Department of Medicine E, Rabin Medical Center, Beilinson Hospital, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c241. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c241.
To assess the evidence for prophylactic treatment with systemic antibiotics in burns patients.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials recruiting burns inpatients that compared antibiotic prophylaxis (systemic, non-absorbable, or topical) with placebo or no treatment.
PubMed, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Embase, conference proceedings, and bibliographies. No language, date, or publication status restrictions were imposed. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data. The primary outcome was all cause mortality. Risk or rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals were pooled with a fixed effect model if no heterogeneity was present.
17 trials were included. Trials that assessed systemic antibiotic prophylaxis given for 4-14 days after admission showed a significant reduction in all cause mortality (risk ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.87, five trials). The corresponding number needed to treat was 8 (5 to 33), with a control event rate of 26%. Perioperative non-absorbable or topical antibiotics alone did not significantly affect mortality. There was a reduction in pneumonia with systemic prophylaxis and a reduction in wound infections with perioperative prophylaxis. Staphylococcus aureus infection or colonisation was reduced with anti-staphylococcal antibiotics. In three trials, resistance to the antibiotic used for prophylaxis significantly increased (rate ratio 2.84, 1.38 to 5.83). The overall methodological quality of the trials was poor.
Prophylaxis with systemic antibiotics has a beneficial effect in burns patients, but the methodological quality of the data is weak. As such prophylaxis is currently not recommended for patients with severe burns other than perioperatively, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to assess its use.
评估预防性全身使用抗生素治疗烧伤患者的证据。
对纳入烧伤住院患者的随机或半随机对照试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析,比较抗生素预防(全身、非吸收或局部)与安慰剂或不治疗的效果。
PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、LILACS、Embase、会议论文集和参考文献。未对语言、日期或出版状态进行限制。
两名审查员独立提取数据。主要结局是全因死亡率。如果没有异质性,采用固定效应模型汇总风险比或率比及其 95%置信区间。
纳入了 17 项试验。评估入院后 4-14 天内给予全身抗生素预防的试验显示,全因死亡率显著降低(风险比 0.54,95%置信区间 0.34 至 0.87,5 项试验)。相应的需要治疗人数为 8(5 至 33),对照组的事件发生率为 26%。单独使用围手术期非吸收或局部抗生素不能显著影响死亡率。全身预防可降低肺炎发生率,围手术期预防可降低伤口感染率。抗葡萄球菌抗生素可减少金黄色葡萄球菌感染或定植。在 3 项试验中,预防使用的抗生素耐药性显著增加(风险比 2.84,1.38 至 5.83)。这些试验的总体方法学质量较差。
预防性全身使用抗生素对烧伤患者有益,但数据的方法学质量较差。因此,除围手术期外,目前不建议严重烧伤患者预防性使用抗生素,需要开展随机对照试验来评估其应用。