Advertisement

Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 436–441 | Cite as

Survey of Surgical Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Czech Republic

  • Retnosari AndrajatiEmail author
  • Jiři Vlček
  • Milan Kolar
  • Ráchel Pípalová
Research Article

Abstract

Objective: To characterize the pattern of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the Czech Republic.

Method: Cross sectional survey with a self-administered postal questionnaire. Data collected included use of antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical site infection rate, pathogens causing surgical site infection and demographics of the institution. Descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed.

Setting: Hospital, surgical departments in the Czech Republic.

Main outcome measure: Prevalence of surgical antimicrobial use, factors associated with use, the profile of antimicrobial use, timing, route, dosage regimen and duration of initiated prophylaxis.

Result: The response rate was 55.5%. Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis was used in 97.5% of departments, and 85% departments justified prophylaxis based on guideline. The timing of the first dosage was within 2 h of operation in 95.0% of departments and 36.7% of all departments administered more than 2 doses of SAP in operations that lasted less than 4 h of all respondents. The three most common prophylactic antimicrobial agent used were cefazolin, co-amoxiclav and cefuroxime amongst the 26 single antimicrobial agents and 16 antimicrobial combinations. Penicillins and enzyme inhibitor was the most frequent class used. Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered intravenously in 82.5% of all cases. The regimen used varied markedly in dose and duration prescribed. The surgical site infection rate occurred. 1–5% in 71.7% of departments. Most departments identified the causative pathogen at all times. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent pathogen of surgical site infection and was detected in 90.8% of all departments. There was significant association between Pseudomonas aeruginosa with cefuroxime use and Bacteriodes fragilis with co amoxiclav use.

Conclusion: This survey has identified several areas for improvement in surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis in the Czech Republic. Particular areas of concern include route of administration, duration and timing of first dosage of SAP, and the inappropriate use of broad-spectrum antimicrobials.

Keywords

Czech Republic Hospital pharmacy Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis Surgical site infections Survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ducel G, Fabry J, Nicolle l. Prevention of hospital-acquired infections, a practical guide, 2nd edition, WHO 2002; http://www.who.int/emc
  2. 2.
    Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR 1999Guideline for prevention of surgical site infectionInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol20247264Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nichols, RL 2001Preventing surgical site infections: a surgeon’s perspectiveEmerg Infect Dis72204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams, JD 2000The good and bad of chemoprophylaxisJ Infect Chemother61403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scher, KS 1997Studies on duration of antibiotic administration for surgical prophylaxisAm J Surg635962Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN): Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery, A national Guideline 2000; 45:49 screens. Available from: http://www.sign.ac.uk
  7. 7.
    Dellinger, EP, Gross, PA, Barrett, TL, Krause, PJ, Martone, WJ,  et al. 1994Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical proceduresClin Infect Dis184227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lallemand, S, Thouverez, M, Bailly, P, Bertrand, X, Talon, D 2002Non-observance of guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis and surgical-site infectionsPharm World Sci24959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Classen, DC, Evans, RS, Pestotnik, SL, Horn, SD, Menlove, RL, Burke, JP 1992The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infectionN Engl J Med3262816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bailly, P, Lallemand, S, Thouverez, M, Talon, D 2001Multicentre study on the appropriateness of surgical antibiotic prophylaxisJ Hosp Infec491358Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gorecki, P, Schein, M, Rucinski, JC, Wise, L 1999Antibiotic administration in patients undergoing common surgical procedures in a community teaching hospital: the chaos continuesWorld J Surg2342933PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolář, M, Látal, T 1999Implementation of a practical antibiotic policy in the Czech RepublicInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol204403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kastteren, MEE, Kullberg, BJ, Boer, AS, Groot, JM, Gyssens, IC 2003Adherence to local hospital guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis: a multicentre audit in Dutch hospitalJ Antimicr Chemother51138996Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Talon, D, Mourey, F, Marie, O, Arlet, G, Decazes, JM, Schlemmer, B, Faure, P 2001Evaluation of current practices in surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis before and after implementation of local guidelinesJ Hosp Infect491938CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Prado, MAMB, Lima, MPJS, Gomes, IDRH, Bergsten-Mendes, G 2002The implementation of a surgical antibiotic prophylaxis program: The pivotal contribution of the hospital pharmacyAm J Infect Control304956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burnett, KM, Scott, MG, Kearney, PM, George Humpreys, W, McMillen, RM 2002The identification of barriers preventing the successful implementation of a surgical prophylaxis protocolPharm World Sci241827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gagliotti, C, Ravaglia, F, Resi, D, Moro, ML 2004Quality of local guidelines for surgical antimicrobial prophylaxisJ Hosp Infect566770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    WHO global strategy for containment of antimicrobial resistance. Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and. Response WHO 2001:http://www.who.int/emc
  19. 19.
    Hosuglu, S, Sunbul, M, Erol, S, Altindis, Mustafa, Caylan, R,  et al. 2003A national survey of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in TurkeyInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol2475861Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vaisbrud, V, Raveh, D, Schlesinger, Y, Yinnon, AM 1999Surveillance of antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical proceduresInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol2061015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Silver, A, Eichorn, A, Kral, J, Pickett, G, Barie, P,  et al. 1996Timeliness and use of antibiotic prophylaxis in selected inpatient surgical proceduresAm Surg17154852Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scott, JD, Forrest, A, Feuerstein, S, Fitzpatrick, P, Schentag, JJ 2001Factors associated with postoperative infectionInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol2234751PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Velmahos, GC, Toutouzas, KG, Sarkisyan, G, Chan, LS,  et al. 2002Severe trauma is not an excuse for prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis/discussionArch Surg13753742PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pessaux, P, Msika, S, Atallu, D, Hay, JM, Flamant, Y 2003Risk factor for post operative infection complications in non colorectal abdominal surgeryArch Surg138314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Creamer, E, Cunney, RJ, Humphreys, H, Smyth, EG 2002Sixteen years’ surveillance of surgical sites in an Irish acute-care hospitalInfect Control Hosp Epidemiol233640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scheel, O, Stormark, M 1999National prevalence survey on hospital infections in NorwayJ Hosp Infect4133135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Retnosari Andrajati
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jiři Vlček
    • 1
  • Milan Kolar
    • 3
  • Ráchel Pípalová
    • 1
  1. 1.Social and Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of PharmacyCharles UniversityHradec Kralove, Czech RepublicCzech Republic
  2. 2.Pharmacy Department, Faculty Mathematics and Natural SciencesUniversity of IndonesiaJakartaIndonesia
  3. 3.Microbiology Department, Medical FacultyPalacký UniversityOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations