Dataset Information

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes.

ABSTRACT: To reveal optimal antibiotic prophylactic regimen for postoperative endophthalmitis (POE), we conducted systematic review and network meta-analysis. A total of 51 eligible original articles, including two randomized controlled trials, were identified. In total, 4502 POE cases occurred in 6,809,732 eyes (0.066%). Intracameral injection of vancomycin had the best preventive effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 99.6% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.53, corrected P-value = 0.006, P-score = 0.945) followed by intracameral injection of cefazoline (OR 0.09, 99.6% CI 0.02-0.42, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.821), cefuroxime (OR 0.18, 99.6% CI 0.09-0.35, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.660), and moxifloxacin (OR 0.36, 99.6% CI 0.16-0.79, corrected P-value = 0.003, P-score = 0.455). While one randomized controlled trial supported each of intracameral cefuroxime and moxifloxacin, no randomized controlled trial evaluated vancomycin and cefazoline. Sensitivity analysis focusing on the administration route revealed that only intracameral injection (OR 0.19, 99.4% CI 0.12-0.30, corrected P-value < 0.001, P-score = 0.726) significantly decreased the risk of postoperative endophthalmitis. In conclusion, intracameral injection of either vancomycin, cefazoline, cefuroxime, or moxifloxacin prevented POE.

SUBMITTER: Kato A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9579149 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes.

Kato Ai A Horita Nobuyuki N Namkoong Ho H Nomura Eiichi E Masuhara Nami N Kaneko Takeshi T Mizuki Nobuhisa N Takeuchi Masaki M

Scientific reports 20221018 1

To reveal optimal antibiotic prophylactic regimen for postoperative endophthalmitis (POE), we conducted systematic review and network meta-analysis. A total of 51 eligible original articles, including two randomized controlled trials, were identified. In total, 4502 POE cases occurred in 6,809,732 eyes (0.066%). Intracameral injection of vancomycin had the best preventive effect (odds ratio [OR] 0.03, 99.6% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-0.53, corrected P-value = 0.006, P-score = 0.945) followed ...[more]

PMID: 36258003

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPost-operative endophthalmitis is a rare and dreaded complication in ophthalmic operations because it often induces irreparable vision loss. Although many ophthalmological studies aimed at reducing the rate of endophthalmitis have been performed around the world, controversy continues to surround some issues, including the choice of antimicrobials and their route of administration, duration and timing. The aim of this study is to investigate some of these unresolved issues.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials databases were searched to identify studies published until Feb. 2016. The relative risk (RR) for each clinical outcome data is presented with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled estimates of effects were calculated using random-effect models.ResultsThirty-four studies from twenty-four reports involving 1264797 eyes were included in this analysis. Endophthalmitis occurred, on average, in one out of 6177 eyes when intracameral vancomycin/moxifloxacin were used and in one out of 1517 eyes when intracameral vancomycin/moxifloxacin were not used. The relative risk (95% CI) of endophthalmitis was reduced to 0.20 (0.10, 0.42) when intracameral antibiotics were used (p<0.0001). The subconjunctival injection of antibiotics was not superior to other administration routes included in this study (RR = 1.67, 95% CI (0.55, 5.05), p = 0.36). A statistically significant difference was found in the rate of endophthalmitis between the use and lack of use of topical antibiotics (RR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.43, 0.99), p = 0.04). However, no statistically significant difference was found in microbial isolation rates between these groups (RR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.34, 1.75), p = 0.53). When long-term and short-term use of topical antibiotics before surgery were compared, a statistically significant difference was found in microbial isolation rates (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.44, 0.74), p<0.0001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis concluded intracameral antibiotics are effective at preventing endophthalmitis in ocular surgery. A randomized controlled trial confirms the efficacy of cefuroxime but recent large cohort studies support the efficacy of vancomycin/moxifloxacin intracamerally. Intracameral antibitoics are superior to subconjunctival injections but that irrigation antibitoic data are not of enough quality to make a comparison. Different results were found in two clinical outcomes between the use or lack of use of topical antibiotic therapy, we did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that its use prevents endophthalmitis.

Project description:ContextTransperineal prostate biopsy is associated with a significantly lower risk of infectious complications than the transrectal approach. In fact, the risk of infectious complications with transperineal prostate biopsy is so low that the utility of administering periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure has come under question.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess for differences in the rates of infectious complications (septic, nonseptic, and overall) after performing transperineal prostate biopsy with and without the administration of periprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis.Evidence acquisitionThree electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE) were searched, and studies were included if they included patients who underwent transperineal prostate biopsy, were published after January 2000, included information on periprocedural antibiotic administration, and reported postbiopsy complications. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines were utilized.Evidence synthesisA total of 106 unique studies describing 112 cohorts of patients were identified, of which 98 (37 805 men) received antibiotic prophylaxis and 14 (4772 men) did not receive it. All patients were included in the analysis of septic complications. In total, there were 19/37 805 (0.05%) episodes of sepsis in the group of men who received antibiotics, which was similar to the no antibiotic group with 4/4772 (0.08%) episodes (p = 0.2). For overall infections (septic plus nonseptic), there were 403/29 880 (1.35%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%) events among men with evaluable data who received and did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis, respectively (p = 0.8). Restricting our analysis to studies with a comparable low number of biopsy cores (<25 cores), there remained no difference in the rates of sepsis between groups, but there was a small, statistically significant lower risk of infectious complications with antibiotic administration-67/12 140 (0.55%) versus 58/4772 (1.22%; p < 0.01).ConclusionsThe likelihood of septic infections after transperineal prostate biopsy is low with and without antibiotic prophylaxis. The omission of periprocedural antibiotics with this procedure stands to benefit patients by avoiding potential drug reactions. Furthermore, this practice is in line with calls throughout the medical community for improved antibiotic stewardship.Patient summaryIn a large systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated infectious complications after transperineal prostate biopsy with or without the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. We conclude that prophylactic antibiotics do not decrease the rate of postbiopsy sepsis but may have a small benefit in terms of preventing less serious infections.

Project description:BackgroundNoninvasive respiratory support has been increasingly applied in the immediate postoperative period to prevent postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). However, the optimal approach remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of various noninvasive respiratory strategies used in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery.MethodsWe conducted a frequentist random-effect network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the prophylactic use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), high flow nasal cannula (HFNC), or postoperative usual care (PUC) in the immediate postoperative period after cardiac surgery. Databases were systematically searched through September 28, 2022. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed in duplicate. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs.ResultsSixteen RCTs enrolling 3011 patients were included. Compared with PUC, NIV significantly reduced the incidence of PPCs [relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 7.6%, 95% CI: 1.6-11.8%; low certainty] and the incidence of atelectasis (RR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.93; ARR 19.3%, 95% CI: 3.9-30.4%; moderate certainty); however, prophylactic NIV was not associated with a decreased reintubation rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.34; low certainty) or reduced short-term mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.52; very low certainty). As compared to PUC, the preventive use of CPAP (RR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.20; very low certainty) or HFNC (RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.20; low certainty) had no significant beneficial effect on the incidence of PPCs, despite exhibiting a downward trend. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, the highest-ranked treatment for reducing the incidence of PPCs was NIV (83.0%), followed by HFNC (62.5%), CPAP (44.3%), and PUC (10.2%).ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggest that the prophylactic use of NIV in the immediate postoperative period is probably the most effective noninvasive respiratory approach to prevent PPCs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Given the overall low certainty of the evidence, further high-quality research is warranted to better understand the relative benefits of each noninvasive ventilatory support.Clinical trial registrationPROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , registry number: CRD42022303904.

Project description:BackgroundProphylactic antibiotics reduce infectious morbidity from caesarean section. The timing of their administration, however, is a matter of controversy.ObjectivesTo examine maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity in women receiving preoperative prophylaxis compared with those receiving intraoperative administration.Search strategyMedline, Embase, Current Controlled Trials and Cochrane Central were searched from their inception dates to December 2011.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials of a single dose of any antibiotic comparing preoperative with intraoperative administration were selected.Data collection and analysisTrial characteristics, outcomes and quality measures, based on the Cochrane tool for risk of bias, were independently extracted. The random effect model of DerSimonian and Laird to estimate relative risks (RRs) for maternal and neonatal outcomes was used.Main resultsSix trials met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 2313 women and 2345 newborns. Preoperative administration was associated with a significant 41% reduction in the rate of endometritis compared with intraoperative administration (RR 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.37-0.94; I2 0%). In the preoperative group, there were nonsignificant reductions in the rates of wound infection (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.14; I2 0%), maternal febrile morbidity (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46-1.95; I2 0%), neonatal sepsis (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.47-1.41; I2 0%), neonatal septic work-up (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.71-1.21; I2 0%) and neonatal intensive-care unit admission (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.28; I2 0%). There were nonsignificant increases in the rates of maternal pyelonephritis (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.49-2.43; I2 0%) and neonatal pneumonia (RR 3.36; 95% CI 0.55-20.47; I2 0%).ConclusionsCompared with intraoperative administration, preoperative antibiotics significantly reduce the rate of endometritis. The lack of neonatal adverse effects should be cautiously interpreted given the limited power of the trials to detect such effects.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of adjunctive antibiotic therapy on uncomplicated skin abscesses. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov. STUDY SELECTION:A BMJ Rapid Recommendation panel provided input on design, important outcomes and the interpretation of the results. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included a comparison of antibiotics against no antibiotics or a comparison of different antibiotics in patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, and reported outcomes prespecified by the linked guideline panel. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects meta-analyses that compared antibiotics with no antibiotics, along with a limited number of prespecified subgroup hypotheses. We also performed network meta-analysis with a Bayesian framework to compare effects of different antibiotics. Quality of evidence was assessed with The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs including 4198 patients proved eligible. Compared with no antibiotics, antibiotics probably lower the risk of treatment failure (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.90; low quality), recurrence within 1 month (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.77; moderate quality), hospitalisation (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; moderate quality) and late recurrence (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.85; moderate quality). However, relative to no use, antibiotics probably increase the risk of gastrointestinal side effects (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX): OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.58; moderate quality; clindamycin: OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.88; high quality) and diarrhoea (clindamycin: OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.89; high quality). Cephalosporins did not reduce the risk of treatment failure compared with placebo (moderate quality). CONCLUSIONS:In patients with uncomplicated skin abscesses, moderate-to-high quality evidence suggests TMP-SMX or clindamycin confer a modest benefit for several important outcomes, but this is offset by a similar risk of adverse effects. Clindamycin has a substantially higher risk of diarrhoea than TMP-SMX. Cephalosporins are probably not effective.

Dataset Information

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes.

Publications

Prophylactic antibiotics for postcataract surgery endophthalmitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 6.8 million eyes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets