Risk of surgical site infection and efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis: a cohort study of appendectomy patients in Thailand

BACKGROUND: No data currently exist about use of antibiotics to prevent surgical site infections (SSI) among patients undergoing appendectomy in Thailand. We therefore examined risk factors, use, and efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics for surgical site infection SSI among patients with uncomplicated open appendectomy. METHODS: From July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004 we conducted a prospective cohort study in eight hospitals in Thailand. We used the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) system criteria to identify SSI associated with appendectomy. We used logistic regression analysis to obtain relative risk estimates for predictors of SSI. RESULTS: Among 2139 appendectomy patients, we identified 26 SSIs, yielding a SSI rate of 1.2 infections/100 operations. Ninety-two percent of all patients (95% CI, 91.0–93.3) received antibiotic prophylaxis. Metronidazole and gentamicin were the two most common antibiotic agents, with a combined single dose administered in 39% of cases. In 54% of cases, antibiotic prophylaxis was administered for one day. We found that a prolonged duration of operation was significantly associated with an increased SSI risk. Antibiotic prophylaxis was significantly associated with a decreased risk of SSI regardless of whether the antibiotic was administered preoperatively or intraoperatively. Compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis, SSI relative risks for combined single-dose of metronidazole and gentamicin, one-day prophylaxis, and multiple-day antibiotic prophylaxis were 0.28 (0.09–0.90), 0.30 (0.11–0.88) and 0.32 (0.10–0.98), respectively. CONCLUSION: Single-dose combination of metronidazole and gentamicin seems sufficient to reduce SSIs in uncomplicated appendicitis patients despite whether the antibiotic was administered preoperatively or intraoperatively

Suplementos enterales: ¿complementos o sustitutos de la dieta? Enteral supplements: dietary supplements or substitutes?

Objetivo: Evaluar la utilización de suplementos nutricionales orales analizando el motivo de su prescripción y su implicación en el aporte calórico-proteico ingerido. Ámbito: Estudio realizado en un hospital universitario de 350 camas, que dispone de especialidades médicas y quirúrgicas. Sujetos, pacientes: La inclusión de pacientes se realizó mediante selección de todas las prescripciones de inicio de suplemento nutricional oral. Los criterios de exclusión fueron ser menor de 18 años, estar ingresado en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos, presentar problemas cognitivos o de comunicación, seguir tratamiento concomitante con nutrición parenteral o precisar dieta enteral completa, y/o ser portador de sonda nasogástrica para alimentación. También se excluyeron las dietas enterales especiales, que están diseñadas específicamente para algunas patologías. Intervenciones: Estudio longitudinal y prospectivo de la prescripción de suplementos nutricionales por vía oral realizado durante un año. Mediante revisión de la historia clínica y entrevista personalizada, se registraron datos demográficos, parámetros nutricionales, características de la dieta y del suplemento, y aporte calórico-proteico prescrito e ingerido. Los datos fueron introducidos en una base de datos Acces 97 y procesados mediante el programa SPSS para Windows. Se realizó un estudio descriptivo de las variables cualitativas y cuantitativas, un análisis de &chi;2 entre variables cualitativas, un análisis de comparación de medias para datos apareados mediante una t Student y un análisis de la varianza entre variables cuantitativas. El nivel de significación establecido fue p Objective: to assess the use of oral nutritional supplements analyzing the reason for prescription and its implication in caloric-protein intake. Setting: study performed at a university hospital of 350 beds with medical and surgical specialties. Subjects, patients: Patients inclusion was done by selecting all starting oral nutritional supplement prescription.Exclusion criteria were being younger than 18 years, being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit, having cognition or communication impairments, being on concomitant parenteral nutrition or requiring complete enteral diet, and/or using nasogastric tube for feeding. We also excluded special enteral diets, specifically designed for certain conditions. Interventions: One-year long prospective study on prescription of oral nutritional supplements. Through clinical chart review and personal interview, we recorded demographic data, nutritional parameters, characteristics of the diet and supplement, and caloricprotein intake prescribed and ingested. The data were introduced in an Access 97 database and processed by means of SPSS software for Windows®.We performed a descriptive study of quantitative and qualitative variables, a &chi;2 analysis between qualitative variables, and a comparative analysis between means of all paired data by means of the student´s t test, and variance analysis between quantitative variables. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: we were only able to analyze 77 out of 130 prescriptions for nutritional supplements since we could not adequately interview the remaining patients, mainly due to neurological impairments. Mean age was 74.8 years (SD = 12) and 50.6% were women. The departments prescribing the highest number of supplements were hematology (22.1%) and internal medicine (20.8%). GI neoplasm was the most frequent diagnosis at admission (27.3%). The most frequent indication was kwashiorkor (45.5%), with 15.6% of patients being well nourished.Mean therapy duration was 11 days (SD = 11.1), and the main reason for termination was hospital discharge (70.1%). The supplement was concomitantly prescribed with the meals in 70.6% of the cases, and more than half of the patients (70.1%) liked it, the most frequently prescribed was as a cream (61%) and the best accepted being as a liquid (78%). The average daily caloric load ingested with the foods of the hospital diet was similar between the first an third days of supplement prescription (p =0.879) and the first and seventh days (p = 0.499). So happened when analyzing protein intake. With the supplement administration, there was a significant increase in patients´ caloric intake from 310 Kcal at the third day to 337 Kcal at the seventh day (p < 0.0005) in both cases. Similar results were obtained when assessing total protein load ingested (p < 0.0005). Conclusions: Nutritional supplements are correctly used in most of the cases. They allow for a significant increase in the protein-caloric intake with no modification of hospital diet, becoming an appropriate nutritional source when the diet is insufficient