02.01.2015 Views

Antibiotikaprofylax vid kirurgiska ingrepp - SBU

Antibiotikaprofylax vid kirurgiska ingrepp - SBU

Antibiotikaprofylax vid kirurgiska ingrepp - SBU

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 4.8.3 continued<br />

Author<br />

Year<br />

Reference<br />

Country<br />

Study<br />

design<br />

Population<br />

characteristics<br />

Intervention<br />

Method<br />

Number indi<strong>vid</strong>uals<br />

Control<br />

Number<br />

indi<strong>vid</strong>uals<br />

Results<br />

Withdrawal<br />

Drop outs<br />

Study quality<br />

and relevance<br />

Comments<br />

Kreter<br />

1992<br />

[1]<br />

Canada<br />

Metaanalysis<br />

Cardio-thoracic operations<br />

Total 28 studies<br />

6 759 pts; prospective<br />

design, randomised<br />

Comparisons<br />

1. 6 studies (n=966)<br />

2. 6 studies (cephradine<br />

vs cefamandole 1 study)<br />

3. 6 studies (n=2 630),<br />

data were combined<br />

from both cefamandole<br />

and cefuroxime<br />

4. 2 studies (n=629)<br />

5. 3 studies (n=1 515)<br />

6. 1 study (n=99)<br />

7. 1 study (n=263)<br />

8. 1 study (n=512)<br />

9. 1 study<br />

10. 1 study<br />

I1: Cephalosporin<br />

I2: Cephalothin or cephradine<br />

I3: Cefazolin<br />

I4: Cefamandole<br />

I5: Cefazolin<br />

I6: Cephalotin<br />

I7: Cephalotin<br />

I8: Cefuroxime<br />

I9: Cefazolin + gentamicin<br />

I10: Penicillin G<br />

I11: Teicoplanin 2 dosage<br />

regimens<br />

C1: Antistaphylococcal<br />

penicillin<br />

C2: Cefamandole<br />

+ ceforanide<br />

C3: Cefamandole<br />

or cefafuroxim<br />

C4: Cefuroxime<br />

C5: Ceftriaxone<br />

C6: Cefazolin<br />

C7: Clindamycin<br />

C8: Ceftriaxone<br />

C9: Cefamandole<br />

+ gentamicin<br />

C10: Vancomycin<br />

C11: Flucloxacillin<br />

+ gentamicin<br />

Total SSI stenal wound<br />

+ sapenous vein donor<br />

site infection<br />

1. OR 0.51<br />

(95% CI 0.23–1.02)<br />

2. OR; 1.28<br />

(95% CI 0.68–2.43)<br />

3. OR 1.58<br />

(95% CI 1.03–2.45)<br />

4. OR 1.58<br />

(95% CI 0.51–5.35)<br />

5. OR 0.44<br />

(95% CI 0.16–1.11)<br />

6. 2% in both treatment<br />

groups<br />

7. Trend for reduction<br />

in SSI with clindamycin<br />

8. 1.2% in both treatment<br />

groups<br />

9. Significant reduction<br />

SSI with cefamandole/<br />

gentamicin<br />

Moderate<br />

Authors own<br />

conclusions;<br />

Limitations;<br />

lack of power,<br />

stratification of<br />

pts according to<br />

emergency or<br />

type of procedure<br />

lacking,<br />

variations in<br />

definitions<br />

of outcome<br />

(infection),<br />

removal from<br />

consideration<br />

after randomisation<br />

varied<br />

0–31%, doses<br />

of antibiotics<br />

used were<br />

justified by<br />

pharmacokinetic<br />

studies<br />

in some cases,<br />

but seemed<br />

unusually low<br />

in others<br />

11. 1 study (n=517)<br />

10. Significant reduction<br />

SSI with vancomycin<br />

11. High sternal wound<br />

infection rate in teicoplanin<br />

group (21.5–28.0%), also<br />

in flucloxacillin + getamicin<br />

groups (10.3–17.2%)<br />

The table continues on the next page<br />

378 antibiotikaprofylax <strong>vid</strong> <strong>kirurgiska</strong> <strong>ingrepp</strong> KAPITEL 4 • den systematiska litteraturöversikten<br />

379

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!