Medeiros I, Saconato H
Infectious Diseases Department, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Rua Moraes Navarro, 2082 Ed. Vermont - Apartment 800, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, 59075-770.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(2):CD001738. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001738.
Bites by mammals are a common problem and they account for up to 1% of all visits to hospital emergency rooms. Dog and cat bites are the most common and people are usually bitten by their own pets or by an animal known to them. School-age children make up almost a half of those bitten. Prevention of tetanus, rabies and wound infection are the priorities for staff in emergency rooms. The use of antibiotics may be useful to reduce the risk of developing a wound infection.
To determine if the use of prophylactic antibiotics in mammalian bites is effective in preventing bite wound infection.
Relevant RCTs were identified by electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases in November 2000.
We included randomised controlled trials which studied patients with bites from all mammals. Comparisons were made between antibiotics and placebo or no intervention. The outcome of interest was the number of infections at the site of bite.
Two reviewers extracted the data independently. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat method.
Eight studies were included. The use of prophylactic antibiotics was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of infection after bites by humans. Prophylactic antibiotics did not appear to reduce the rate of infection after bites by cats or dogs. Wound type, e.g. laceration or puncture, did not appear to influence the effectiveness of the prophylactic antibiotic. Prophylactic antibiotics were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rate of infection in hand bites (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.86; NNT = 4, 95% CI 2 to 50).
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence from one trial that prophylactic antibiotics reduces the risk of infection after human bites but confirmatory research is required. There is no evidence that the use of prophylactic antibiotics is effective for cat or dog bites. There is evidence that the use of antibiotic prophylactic after bites of the hand reduces infection but confirmatory research is required.
哺乳动物咬伤是一个常见问题,占医院急诊室就诊病例的1%。狗和猫咬伤最为常见,人们通常是被自己的宠物或熟悉的动物咬伤。学龄儿童占被咬者的近一半。预防破伤风、狂犬病和伤口感染是急诊室工作人员的首要任务。使用抗生素可能有助于降低伤口感染的风险。
确定预防性使用抗生素对预防哺乳动物咬伤伤口感染是否有效。
2000年11月通过电子检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS和Cochrane对照试验注册数据库确定相关随机对照试验。
我们纳入了研究所有哺乳动物咬伤患者的随机对照试验。将抗生素与安慰剂或不进行干预进行比较。感兴趣的结局是咬伤部位的感染数量。
两名评价员独立提取数据。所有分析均按照意向性分析方法进行。
纳入八项研究。预防性使用抗生素与人类咬伤后感染率的统计学显著降低相关。预防性使用抗生素似乎并未降低猫或狗咬伤后的感染率。伤口类型,如撕裂伤或刺伤,似乎不影响预防性抗生素的有效性。预防性使用抗生素与手部咬伤感染率的统计学显著降低相关(比值比0.10,95%可信区间0.01至0.86;需治疗人数=4,95%可信区间2至50)。
一项试验有证据表明预防性使用抗生素可降低人类咬伤后感染的风险,但需要进行验证性研究。没有证据表明预防性使用抗生素对猫或狗咬伤有效。有证据表明手部咬伤后使用抗生素预防可降低感染,但需要进行验证性研究。