Dellinger E P, Gross P A, Barrett T L, Krause P J, Martone W J, McGowan J E, Sweet R L, Wenzel R P
University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle 98195.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1994 Mar;15(3):182-8. doi: 10.1086/646887.
The objectives of this quality standard are 1) to provide an implementation mechanism that will facilitate the reliable administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents to patients undergoing operative procedures in which such a practice is judged to be beneficial and 2) to provide a guideline that will help local hospital committees formulate policies and set up mechanisms for their implementation. Although standards in the medical literature spell out recommendations for specific procedures, agents, schedules, and doses, other reports document that these standards frequently are not followed in practice.
We have specified the procedures in which the administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents has been shown to be beneficial, those in which this practice is widely thought to be beneficial but in which compelling evidence is lacking, and those in which this practice is controversial. We have examined the evidence regarding the optimal timing of drug administration, the optimal dose, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis.
The intended outcome is more uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics in those circumstances where their value has been demonstrated or their use has been judged by the local practicing medical community to be desirable. The result should be a reduction in rates of postoperative wound infection with a limitation on the quantities of antimicrobial agents used in circumstances where they are not likely to help.
Many prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing placebo with antibiotic and comparing one antibiotic with another have been conducted. In addition, some trials have compared the efficacy of different doses or methods of administration. Other papers have reported on the apparent efficacy of administration at different times and on actual practice in specific communities. Only a small group of relevant articles found through 1993 are cited herein. When authoritative reviews are available, these--rather than an exhaustive list of original references--are cited.
We assumed that reducing rates of postoperative infection was valuable but that reducing the total amount of antimicrobial agents employed was also worthwhile. The cost of and morbidity attributable to postoperative wound infections should be weighed against the cost and potential morbidity associated with excessive use of antimicrobial agents.
BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: More reliable administration of antimicrobial agents according to recognized guidelines should prevent some postoperative wound infections while lowering the total quantity of these drugs used. No harms are anticipated. The costs involved are those of the efforts needed on a local basis to design and implement the mechanism that supports uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics.
All patients for whom prophylactic antimicrobial agents are recommended should receive them. The agents given should be appropriate in light of published guidelines. A short duration of prophylaxis (usually < 24 hours) is recommended.
More than 50 experts in infectious disease and 10 experts in surgical infectious disease and surgical subspecialties reviewed the standard. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists.
The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Contr
本质量标准的目标是:1)提供一种实施机制,以促进在被认为预防性使用抗菌药物有益的手术操作中,可靠地为患者使用此类药物;2)提供一项指导方针,以帮助当地医院委员会制定政策并建立实施机制。尽管医学文献中的标准详细说明了针对特定手术、药物、给药方案和剂量的建议,但其他报告表明,这些标准在实际操作中常常未得到遵循。
我们明确了已证明预防性使用抗菌药物有益的手术操作、普遍认为有益但缺乏确凿证据的手术操作以及存在争议的手术操作。我们审查了关于药物给药最佳时机、最佳剂量和最佳预防持续时间的证据。
预期结果是在已证明预防性使用抗菌药物有价值或当地执业医学界认为使用合理的情况下,更统一、可靠地使用预防性抗生素。结果应是术后伤口感染率降低,同时在不太可能有帮助的情况下限制抗菌药物的使用量。
已进行了许多前瞻性、随机、对照试验,比较了安慰剂与抗生素以及一种抗生素与另一种抗生素的效果。此外,一些试验比较了不同剂量或给药方法的疗效。其他论文报道了不同时间给药的明显疗效以及特定社区的实际用药情况。本文仅引用了截至1993年找到的一小部分相关文章。如有权威综述,引用的是这些综述而非详尽的原始参考文献列表。
我们认为降低术后感染率很重要,但减少抗菌药物的总使用量也很有意义。应权衡术后伤口感染的成本和发病率与过度使用抗菌药物的成本及潜在发病率。
益处、危害和成本:按照公认指南更可靠地使用抗菌药物应能预防一些术后伤口感染,同时降低这些药物的总使用量。预计无危害。相关成本是当地为设计和实施支持统一、可靠使用预防性抗生素的机制所需付出的努力。
所有建议预防性使用抗菌药物的患者都应接受用药。所使用的药物应符合已发表的指南。建议预防时间较短(通常<24小时)。
50多位传染病专家以及10位外科传染病和外科亚专业专家对该标准进行了审查。此外,美国医院药师协会审查了其实施方法。
美国传染病学会(IDSA)临床事务委员会质量标准小组委员会制定了该标准。该小组委员会由IDSA(格罗斯博士和麦高恩博士)、美国医院流行病学学会(温泽尔博士)、外科感染学会(德林杰博士)、儿科传染病学会(克劳斯博士)、疾病控制与预防中心(马托内博士)、妇产科传染病学会(斯威特博士)以及感染控制从业者协会的代表组成。