam allergy are provided in the discussion of specific operations that follow. In operations where prophylaxis is directed primarily at gram-positive cocci, such as orthopedic operations with joint replacement, cardiothoracic operations, or general, vascular, and neurosurgical operations with implants, alternatives to cephalosporins for patients with β-lactam allergy are vancomycin and clindamycin [13]. The decision to use vancomycin or clindamycin should involve examination of local antimicrobial resistance patterns and institutional incidence of infections caused by organisms such as Clostridium difficile and Staphylococcus epidermidis [39]. On the basis of antimicrobial spectrum data, vancomycin and clindamycin are appropriate alternatives to β-lactams, although there are few data supporting the use of either for routine prophylaxis.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee guideline suggests that a “high” frequency of MRSA infection in an institution should influence the use of vancomycin for prophylaxis [13]. However, there is no consensus about what constitutes a “high” prevalence of methicillin resistance. In addition, there is no evidence that routine use of vancomycin for prophylaxis in institutions with perceived high rates of MRSA infection will result in fewer SSIs than do agents such as cefazolin. In a study of cardiac surgery in an institution with a perceived high rate of MRSA infection, Finkelstein et al. [40] randomized 885 patients to prophylaxis with cefazolin or vancomycin. There was no difference in SSI rates between the 2 groups (SSIs were observed in 9.0% and 9.5% of patients who received cefazolin and vancomycin, respectively; P = .8). However, patients who received cefazolin and later developed an SSI were more likely to be infected with MRSA. Patients who developed an SSI after vancomycin prophylaxis were more likely to be infected with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. The choice of antimicrobial changed the flora of infections that occurred but did not alter infection rates. Similarly, Manian et al. [41] recently demonstrated that 2 postoperative factors (receipt of postoperative antibiotic treatment for >1 day and discharge to a long-term care facility) were associated with development of MRSA SSIs. Lack of vancomycin prophylaxis was not associated with risk of MRSA SSI [41].

For patients with known MRSA colonization, vancomycin should be considered as the appropriate antimicrobial agent for prophylaxis. The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America recently recommended routine surveillance cultures at the time of admission to the hospital for patients at high-risk for carriage of MRSA [42]. Rates of MRSA colonization may be higher among patients who have previously spent >5 days in an institutional setting, including long-term or acute-care centers [42–45].

Limitation of additional agents. The goal of antimicrobial prophylaxis is to prevent infection of the wound due to organisms most likely to be encountered for that type of operation. For most operations, a single antimicrobial is sufficient to prevent SSIs. However, there may be cases where an unlikely contaminant is present or suspected (e.g., in cases of coexisting infection) and for which additional coverage is necessary. For clean procedures, it is recommended to treat or remove other sources of infection before an elective operation [13]. If it is not possible to postpone the operation, antimicrobial prophylaxis specific for the suspected bacteria and appropriate for the surgical site is recommended.

Intranasal mupirocin has been studied in a variety of operations to evaluate its impact on SSIs. Although the use of intranasal mupirocin has been effective at reducing nasal carriage of S. aureus, the majority of studies do not demonstrate a reduction in SSI rates [46–48].

Antimicrobial dosing. There are limited published data on appropriate antimicrobial dosing for prophylaxis. The drug should be provided in an adequate dose on the basis of patient body weight, adjusted dosing weight, or body mass index, and administration should be repeated intraoperatively if the operation is still in progress 2 half-lives after the first dose to ensure adequate antimicrobial levels until wound closure. In a study of obese patients undergoing gastroplasty, blood and tissue levels of cefazolin were consistently below the MICs for prophylaxis against gram-positive and gram-negative organisms in patients who received a 1-g dose preoperatively [49]. Those patients receiving 2 g of cefazolin had an incidence of SSI that was lower than that among those receiving a 1-g dose [49]. Studies of patients undergoing gastrointestinal, biliary, and cardiac operations have demonstrated that successive dosing with antimicrobials with short half-lives is associated with lower SSI rates [50–52]. Suggested initial dose, infusion time, and time to redosing for commonly recommended prophylactic antimicrobials are summarized in table 2.

Table 2.
View larger version:
Table 2.

Suggested initial dose and time to redosing for antimicrobial drugs commonly utilized for surgical prophylaxis.

Nonantimicrobial methods of preventing infection. Recent data suggest that attention to intraoperative temperature control and supplemental oxygen administration along with aggressive fluid resuscitation may reduce infection rates [56–59]. Additional research is required before definitive recommendations can be made [60]. There is considerable evidence that aggressive perioperative control of blood sugar with intravenous insulin for patients undergoing cardiac operations reduces SSI rates [61–63]. The risk of SSI appears to be related to the presence of hyperglycemia rather than to a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus.

Previous SectionNext Section

Specific Antimicrobial Recommendations

There is published evidence to support the use of many prophylactic antimicrobial regimens besides those included in this advisory statement or in existing guidelines. However, factors such as cost, half-life, safety, and antimicrobial resistance favor the use of older agents with a relatively narrow spectrum. The use of newer, broad-spectrum drugs that are front-line therapeutic agents should be avoided in surgical prophylaxis to reduce emergence of bacterial strains that are resistant to these antimicrobials.

Gynecologic and obstetrical surgery. For abdominal or vaginal hysterectomy, cefotetan is preferred, but reasonable alternatives are cefazolin and cefoxitin [10–12, 14–16, 64]. Metronidazole monotherapy is included in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist's Practice Bulletin as an alternative for patients undergoing hysterectomy, although it may be less effective as a single agent for prophylaxis [15]. In cases of β-lactam allergy, the workgroup recommends the use of one of the following regimens: clindamycin combined with gentamicin, aztreonam, or ciprofloxacin; metronidazole combined with gentamicin or ciprofloxacin; or clindamycin monotherapy. A single 750-mg dose of levofloxacin can be substituted for ciprofloxacin.

Patients undergoing cesarean section can be divided into low- and high-risk groups for postoperative infection [65]. High-risk patients include those undergoing cesarean deliveries after rupture of the membranes and/or onset of labor, as well as with emergency operations for which preoperative cleansing may have been inadequate. Although antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended for both risk groups, the benefits are greatest for high-risk patients. A narrow-spectrum antimicrobial regimen similar to that recommended for hysterectomy provides adequate prophylaxis [66, 67]. In the United States, the antimicrobial is usually not administered until the umbilical cord is clamped. Although there is no evidence to support the delay in administration, it is standard practice and is preferred by neonatologists because of concern of masking septic manifestations in the neonate [68].

Orthopedic total joint (hip and knee) arthroplasty. The preferred antimicrobials for prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty are cefazolin and cefuroxime [10–12, 14, 16]. Vancomycin or clindamycin may be used in patients with serious allergy or adverse reactions to β-lactams. Several studies comparing short- with longer-duration antimicrobial prophylaxis for total joint arthroplasty have shown no advantage to prolonged prophylaxis [3, 69–74]. The workgroup recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis be discontinued within 24 h after the end of the operation [3, 10–12, 14, 16, 69–74]. If a proximal tourniquet is used, the antimicrobial should be completely infused before inflation.

There is no evidence that continuing antimicrobials until all catheters and drains are removed will lower infection rates. However, use of drains has been associated with numerous complications, including infection, drain retention, and soft-tissue problems [75–77]. The necessity of drains for total joint arthroplasty is controversial [76–84]. Over time, there is increased bacterial colonization of the drain tip and migration of skin organisms into the wound [85–87].

Despite the potential benefits of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement for joint arthroplasty, controversies remain regarding its use. There are no established guidelines for use of these agents as prophylaxis. Commercially available preblended antibiotic bone cements are indicated only for use in the second stage of a 2-stage revision for total joint arthroplasty after elimination of active infection. These products are not currently approved for prophylaxis.

Cardiothoracic and vascular surgery. The recommended antimicrobials for cardiothoracic and vascular operations include cefazolin or cefuroxime [10–12, 14, 16]. For patients with serious allergy or adverse reaction to β-lactams, vancomycin is appropriate, and clindamycin may be an acceptable alternative [13]. The workgroup acknowledged the concern of some cardiovascular surgeons over discontinuing the antimicrobial before all invasive lines and drains are removed. Although a number of studies have found no advantage of longer-duration prophylaxis over short-duration prophylaxis for patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery, the consequences of deep sternal infections or infected prostheses are devastating. Longer-duration prophylaxis has been associated with higher rates of resistant organisms when SSI occurs [30]. The consensus of the workgroup is that administration of prophylaxis for ⩽24 h is acceptable and that there is no evidence that providing antimicrobials for longer periods will reduce SSI rates (table 3). Pending a systematic review of the literature by its Committee on Evidence-Based Medicine, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons currently recommends that antimicrobial prophylaxis be continued for 24–48 h.

Table 3.
View larger version:
Table 3.

Summary of the Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup consensus positions.

Colorectal surgery. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal operations can consist of an orally administered antimicrobial bowel preparation, a preoperative parenteral antimicrobial, or the combination of both. Recommended oral prophylaxis consists of neomycin plus erythromycin or neomycin plus metronidazole, initiated no more than 18–24 h before the operation, along with administration of a mechanical bowel preparation. Cefotetan or cefoxitin are recommended for parenteral prophylaxis [10–12, 14, 16], and the combination of parenteral cefazolin and metronidazole is also recommended as a cost-effective alternative [88, 89]. Although a recent study suggests that the combination of oral prophylaxis with parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis may result in lower SSI rates, this is not specified in any published guideline [17]. A survey of colorectal surgeons found that combination oral and parenteral prophylaxis is common practice in the United States [90]. For patients with confirmed allergy or adverse reaction to β-lactams, use of one of the following regimens is recommended: clindamycin combined with gentamicin, aztreonam, or ciprofloxacin; or metronidazole combined with gentamicin or ciprofloxacin. A single 750-mg dose of levofloxacin can be substituted for ciprofloxacin.

Previous SectionNext Section

Conclusion

Optimal prophylaxis ensures that adequate concentrations of an appropriate antimicrobial are present in the serum, tissue, and wound during the entire time that the incision is open and at risk for bacterial contamination. The antimicrobial should be active against bacteria that are likely to be encountered during the particular type of operation being performed and should be safe for the patient and economical for the hospital. The selection and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis should have the smallest impact possible on the normal bacterial flora of the patient and the microbiologic ecology of the hospital.

In this advisory statement, members of the Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup attempted, as they did with guidelines of organizations to which they are affiliated, to address the need for effective, safe, economical prophylaxis that does not promote antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. The advice included in this report will be appropriate for most patients at the majority of facilities. However, sound clinical judgment must be exercised to recognize those unusual cases in which an alternative approach is necessary. Many of the studies that have supported the development of antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines are quite old, and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns change over time. Clinicians need to continue to evaluate current literature and carefully examine susceptibility patterns in their own institutions.

Previous SectionNext Section

Workgroup Members

The Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup included the following organizations and individuals: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery: Jason H. Calhoun, University of Missouri (Columbia, MO); American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Vanessa Dalton, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI); American College of Surgeons: Christopher Daly, Duquesne University (Pittsburgh, PA); American Geriatrics Society: Robert A. Bonomo, Cleveland Department of Veterans' Affairs Medical Center (Cleveland, OH); American Society of Health-System Pharmacists: Keith M. Olsen, University of Nebraska Medical Center (Omaha, NE); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Chesley Richards, National Center for Infectious Diseases (Atlanta, GA); Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee: James T. Lee (Saint Paul, MN); Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Peter Houck (Seattle, WA); Infectious Diseases Society of America: E. Patchen Dellinger, University of Seattle (Seattle, WA), and Peter Gross, Hackensack University Medical Center (Hackensack, NJ); The Medical Letter: Gianna Zuccotti (New York, NY); National Surgical Infection Prevention Quality Improvement Organization Support Center: Dale W. Bratzler, Karina Carr, Michele L. Clark, and Lisa Red, Oklahoma Foundation for Medical Quality (Oklahoma City, OK); Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America: William R. Jarvis (Atlanta, GA); Society of Thoracic Surgeons: Fred H. Edwards, University of Florida (Jacksonville, FL); Surgical Infection Society: Donald E. Fry, University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, NM); and VHA: John A. Hitt, VHA Mountain States (Denver, CO).

Previous SectionNext Section

Acknowledgments

The following organizations have endorsed this advisory statement: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, American Association of Critical Care Nurses, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American College of Surgeons, American College of Osteopathic Surgeons, American Geriatrics Society, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses, Ascension Health, Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Infectious Diseases Society of America, The Medical Letter, Premier, Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Surgical Infection Society.

The following organizations have had the opportunity to review and comment on this advisory statement: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Hospital Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare, and VHA.

Disclaimer. The analyses upon which this publication is based were performed under contract number 500-99-P619, entitled “Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization for the State of Oklahoma,” sponsored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the DHHS, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US government. The authors assume full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the ideas presented. This article is a direct result of the Health Care Quality Improvement Program initiated by CMS, which has encouraged identification of quality improvement projects derived from analyses of patterns of care, and therefore required no special funding on the part of this contractor. Ideas and contributions to the authors concerning experience in engaging with issues presented are welcomed

Conflict of interest. R.A.B. has recently received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ortho McNeil, and Merck and is a member of the speakers' bureau of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and Ortho-McNeil. J.H.C. has recently received research funding from Basilea Pharmaceutica, Pharmacia-Upjohn, and Wyeth-Ayerst. E.P.D. has recently received research funding from AstraZeneca, Wyeth-Ayerst, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Parke Davis and is a consultant for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Peninsula, Cubist, Bayer, Ortho-McNeil, Versicor, Intermune, Merck, and Sharpe & Dohme. D.E.F. has recently received research funding from Eli Lilly and Pfizer, is a consultant for Cubist, Eli Lilly, and Merck, and is a member of the speakers' bureau of Pfizer. W.R.J. is a consultant for Kimberly-Clark and Becton, Dickinson, and Company. J.T.L. is a consultant for 3M and Pfizer. K.M.O. is a member of the speakers' bureau of AstraZeneca, Wyeth, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and TAP Pharmaceuticals.

Previous SectionNext Section

Footnotes

  • ↵Members of the workgroup are listed at the end of the text.

  • Received January 29, 2004.
  • Accepted February 3, 2004.
Previous Section
 

References

  1. ↵
    1. Burke JP
    . Infection control—a problem for patient safety. N Engl J Med 2003;348:651-6.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1996, issued May 1996: a report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:380-8.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Shojania KG,
    2. Duncan BW,
    3. McDonald KM,
    4. et al.
    1. Auerbach AD
    . Prevention of surgical site infections. In: Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, et al., editors. Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 43. AHRQ publication no. 01-E058. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 20 July; 2001. p. 221-44. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ptsafety/pdf/ptsafety.pdf.
  4. ↵
    1. Mayhall DG
    1. Wong ES
    . Surgical site infection. In: Mayhall DG, editor. Hospital epidemiology and infection control. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 1999. p. 189-210.
  5. ↵
    1. Kirkland KB,
    2. Briggs JP,
    3. Trivette SL,
    4. Wilkinson WE,
    5. Sexton DJ
    . The impact of surgical site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725-30.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Bennett JV,
    2. Brachman PS
    1. Martone WJ,
    2. Jarvis WR,
    3. Culver DH,
    4. Haley RW
    . Incidence and nature of endemic and epidemic nosocomial infections. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, editors. Hospital infections. 3rd ed. New York: Little, Brown Medical Division; 1992. p. 577-96.
    1. Hollenbeak CS,
    2. Murphy D,
    3. Dunagan WC,
    4. Fraser VJ
    . Nonrandom selection and the attributable cost of surgical-site infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:174-6.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Perencevich EN,
    2. Sands KE,
    3. Cosgrove SE,
    4. Guadagnoli E,
    5. Meara E,
    6. Platt R
    . Health and economic impact of surgical site infections diagnosed after hospital discharge. Emerg Infect Dis 2003;9:196-203.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
    . Surgical Infection Prevention Project description. Available at: http://www.medqic.org/sip.
  10. ↵
    1. Page CP,
    2. Bohnen JM,
    3. Fletcher JR,
    4. McManus AT,
    5. Solumkin JS,
    6. Wittman DH
    . Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds: guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128:79-88.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Dellinger EP,
    2. Gross PA,
    3. Barrett TL,
    4. et al
    . Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 1994;18:422-7.
    FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
    . ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56:1839-88.
    FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Mangram AJ,
    2. Horan TC,
    3. Pearson ML,
    4. et al
    . Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250-78.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther 2001;43:92-7.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis for gynecologic procedures. ACOG practice bulletin 23. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 2001. January.
  16. ↵
    1. Gilbert DN,
    2. Moellering RC,
    3. Sande MA
    . The Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy. 33rd ed. Hyde Park, VT: Antimicrobial Therapy; 2003. p. 123-4.
  17. ↵
    1. Lewis RT
    . Oral versus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery: a randomized study and meta-analysis send a message from the 1990s. Can J Surg 2002;45:173-80.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Burke JF
    . The effective period of preventive antibiotic action in experimental incisions and dermal lesions. Surgery 1961;50:161-8.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    1. Polk HC Jr,
    2. Lopez-Mayor JF
    . Postoperative wound infection: a prospective study of determinant factors and prevention. Surgery 1969;66:97-103.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    1. Stone HH,
    2. Hooper CA,
    3. Kolb LD,
    4. Geheber CE,
    5. Dawkins EJ
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastric, biliary and colonic surgery. Ann Surg 1976;184:443-52.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. Polk HC Jr,
    2. Trachtenberg L,
    3. Finn MP
    . Antibiotic activity in surgical incisions: the basis for prophylaxis in selected operations. JAMA 1980;244:1353-4.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. DiPiro JT,
    2. Vallner JJ,
    3. Bowden TA,
    4. Clark BA,
    5. Sisley JF
    . Intraoperative serum and tissue activity of cefazolin and cefoxitin. Arch Surg 1985;120:829-32.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Classen DC,
    2. Evans RS,
    3. Pestotnik SL,
    4. Horn SD,
    5. Menlove RL,
    6. Burke JP
    . The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281-6.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. Fukatsu K,
    2. Saito H,
    3. Matsuda T,
    4. Ikeda S,
    5. Furukawa S,
    6. Muto T
    . Influences of type and duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis on an outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and on the incidence of wound infection. Arch Surg 1997;132:1320-5.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Trick WE,
    2. Scheckler WE,
    3. Tokars JL,
    4. et al
    . Modifiable risk factors associated with deep sternal site infection after coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:108-14.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Burke JP
    . Maximizing appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical patients: an update from LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33(Suppl 2):78-83.
    CrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Meijer WS,
    2. Schmitz PI,
    3. Jeekel J
    . Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in biliary tract surgery. Br J Surg 1990;77:283-90.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. Kreter B,
    2. Woods M
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiothoracic operations: meta-analysis of thirty years of clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;104:590-9.
    Abstract
  29. ↵
    1. McDonald M,
    2. Grabsch E,
    3. Marshall C,
    4. Forbes A
    . Single- versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:388-96.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. Harbarth S,
    2. Samore MH,
    3. Lichtenberg D,
    4. Carmeli Y
    . Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after cardiovascular surgery and its effect on surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance. Circulation 2000;101:2916-21.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Eggimann P,
    2. Pittet D
    . Infection control in the ICU. Chest 2001;120:2059-93.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Hecker MT,
    2. Aron DC,
    3. Patel NP,
    4. Lehmann MK,
    5. Donskey CJ
    . Unnecessary use of antimicrobials in hospitalized patients: current patterns of misuse with an emphasis on the antianaerobic spectrum of activity. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:972-8.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  33. ↵
    1. Tripp DM,
    2. Brown GR
    . Pharmacist assessment of drug allergies. Am J Hosp Pharm 1993;50:95-8.
    Abstract
    1. Hung OR,
    2. Bands C,
    3. Laney G,
    4. Drover D,
    5. Stevens S,
    6. MacSween M
    . Drug allergies in the surgical population. Can J Anaesth 1994;41:1149-55.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Pilzer JD,
    2. Burke TG,
    3. Mutnick AH
    . Drug allergy assessment at a university hospital and clinic. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996;53:2970-5.
    Abstract
  36. ↵
    1. Robinson JL,
    2. Hameed T,
    3. Carr S
    . Practical aspects of choosing an antibiotic for patients with a reported allergy to an antibiotic. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:26-31.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Anne S,
    2. Reisman RE
    . Risk of administering cephalosporin antibiotics to patients with history of penicillin allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1995;74:167-70.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  38. ↵
    1. Solensky R
    . Hypersensitivity reactions to beta-lactam antibiotics. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2003;24:201-20.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  39. ↵
    1. Thomas C,
    2. Stevenson M,
    3. Riley TV
    . Antibiotics and hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea: a systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;51:1339-50.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    1. Finkelstein R,
    2. Rabino G,
    3. Mashiah T,
    4. et al
    . Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;123:326-32.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  41. ↵
    1. Manian FA,
    2. Meyer PL,
    3. Setzer J,
    4. Senkel D
    . Surgical site infections associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: do postoperative factors play a role? Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:863-8.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Muto CA,
    2. Jernigan JA,
    3. Ostrowsky BE,
    4. et al
    . SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:362-86.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Arnold MS,
    2. Dempsey JM,
    3. Fishman M,
    4. McAuley PJ,
    5. Tibert C,
    6. Vallande NC
    . The best hospital practices for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: on the cutting edge. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:69-76.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Farr BM,
    2. Jarvis WR
    . Would active surveillance cultures help control healthcare-related methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:65-8.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  45. ↵
    1. Jernigan JA,
    2. Pullen AL,
    3. Flowers L,
    4. Bell M,
    5. Jarvis WR
    . Prevalence of and risk factors for colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at the time of hospital admission. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:409-14.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    1. Perl TM,
    2. Cullen JJ,
    3. Wenzel RP,
    4. et al
    . Intranasal mupirocin to prevent postoperative Staphylococcus aureus infections. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1871-7.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Laupland KB,
    2. Conly JM
    . Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization and prophylaxis for infection with topical intranasal mupirocin: an evidence-based review. Clin Infect Dis 2003;37:933-8.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Suzuki Y,
    2. Kamigaki T,
    3. Fujino Y,
    4. Tominaga M,
    5. Ku Y,
    6. Kuroda Y
    . Randomized clinical trial of preoperative intranasal mupirocin to reduce surgical-site infection after digestive surgery. Br J Surg 2003;90:1072-5.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  49. ↵
    1. Forse RA,
    2. Karam B,
    3. MacLean LD,
    4. Christou NV
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery in morbidly obese patients. Surgery 1989;106:750-6.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  50. ↵
    1. Scher KS
    . Studies on the duration of antibiotic administration for surgical prophylaxis. Am Surg 1997;63:59-62.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. Ohge H,
    2. Takesue Y,
    3. Yokoyama T,
    4. et al
    . An additional dose of cefazolin for intraoperative prophylaxis. Surg Today 1999;29:1233-6.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  52. ↵
    1. Zanetti G,
    2. Giardina R,
    3. Platt R
    . Intraoperative redosing of cefazolin and risk for surgical site infection in cardiac surgery. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:828-31.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. McEvoy GK
    , editor. AHFS drug information. 43rd ed. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; 2003.
    1. Nissen D
    , editor. Mosby's drug consultant. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Science; 2003.
    1. Anderson PO,
    2. Knoeben JE,
    3. Troutman WG
    , editors. Handbook of clinical drug data. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2002.
  56. ↵
    1. Kurz A,
    2. Sessler DI,
    3. Lenhardt RA
    . Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1209-15.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Grief R,
    2. Akca O,
    3. Horn E-P,
    4. Kurz A,
    5. Sessler DI
    . Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 2000;342:161-7.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Melling AC,
    2. Ali B,
    3. Scott EM,
    4. Leaper DJ
    . Effects of preoperative warming on the incidence of wound infection after clean surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358:876-80.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  59. ↵
    1. Sessler DI,
    2. Akca O
    . Nonpharmacologic prevention of surgical wound infections. Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:1397-404.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  60. ↵
    1. Pryor KO,
    2. Fahey TJ 3rd,
    3. Lien CA,
    4. Goldstein PA
    . Surgical site infection and the routine use of perioperative hyperoxia in a general surgical population: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:79-87.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Zerr KJ,
    2. Furnary AP,
    3. Grunkemeier GL,
    4. Bookin S,
    5. Kanher V,
    6. Starr A
    . Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63:356-61.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Furnary AP,
    2. Kerr KJ,
    3. Grunkemeier GL,
    4. Starr A
    . Continuous intravenous insulin infusion reduces the incidence of deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients after cardiac surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 1999;67:352-60.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Latham R,
    2. Lancaster AD,
    3. Covington JF,
    4. Pirolo JS,
    5. Thomas CS
    . The association of diabetes and glucose control with surgical-site infections among cardiothoracic surgery patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:607-12.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  64. ↵
    1. Hemsell DL,
    2. Johnson ER,
    3. Hemsell PG,
    4. Nobles BJ,
    5. Little BB,
    6. Heard MC
    . Cefazolin is inferior to cefotetan as single-dose prophylaxis for women undergoing elective total abdominal hysterectomy. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:677-84.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
  65. ↵
    1. American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists
    . ACOG practice bulletin number 47, October 2003: prophylactic antibiotics in labor and delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2003;102:875-82.
    CrossRefMedline
  66. ↵
    1. Faro S,
    2. Martens MG,
    3. Hammill HA,
    4. Riddle G,
    5. Tortolero G
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis: is there a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:900-7.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  67. ↵
    1. Hopkins L,
    2. Smaill F
    . Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000. Antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and drugs for cesarean section [review]; p. D001136.
  68. ↵
    1. Cunningham FG,
    2. Leveno KJ,
    3. DePalma RT,
    4. Roark M,
    5. Rosenfeld CR
    . Perioperative antimicrobials for cesarean delivery: before or after cord clamping? Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:151-4.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  69. ↵
    1. Pollard JP,
    2. Hughes SO,
    3. Scott JE,
    4. Evans MJ,
    5. Benson MK
    . Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip replacement. Br Med J 1979;1:707-9.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Williams DN,
    2. Gustilo RB,
    3. Beverly R,
    4. Kind AC
    . Bone and serum concentrations of five cephalosporin drugs: relevance to prophylaxis and treatment in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop 1983;179:253-65.
    Medline
    1. Nelson CL,
    2. Green TG,
    3. Porter RA,
    4. Warren RD
    . One day versus seven days of preventive antibiotic therapy in orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop 1983;176:258-63.
    Medline
    1. Heydemann JS,
    2. Nelson CL
    . Short-term preventive antibiotics. Clin Orthop 1986;205:184-7.
    Medline
    1. Oishi CS,
    2. Carrion WV,
    3. Hoaglund FT
    . Use of parenteral prophylactic antibiotics in clean orthopaedic surgery: a review of the literature. Clin Orthop 1993;296:249-55.
    Medline
  74. ↵
    1. Mauerhan DR,
    2. Nelson CL,
    3. Smith DL,
    4. et al
    . Prophylaxis against infection in total joint arthroplasty: one day of cefuroxime compared with three days of cefazolin. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994;76:39-45.
    Medline
  75. ↵
    1. Magee C,
    2. Rodeheaver GT,
    3. Golden GT,
    4. Fox J,
    5. Edgerton JT,
    6. Edlich RF
    . Potentiation of wound infection by surgical drains. Am J Surg 1976;131:547-9.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    1. Chandratreya A,
    2. Giannikas K,
    3. Livesley P
    . To drain or not to drain: literature versus practice. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998;43:404-6.
    MedlineWeb of Science
  77. ↵
    1. Cobb JP
    . Why use drains? J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:993-5.
    Medline
    1. Adalberth G,
    2. Bystrom S,
    3. Kolstad K,
    4. Mallmin H,
    5. Milbrink J
    . Postoperative drainage of knee arthroplasty is not necessary: a randomized study of 90 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:475-8.
    MedlineWeb of Science
    1. Niskanen RO,
    2. Korkala OL,
    3. Haapala J,
    4. Kuokkanen HO,
    5. Kaukonen JP,
    6. Salo SA
    . Drainage is of no use in primary uncomplicated cemented hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:567-9.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Hadden WA,
    2. McFarlane AG
    . A comparative study of closed-wound suction drainage vs. no drainage in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1990;5:21-4. Suppl.
    CrossRef
    1. Ritter MA,
    2. Keating EM,
    3. Faris PM
    . Closed wound drainage in total hip or total knee replacement: a prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg 1994;76:35-8.
    Medline
    1. Reilly TJ,
    2. Gradisar IA,
    3. Pakan W,
    4. Reilly M
    . The use of postoperative suction drainage in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1986;208:238-42.
    Medline
    1. Esler CN,
    2. Blakeway C,
    3. Fiddian NJ
    . The use of a closed-suction drain in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:215-7.
    CrossRefMedline
  84. ↵
    1. Beer KJ,
    2. Lombardi AV,
    3. Mallory TH,
    4. Vaughn BK
    . The efficacy of suction drains after routine total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 1991;73:584-7.
    Medline
  85. ↵
    1. Drinkwater CJ,
    2. Neil MJ
    . Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995;10:185-9.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
    1. Willett KM,
    2. Simmons CD,
    3. Bentley G
    . The effect of suction drains after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1988;70:607-10.
    Medline
  87. ↵
    1. Raves JJ,
    2. Slifkin M,
    3. Diamond DL
    . A bacteriologic study comparing closed suction and simple conduit drainage. Am J Surg 1984;148:618-20.
    CrossRefMedlineWeb of Science
  88. ↵
    1. Pavan MM,
    2. Malyuk DL
    . A cost effective approach to surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. Can J Hosp Pharm 1992;45:151-6.
    Medline
  89. ↵
    1. Brown GR,
    2. Clarke AM
    . Therapeutic interchange of cefazolin with metronidazole for cefoxitin. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49:1946-50.
    Abstract
  90. ↵
    1. Nichols RL,
    2. Smith JW,
    3. Garcia RY,
    4. Waterman RS,
    5. Holmes IW
    . Current practices of preoperative bowel preparation among North American colorectal surgeons. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:609-19.
    Abstract/FREE Full Text
| Table of Contents

This Article

  1. Clin Infect Dis. (2004) 38 (12): 1706-1715. doi: 10.1086/421095
  1. AbstractFree
  2. » Full Text (HTML)Free
  3. Full Text (PDF)Free

Classifications

Share

  1. Email this article

Navigate This Article

Current Issue

  1. March 1, 2012 54 (5)
  1. Clinical Infectious Diseases
  1. Alert me to new issues

Most