Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis ; 43(7): 1319-1328, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38748353

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: After two-stage exchange due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), the new prosthesis carries a high risk of reinfection (RePJI). There isn`t solid evidence regarding the antibiotic prophylaxis in 2nd-stage surgery. The objective of this study is to describe what antibiotic prophylaxis is used in this surgery and evaluate its impact on the risk of developing RePJI. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter case-control study in Spanish hospitals. The study included cases of PJI treated with two-stage exchange and subsequently developed a new infection. For each case, two controls were included, matched by prosthesis location, center, and year of surgery. The prophylaxis regimens were grouped based on their antibacterial spectrum, and we calculated the association between the type of regimen and the development of RePJI using conditional logistic regression, adjusted for possible confounding factors. RESULTS: We included 90 cases from 12 centers, which were compared with 172 controls. The most frequent causative microorganism was Staphylococcus epidermidis with 34 cases (37.8%). Staphylococci were responsible for 50 cases (55.6%), 32 of them (64%) methicillin-resistant. Gram-negative bacilli were involved in 30 cases (33.3%), the most common Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In total, 83 different antibiotic prophylaxis regimens were used in 2nd-stage surgery, the most frequent a single preoperative dose of cefazolin (48 occasions; 18.3%); however, it was most common a combination of a glycopeptide and a beta-lactam with activity against Pseudomonas spp (99 cases, 25.2%). In the adjusted analysis, regimens that included antibiotics with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci AND Pseudomonas spp were associated with a significantly lower risk of RePJI (adjusted OR = 0.24; 95% IC: 0.09-0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standardization in 2nd-satge surgery prophylaxis explains the wide diversity of regimens used in this procedure. The results suggest that antibiotic prophylaxis in this surgery should include an antibiotic with activity against methicillin-resistant staphylococci and Pseudomonas.


Subject(s)
Anti-Bacterial Agents , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , Prosthesis-Related Infections , Humans , Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods , Prosthesis-Related Infections/prevention & control , Prosthesis-Related Infections/microbiology , Case-Control Studies , Male , Female , Retrospective Studies , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Middle Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Spain , Joint Prosthesis/adverse effects , Joint Prosthesis/microbiology
2.
J Clin Med ; 13(2)2024 Jan 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38256495

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: electronic health records (EHRs) are helpful tools in epidemiology despite not being primarily collected for research. In Spain, primary care physicians play a central role and manage patients even in specialized care. All of this introduces variability that may lead to diagnostic inconsistencies. Therefore, data validation studies are crucial, so we aimed to develop and validate case-finding algorithms for digestive cancer in the primary care database BIFAP. METHODS: from 2001 to 2019, subjects aged 40-89 without a cancer history were included. Case-finding algorithms using diagnostic codes and text-mining were built. We randomly sampled, clustered, and manually reviewed 816 EHRs. Then, positive predictive values (PPVs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for each cancer were computed. Age and sex standardized incidence rates (SIRs) were compared with those reported by the National Cancer Registry (REDECAN). RESULTS: we identified 95,672 potential cases. After validation, the PPV (95% CI) for hepato-biliary cancer was 87.6% (81.8-93.4), for esophageal cancer, it was 96.2% (93.1-99.2), for pancreatic cancer, it was 89.4% (84.5-94.3), for gastric cancer, it was 92.5% (88.3-96.6), and for colorectal cancer, it was 95.2% (92.1-98.4). The SIRs were comparable to those reported by the REDECAN. CONCLUSIONS: the case-finding algorithms demonstrated high performance, supporting BIFAP as a suitable source of information to conduct epidemiologic studies of digestive cancer.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL