SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS OF PATIENTS FOLLOWING AN ABDOMINAL HYSTERECTOMY: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common complication resulting from surgical procedures. As they impact patient recovery, well-being, and the health care system, SSIs cost time and money. Researchers have identified a number of factors influencing the causation and prevention of SSIs. The purpose of this paper is to examine the literature in regard to factors that have an impact on the incidence of SSI. A review of the literature was guided by the following PICO question: "In women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy, what are the most effective interventions to be used in a standardized care plan, when compared to current practice with varied and undefined interventions, in reduction of surgical site infection?". Four key variables were identified that either influence the incidence of SSI, or are important in shaping policy concerns regarding SSI. The most evident interventions were prophylactic antibiotics and preoperative washing. The findings from literature regarding dressings remain inconclusive in the reduction of SSI incidence. Furthermore, the findings for obese women showing a higher risk for SSI remain inconclusive, but specialized interventions can be used for this group. These findings help to bring further attention to how research in these key areas can improve future nursing practice

Impact of clinical phenotypes on management and outcomes in European atrial fibrillation patients: a report from the ESC-EHRA EURObservational Research Programme in AF (EORP-AF) General Long-Term Registry

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients\u2019 clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course. Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward\u2019s Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry. Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients\u2019 prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P <.001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27\u20133.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72\u20134.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32\u20133.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48\u20132.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98\u20133.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74\u20132.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively. Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes

Narrow-Spectrum Cephalosporin Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli with the BD Phoenix Automated System: Questionable Utility of Cephalothin as a Predictor of Cephalexin Susceptibility▿

The resistance of Escherichia coli to cephalothin was found to be overestimated when the Phoenix automated susceptibility system was used to determine resistance compared to reference broth microdilution, a finding that jeopardized the use of cephalexin for first-line treatment of urinary tract infections in children. In addition, using broth microdilution, we studied the accuracy of either cephalothin or cefazolin in predicting cephalexin susceptibility. In contrast to the recommendation of the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI), we found that cephalothin is not a reliable predictor of cephalexin susceptibility. Cefazolin performs no better in this role. We suggest that laboratories should consider testing and reporting cefazolin and cephalexin independently, according to clinical need