Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac operations

Hall, John C.; Christiansen, Keryn; Carter, Martin J.; Edwards, Mark; Hodge, Andrew; Newman, Mark A.; Nicholls, Trevor T.; Hall, Joanne M.

doi:10.1016/0003-4975(93)90355-l

Cited by 39 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This situation is not unique to breast surgery. For instance, patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery have a high incidence of cellulitis associated with wounds in the lower limbs (5,7).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wound scoring systems may need to take the nature of the underlying surgery into account. We have previously reported on the use of wound scoring systems for patients in clinical trials evaluating prophylactic antibiotic regimens before cardiac surgery (5,6) and arterial surgery (7,8). The problems seen after breast surgery differ from those that occur after these types of “clean” surgeries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Measurement of Wound Infection after Breast Surgery

Hall

2004

Breast Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infection in breast wounds often occurs in the form of cellulitis, but the conventional criteria for wound infection are the presence of either pus or a serous discharge containing pathogens. Wound scoring systems may offer a more quantitative and clinically relevant approach when evaluating the morbidity caused by infection in wounds. The aim of this study was to develop a wound scoring system for patients undergoing breast surgery. The components of previously described wound scoring systems were measured in 218 women undergoing nonreconstructive breast surgery. Using conventional criteria, the incidence of wound infection was 5.5% (12/218). However, 22% of the patients exhibited at least one sign of wound infection, and 11% of the patients received antibiotics for cellulitis without any other indication of a wound infection. The validity of the wound scoring system was supported by its strong content validity, the presence of construct validity as evidenced by concordance with the conventional criteria (p < 0.001), and criterion validity in the form of an association between the presence of a seroma and a positive wound score (p < 0.001). It was also noted that 27% of the patients with an appreciable wound score (more than 40 points) had cellulitis but did not satisfy the conventional criteria for a wound infection. In conclusion, it is advisable to use a wound scoring system that includes cellulitis when evaluating patients who have undergone breast surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Measurement of Wound Infection after Breast Surgery

Hall

2004

Breast Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the investigators found an obvious and significant correlation between the piperacillin-tazobactam MIC and the clinical outcome: that is, mortality increased when the MIC was greater than 4 mg/L. 210,214 Many ESBL isolates in multiple locations worldwide, particularly non E coli and non-bla CTX-M -producing strains, exhibit much higher MICs to piperacillin-tazobactam. 23 Fourth, bla CMY -producing E coli strains, which are not inhibited by tazobactam, are as common as ESBL-producing strains in certain areas.…”

Section: B-lactam-b-lactamase Inhibitors Combinationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The Continuing Plague of Extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae Infections

Adler

Katz

Marchaim

2016

Infectious Disease Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thirty-six evaluable studies were published during 1980-1989 , and 29 studies were published from 1990 through October 2004 . Thirteen studies were excluded from further analysis for various reasons: 7 studies were excluded because they examined perioperative anti-infective prophylaxis [16,19,27,55,58,63,68], 3 were excluded because they were performed with immunocompromised patients [22,69,73], 1 was excluded because patients were stratified and received combination therapy or monotherapy according to the severity of disease [75], 1 was excluded because it was a comparative but not randomized trial [46], and 1 was excluded because the studied aminoglycoside was administered endotracheally [43].…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%