Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
BJOG. 2013 Sep;120(10):1269-76. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12178. Epub 2013 Jun 21.
To evaluate cefuroxime and metronidazole antibiotic prophylaxis.
Observational nonrandomised 1-year prospective cohort study.
Fifty-three hospitals in Finland.
A total of 5279 women undergoing hysterectomy for benign indications, with cefuroxime given to 4301 and metronidazole given to 2855. Excluding other antibiotics, cefuroxime alone was given to 2019, metronidazole alone was given to 518, and they were administered in combination to 2252 women.
Data on 1115 abdominal hysterectomies (AHs), 1541 laparoscopic hysterectomies (LHs), and 2133 vaginal hysterectomies (VHs) were analysed using logistic regression adjusted for confounding factors.
Postoperative infections.
Cefuroxime had a risk-reductive effect for total infections (adjusted odds ratio, OR, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 0.22-0.39), but the independent effect of metronidazole and the interaction effect of cefuroxime and metronidazole were nonsignificant. In subgroup analyses of AHs, LHs, and VHs involving those receiving the two main antibiotics only, the effect of cefuroxime alone nonsignificantly differed from that of cefuroxime and metronidazole in combination for all types of infection. The absence of cefuroxime, assessed by comparing metronidazole alone with cefuroxime and metronidazole in combination, led to an increased risk for total infections in AHs (adjusted OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.99-6.65), in LHs (OR 3.53; 95% CI 1.74-7.18), and in VHs (OR 4.05; 95% CI 2.30-7.13), and also increased risks for febrile events in all categories (AHs, OR 2.86; 95% CI 1.09-7.46; LHs, OR 13.19; 95% CI 3.66-47.49; VHs, OR 12.74; 95% CI 3.01-53.95), wound infections in AHs (OR 6.88; 95% CI 1.09-7.49), and pelvic infections in VHs (OR 4.26; 95% CI 1.76-10.31).
In this study, cefuroxime appeared to be effective in prophylaxis against infections. Metronidazole appeared to be ineffective, with no additional risk-reductive effect when combined with cefuroxime.
评估头孢呋辛和甲硝唑的抗生素预防作用。
观察性非随机 1 年前瞻性队列研究。
芬兰的 53 家医院。
共有 5279 名因良性指征接受子宫切除术的女性,其中 4301 名给予头孢呋辛,2855 名给予甲硝唑。不包括其他抗生素,单独给予头孢呋辛 2019 例,单独给予甲硝唑 518 例,2252 例给予联合治疗。
使用逻辑回归分析了 1115 例腹式子宫切除术(AHs)、1541 例腹腔镜子宫切除术(LHs)和 2133 例阴道子宫切除术(VHs)的数据,并进行了混杂因素调整。
术后感染。
头孢呋辛对总感染具有降低风险的作用(调整后的优势比,OR,0.29;95%置信区间,95%CI,0.22-0.39),但甲硝唑的独立作用和头孢呋辛与甲硝唑的相互作用均无统计学意义。在涉及仅使用两种主要抗生素的 AHs、LHs 和 VHs 的亚组分析中,头孢呋辛单独使用的效果与头孢呋辛和甲硝唑联合使用的效果在所有类型的感染中均无显著差异。在 AHs、LHs 和 VHs 中,评估头孢呋辛的缺失(通过比较甲硝唑单独使用与头孢呋辛和甲硝唑联合使用)会导致总感染风险增加(调整后的 OR 3.63;95%CI 1.99-6.65),也会导致发热事件的风险增加(AHs,OR 2.86;95%CI 1.09-7.46;LHs,OR 13.19;95%CI 3.66-47.49;VHs,OR 12.74;95%CI 3.01-53.95),伤口感染的风险增加(AHs,OR 6.88;95%CI 1.09-7.49),盆腔感染的风险增加(VHs,OR 4.26;95%CI 1.76-10.31)。
在这项研究中,头孢呋辛似乎对预防感染有效。甲硝唑似乎无效,与头孢呋辛联合使用无额外降低风险的作用。