RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is widely used to prevent surgical site infection. Amid growing concern about antimicrobial resistance, we determined the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and WHO-ICTRP between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 2020 for trials randomising adults undergoing surgery to liberal (more doses) or restrictive (fewer or no doses) perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. Pairs of researchers reviewed articles and extracted data, and a senior author resolved discrepancies. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection or bacteriuria for urological procedures. We calculated average risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals and prediction intervals (PI) using random effects models, and present risk ratios (RR). We assessed evidence certainty using GRADE methodology, and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (PROSPERO: CRD42018116946). RESULTS: From 6593 records, we identified 294 trials including 86 146 patients. Surgical site infection occurred in 2237/44 113 (5.1%) patients receiving liberal prophylaxis vs 2889/42 033 (6.9%) receiving restrictive prophylaxis (RD -0.01 [-0.02 to -0.01]; relative risk 0.72 [0.67-0.77]; I2=52%, PI -0.05-0.02). There was a small benefit of prophylaxis in 161 trials comparing no prophylaxis with ≥1 dose (RD -0.02 [-0.03 to -0.02]; RR 0.58 [0.52-0.65]; I2=62%, PI -0.06-0.02). Treatment effect varied from a strong effect in urology to no benefit in 7/19 specialities. Tests for publication bias suggest 62 unreported trials and evidence certainty was very low. Treatment harms were reported in 43/294 trials. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials revealed that more liberal antimicrobial prophylaxis is associated with a small reduction in the risk of surgical site infection, although antimicrobial harms are poorly reported. Further evidence about the risks of antimicrobial prophylaxis to inform current widespread use is urgently needed.
Assuntos
Antibacterianos , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica , Adulto , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/prevenção & controleRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications, including pneumonia, are a substantial cause of morbidity. We hypothesised that routine noninvasive respiratory support was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia after surgery. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing the routine use of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), or high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) against standard postoperative care in the adult population. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and CENTRAL from the start of indexing to July 27, 2021. Articles were reviewed and data extracted in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a senior investigator. The primary outcome was pneumonia, and the secondary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications. We calculated risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: From 18 513 records, we included 38 trials consisting of 9782 patients. Pneumonia occurred in 214/4403 (4.9%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 216/3937 (5.5%) receiving standard care (RD -0.01 [95% confidence interval: -0.02 to 0.00]; I2=8%; P=0.23). Postoperative pulmonary complications occurred in 393/1379 (28%) patients receiving noninvasive respiratory support compared with 280/902 (31%) receiving standard care (RD -0.11 [-0.23 to 0.01]; I2=79%; P=0.07). Subgroup analyses did not identify a benefit of CPAP, NIV, or HFNO in preventing pneumonia. Tests for publication bias suggest six unreported trials. CONCLUSION: The results of this evidence synthesis do not support the routine use of postoperative CPAP, NIV, or HFNO to prevent pneumonia after surgery in adults. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42019156741.