Skip to main content
Download PDF

Antibiotic prophylaxis after 48 h postoperatively are not associated with decreased surgical site infections and other healthcare associated infections in pancreatic surgery patients: a retrospective cohort study

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control volume 12, Article number: 138 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

It is controversial whether antibiotic should be used prophylactically 48 h after pancreatic surgery. Hence, the association of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) after 48 h postoperatively with the incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) and other healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in patients receiving pancreatic surgery was evaluated.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on 1073 patients who underwent pancreatic surgery. These patients were categorized into the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (n = 963) and the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (n = 110) based on whether or not they obtained AP from 48 h to 30 days after surgery. Outcomes included SSIs and other HAIs.

Results

The incidence of SSIs in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (98/963, 10.2%) was notably lower than that in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (22/110, 20.0%) (P = 0.002). Other HAIs incidence was not significantly different between the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (77/963, 8.0%) and the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (11/110, 10.0%) (P = 0.468). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that AP after 48 h postoperatively was a risk factor for SSIs (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.28–3.59) but not for other HAIs (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.63–2.42) after adjustment for age, gender, and diabetes. Subsequent to adjustment for all confounding factors, AP after 48 h postoperatively was not a influence factor for SSIs (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 0.76–5.99) and other HAIs (OR = 3.69, 95% CI 0.99–13.81).

Conclusions

AP after 48 h postoperatively following pancreatic surgery was not associated with the lower morbidity rate of SSIs and other HAIs. Nonetheless, this study may facilitate further development of strategies towards standardization of the duration of AP management of pancreatic surgery.

Introduction

Pancreatic surgery (including pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy) is a complex and technically demanding treatment for patients with pancreatic diseases. With the development of surgical techniques and postoperative care, the perioperative mortality rate of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery has dropped to below 5% [1,2,3]. However, surgical site infections (SSIs) and other healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain great challenges for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery, which have high incidence rates and are pivotal factors of increased hospital readmission and mortality rates [4]. Several studies have demonstrated that the incidence of SSIs following pancreatic surgery was 11.58–26% [5,6,7,8], while that of other HAIs after pancreatectomy was 4.33–11.0% [9,10,11]. In addition, SSIs and other HAIs increase clinical burdens, prolong hospital stays, and elevate the costs of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery [5, 12]. Therefore, it is necessary to decrease the morbidity rate of HAIs after pancreatic surgery.

The microbiome of patients is tightly implicated in SSIs [13]. Post-pancreatic surgery infections frequently include infections with gram-positive, fungal, and drug-resistant organisms [14]. A prior study has shown that antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) reduces the incidence of SSIs [15]. In 2015, the Chinese Guidelines for Clinical Use of Antibiotics [16] classified that the duration of AP after clean-contaminated surgery and contaminated surgery should not exceed 24 h and might extend to 48 h for contaminated surgery when necessary. A recent study has elucidated that one preoperative antibiotic dose might be adequate for surgical prophylaxis in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery [17]. However, Fromentin et al. [18] and Hammad et al. [19] have reported that extended AP could reduce the incidence of SSI among high-risk patients. Excessive use of antibiotics can lead to the production of drug-resistant bacteria [20]. The microbes that cause SSIs have currently been unveiled to be resistant to antibiotics used for prophylaxis [21, 22]. Therefore, further research is warranted to clarify whether extended AP in patients receiving pancreatic surgery can diminish the incidence of SSIs and other HAIs.

In this study, the effect of AP after 48 h to 30 days postoperatively on the incidence of SSIs and other HAIs in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were investigated.

Participants and methods

Study design

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, a Grade-A tertiary hospital with 4500 beds. In this study, when the information system generates a clinician's order, the clinician has the option to specify the purpose of the medication, whether it is therapeutic or preventive. The empirical use of medication is a therapeutic purpose and is outside the scope of this study.

Cohort construction

Patients undergoing the first pancreatic surgery from January 2022 to December 2022 were included in our study. The flowchart of this study is displayed in Fig. 1. A total of 14 patients who did not receive pancreatic surgery in the surgical records were excluded from 1087 patients. Finally, a total of 1073 patients were included and allocated into the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (n = 963; patients did not receive any AP after 48 h to 30 days postoperatively) and the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (n = 110; patients received AP at least one dose after 48 h to 30 days postoperatively). Two groups are distinguished in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of patient exclusion and inclusion

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Range distinction between AP after 48 h postoperatively group and non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group

Full size image

The Xinglin Real-Time Nosocomial Infection System and iih System were used to collect the demographic data of patients, including patient characteristics (age, sex, diabetes, and length of hospital stay), surgical variables [surgical category, surgical approach, surgical time, emergency, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (according to the principles of surgical risk assessment, I and II, score 0; III–V, score 1), National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) score, surgeon, inpatient department, and intraoperative blood loss], and Antibiotic (any AP, intraoperative redosing, AP within 48 h postoperatively, and AP days).

Outcomes

Outcomes included SSIs (the primary outcome) within 30 days and other HAIs (the secondary outcome) [postoperative sepsis, postoperative pneumonia, pelvic and abdominal tissue infections (infections occur more than 30 days after surgery), and urinary tract infections, and others that occurred during the hospital stay after pancreatic surgery]. HAIs were diagnosed according to the Diagnostic Criteria of Nosocomial Infection (Trial) issued by the Ministry of Health in 2001 [23].

Statistical analysis

Data were summarized as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or frequencies (percentages), as appropriate. The Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test and t-test or Mann–Whitney U test were utilized for descriptive statistics, as appropriate.

Continuous variables were classified into two categorical variables based on the SSI-risk age (65 years), the length of hospital stay of patients receiving pancreatic surgery (14 days), the 75% time of pancreatic surgery (4.88 h), and the days of prophylaxis (one day), respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was categorized into three categorical variables.

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between AP after 48 h postoperatively and HAIs. The adjusted covariates in model 1 were age (continuous), sex (male or female), and diabetes (yes or no). In model 2, the adjusted covariates were age (continuous), sex (male or female), diabetes (yes or no), surgical category (pancreaticoduodenectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and others), surgical approach (non-endoscopic surgery and endoscopic surgery), surgical time (continuous), emergency (yes or no), ASA score (0 and 1), NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) and 2 (2 and 3 points), inpatient department (pancreatic center and nonpancreatic center), surgeon (Doctor 1, Doctor 2, Doctor 3, Doctor 4, Doctor 5, Doctor 6, and others), intraoperative blood loss (continuous), any AP (yes or no), intraoperative redosing (required but no redosing, required and redosing, or not required), AP within 48 h postoperatively (yes or no), and AP days (continuous).

A series of analyses were conducted to examine whether there was effect modification by age, sex, diabetes, surgical category, ASA score (0 and 1), NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) and 2 (2 and 3 points), inpatient department, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative redosing, and AP within 48 h postoperatively. For these analyses, we included an interaction term in the primary model between AP after 48 h postoperatively and these variables.

Analyses were performed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) (version 23.0; IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, USA), R software (version 3.6.0; R Core Team), EmpowerStats (www.empowerstates.com), and Graph Pad Prism 8.0 (San Diego, CA, USA). A P value of < 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.

Results

Patient characteristics, surgical variables, and outcomes

Patient characteristics

The mean (SD) age of patients at the time of hospitalization was 59.58 (13.29) years in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group and 62.97 (13.55) years in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (P = 0.012). No significant difference in other baseline characteristics (sex, diabetes, and length of hospital stay) between the two groups was found (Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptive data and outcomes of patients categorized by non-AP after 48 h postoperatively and AP after 48 h postoperatively
Full size table

Surgical variables

Among the surgical variables, ASA score 1 and NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group was higher than that in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (P = 0.006, P = 0.018). In addition, significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of inpatient department and surgeons (P < 0.001) (Table 1).

Outcomes

The incidence of SSIs in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (98/963, 10.2%) was lower than that in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (22/110, 20.0%) (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference between the incidence of other HAIs in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (77/963, 8.0%) and the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (11/110, 10.0%) (P = 0.468) (Table 1).

Analysis of AP

Any AP was used in 821 (85.3%) in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group, and 110 (100%) in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group (P < 0.001). The proportion of AP within 48 h postoperatively (83.6% vs. 4.3%) was higher in the AP after 48 h postoperatively group than that in the non-AP after 48 h postoperatively group (P < 0.001) (Table 1). The type of AP after 48 h postoperatively are depicted in Fig. 3, including third-generation cephalosporins, β-lactamase inhibitor, and other antibiotics (including Carbapenem antibiotic, Latamoxef, Fluoroquinolones, Clindamycin, and Fluconazole).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Types of prophylactic antibiotics in AP after 48 h postoperatively group

Full size image

AP after 48 h postoperatively and SSIs and other HAIs

According to the univariate logistic regression analysis results, the influence factors of SSIs included sex (female), length of hospital stay, surgical category (distal pancreatectomy), ASA score (0 and 1), NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) and 2 (2 and 3 points), surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative redosing and AP within 48 h postoperatively (P < 0.05), while the influence factors of other HAIs included sex (female), length of hospital stay, surgical category (distal pancreatectomy), ASA score (0 and 1), surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and any AP (P < 0.05) (Table 2).

Table 2 Univariate logistic regression for the association of suspected influence factors with SSIs and other HAIs
Full size table

As demonstrated by the univariate logistic regression analysis results, AP after 48 h postoperatively was a risk factor of SSIs (OR = 2.21, 95% CI 1.32–3.68, P = 0.002) but not a risk factor of other HAIs (OR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.66–2.49, P = 0.469). The multivariate logistic regression analysis results revealed that subsequent to adjustment for the confounding effect of age, gender and diabetes were associated with SSIs (OR = 2.14, 95% CI 1.28–3.59, P = 0.004) but not with other HAIs (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.63–2.42, P = 0.532). Furthermore, after adjustment for all confounding factors, AP after 48 h postoperatively was not a influence factor for SSIs (OR = 2.13, 95% CI 0.76–5.99, P = 0.153) and other HAIs (OR = 3.69, 95% CI = 0.99–13.81, P = 0.053). The data are detailed in Table 3. The logistic regression analysis results for the covariate variables are displayed in Table 4.

Table 3 Associations of non-AP after 48 h postoperatively and AP after 48 h postoperatively with HAIs in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery
Full size table
Table 4 Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the association of covariate variables with SSIs and other HAIs
Full size table

Subgroup analysis results

Subgroup analyses showed that the estimated risk of SSIs with AP after 48 h postoperatively did not differ by age, sex, diabetes, surgical category, ASA score (0 and 1), NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) and 2 (2 and 3 points), inpatient department, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative redosing, and AP within 48 h postoperatively (Fig. 4). Additionally, the estimated risk of other HAIs with AP after 48 h postoperatively did not differ by age, sex, diabetes, surgical category, ASA score (0 and 1), NNIS score 1 (0 and 1 point) and 2 (2 and 3 points), inpatient department, surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative redosing, but by AP within 48 h postoperatively (Fig. 5).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Subgroup analyses of SSIs according to non-AP after 48 h postoperatively and AP after 48 h postoperatively group

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Subgroup analyses of other HAIs according to non-AP after 48 h postoperatively and AP after 48 h postoperatively group

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, AP after 48 h postoperatively with third-generation cephalosporins, β-lactamase inhibitor, or other antibiotics did not statistically and clinically significantly diminish the prevalence of SSIs in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. Additionally, AP after 48 h postoperatively was not associated with the decreased morbidity rate of other HAIs (including postoperative sepsis, postoperative pneumonia, pelvic and abdominal tissue infections, and urinary tract infections).

Postoperative infections can cause antibiotic overuse [24]. Therefore, a preventive anti-infectious strategy is needed to reduce the postoperative risk of HAIs and to avoid prolonged antibiotic exposure. Current guidelines in China recommend that antibiotic use after clean-contaminated and contaminated surgery should be discontinued within 24 h after the end of surgery and extended to 48 h for contaminated hepatopancreatobiliary surgery if necessary [16]. Similarly, the American Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery recommend that prophylaxis for the duration of the procedure and certainly for less than 24 h is appropriate [25]. However, these are inconsistent with the requirements and implementation of AP for pancreatic surgery. Macedo et al. [26] have reported that 69.47% of 285 hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons extended AP beyond 3 days worldwide. In our research, AP was conducted in 10.25% of 1073 patients receiving pancreatic surgery after 48 h postoperatively, and the duration of AP after 48 h postoperatively was 6.95 ± 3.67 days. The reason for the above situation is that the cognition of the duration of AP in patients receiving pancreatic surgery remains controversial. Recent evidence has unraveled that longer (72 h) broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage notably lowers the incidence of SSIs after pancreaticoduodenectomy surgery when compared with routine use (24 h) [27]. Similarly, some prior studies have elaborated that extended antibiotic use is correlated with the reduced incidence rate of SSIs following pancreatoduodenectomy among high-risk patients [18, 19]. As evidenced by a systematic review and meta-analysis involving ten studies, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis between 2 and 10 days after pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with fewer organ/space infections in patients who undergo preoperative biliary drainage [28]. On the contrary, a systematic review has illustrated that a single preoperative dose of cefazolin for hepatopancreatobiliary surgery is indicated for AP [17]. In our study, we revealed an insignificant correlation between all types of SSIs and other HAIs with AP after 48 h postoperatively after adjustment for the confounding factors of patients. This supports the Chinese and American guidelines.

The excessive or frequent prescription of antibiotics may not reduce the incidence of postoperative infections at all, which may even oppositely increase bacterial resistance to trigger multiple infections [20]. Therefore, rational duration of perioperative AP is of great importance and necessity. In addition to the duration of AP, the selection of antibiotics is also highly critical for diminishing the rate of postoperative infections. As reported, bacterial colonization in the surgical site is closely associated with the occurrence of SSIs in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery; it is necessary to conduct targeted AP covering microbes prevalent in post-pancreatic surgery infections [29, 30]. Chinese guidelines recommend the administration of first- and second-generation cephalosporin or ceftriaxone with or without metronidazole, as well as cephalomycin, as perioperative AP in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery [16]. However, the selection of antibiotics is widely heterogeneous, such as first-generation cephalosporin/metronidazole, second-generation cephalosporin, ciprofloxacin/metronidazole, ampicillin/sulbactam (Unasyn), ampicillin/gentamicin/metronidazole, and extended-spectrum penicillin [25, 26]. The results of the present study revealed an inconsistency in the type of antibiotics used for AP after 48 h postoperatively in pancreatic surgery, including third-generation cephalosporins, β-lactamase inhibitor, and other antibiotics. These findings were also inconsistent with the guideline. The main reason for the prophylactic use of certain broad-spectrum antibiotics may be the escalation of antibiotic usage by clinicians who perceive a higher infection rate after pancreatic surgery, particularly pancreaticoduodenectomy. The use of high-level antibiotics (such as third-generation cephalosporins and Carbapenem antibiotic) may be due to the expansion of antimicrobial resistance [31, 32]. Importantly, the common drug-resistant bacteria are a cause of SSIs and other HAIs [22, 33]. Accordingly, clinicians should closely monitor patients and select proper antibiotics.

The present study has some strengths. First, existing studies mainly focused on the specific or selected populations; however, in this study, the whole population of patients undergoing pancreatic surgery was included. Although these results were derived from the data of a single center, our sample size was large enough to exceed 1000. Therefore, these findings are applicable to real-world situations. Second, a subgroup analysis was performed and three unadjusted and adjusted models (adjusted for confounding factors) were constructed in our study, which emphasizes the credibility of our results. Third, in addition to the association between AP after 48 h postoperatively and the incidence of SSIs, this study also highlighted the effect of other HAIs. Nevertheless, there are some limitations in the present study. Our data were collected from a single-center study, and more relevant factors should be further analyzed, such as body mass index, preoperative administration time, drain placement, and malnutrition. In addition, our study may involve some subjective factors of surgeons, who overuse AP because of suspecting the patient with a greater risk of infection, suspected infection, underestimation of infection [34] or prescribing preventive medications as treatments, which cannot be reflected in the objective factors and cannot be corrected.

Conclusions

This study revealed no statistically significant decrease in the incidence of SSIs and other HAIs in patients receiving postoperative AP. Nonetheless, this study may facilitate further development of strategies towards standardization of the duration of AP management of pancreatic surgery. These findings indicate that in addition to focusing on the duration of postoperative AP, the adaptation of antimicrobial prophylaxis should also be evaluated according to pancreatic surgery performance and local epidemiology to avoid the overuse of antibiotics.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

AP:

Antibiotic prophylaxis

SSIs:

Surgical site infections

HAIs:

Healthcare-associated infections

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiology

NNIS:

National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance

OR:

Odds ration

CI:

Confidence interval

References

  1. Kimura W, Miyata H, Gotoh M, et al. A pancreaticoduodenectomy risk model derived from 8575 cases from a national single-race population (Japanese) using a web-based data entry system: the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;259(4):773–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang XX, Yan YK, Dong BL, et al. Pancreatic outflow tract reconstruction after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol. 2021;19(1):203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Tang W, Zhang YF, Zhao YF, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open radical antegrade modular pancreatosplenectomy for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2022;103:106676.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peluso H, Jones WB, Parikh AA, et al. Treatment outcomes, 30-day readmission and healthcare resource utilization after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic malignancies. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2019;26(5):187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. De Pastena M, Paiella S, Fontana M, et al. The clinical and economic impact of surgical site infections after distal pancreatectomy. Surgery. 2022;171(6):1652–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nobuhara H, Matsugu Y, Tanaka J, et al. The preventive effects of perioperative oral care on surgical site infections after pancreatic cancer surgery: a retrospective study. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(4):3337–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pollini T, Wong P, Kone LB, et al. Drain placement after pancreatic resection: friend or foe for surgical site infections? J Gastrointest Surg. 2023;27(4):724–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mentor K, Ratnayake B, Akter N, et al. Meta-analysis and meta-regression of risk factors for surgical site infections in hepatic and pancreatic resection. World J Surg. 2020;44(12):4221–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee DU, Hastie DJ, Fan GH, et al. Effect of malnutrition on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: propensity score-matched analysis of 2011–2017 US hospitals. Nutr Clin Pract. 2022;37(1):117–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yang PS, Liu CP, Hsu YC, et al. A novel prediction model for bloodstream infections in hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery patients. World J Surg. 2019;43(5):1294–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Okada K, Uemura K, Ohge H, et al. Prognostic impact of postoperative infection in patients with pancreatic cancer: a multicenter cohort study. Surgery. 2022;172(6):1768–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fadayomi AB, Kasumova GG, Tabatabaie O, et al. Unique predictors and economic burden of superficial and deep/organ space surgical site infections following pancreatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(7):658–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Alverdy JC, Hyman N, Gilbert J. Re-examining causes of surgical site infections following elective surgery in the era of asepsis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(3):e38–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Behrman SW, Bahr MH, Dickson PV, et al. The microbiology of secondary and postoperative pancreatic infections: implications for antimicrobial management. Arch Surg. 2011;146(5):613–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Pastena M, Paiella S, Azzini AM, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis with piperacillin-tazobactam reduces post-operative infectious complication after pancreatic surgery: an interventional, non-randomized study. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021;22(5):536–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Circular on the issuance of the guiding principles for the clinical application of antimicrobial drugs (2015 edition). Bulletin of the National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China. 2015, No. 144(07): 29.

  17. Steccanella F, Amoretti P, Barbieri MR, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for hepato-biliopancreatic surgery-a systematic review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(2):194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fromentin M, Mullaert J, Gille B, et al. Extended antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy reduces postoperative abdominal infection in high-risk patients: results from a retrospective cohort study. Surgery. 2022;172(1):205–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hammad AY, Khachfe HH, AlMasri S, et al. Impact of extended antibiotic use after pancreaticoduodenectomy for patients with preoperative metallic biliary stenting treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2023;27(4):716–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Medina E, Pieper DH. Tackling threats and future problems of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2016;398:3–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Teillant A, Gandra S, Barter D, et al. Potential burden of antibiotic resistance on surgery and cancer chemotherapy antibiotic prophylaxis in the USA: a literature review and modelling study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(12):1429–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stecca T, Nistri C, Pauletti B, et al. Bacteriobilia resistance to antibiotic prophylaxis increases morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a monocentric retrospective study of 128 patients. Updates Surg. 2020;72(4):1073–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. The Diagnostic Criteria of Nosocomial Infection (Trial). Zhong Hua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2001(05): 61–67.

  24. Bortolotti P, Delpierre C, Le Guern R, et al. High incidence of postoperative infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a need for perioperative anti-infectious strategies. Infect Dis Now. 2021;51(5):456–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013;14(1):73–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Macedo F, Mowzoon M, Parikh J, et al. Disparities in the management and prophylaxis of surgical site infection and pancreatic fistula after pancreatoduodenectomy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2017;24(5):268–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Fathi AH, Jackson T, Barati M, et al. Extended perioperative antibiotic coverage in conjunction with intraoperative bile cultures decreases infectious complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy. HPB Surg. 2016;2016:3031749.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Droogh D, Groen JV, de Boer M, et al. Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after pancreatoduodenectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2023;25:S469–70.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pham H, Chen A, Nahm CB, et al. The role of targeted versus standard antibiotic prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy in reducing postoperative infectious complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2022;275(2):315–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Krüger CM, Adam U, Adam T, et al. Bacterobilia in pancreatic surgery-conclusions for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(41):6238–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Brink AJ. Epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative infections globally. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2019;32(6):609–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mizrahi A, Delerue T, Morel H, et al. Infections caused by naturally AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae: Can we use third-generation cephalosporins? A narrative review. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020;55(2):105834.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bilgiç Ç, Keske Ş, Sobutay E, et al. Surgical site infections after pancreaticoduodenectomy: preoperative biliary system interventions and antimicrobial prophylaxis. Int J Infect Dis. 2020;95:148–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Khan Z, Ahmed N, Zafar S, et al. Audit of antibiotic prophylaxis and adherence of surgeons to standard guidelines in common abdominal surgical procedures. East Mediterr Health J. 2020;26(9):1052–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank those who have devoted a lot to this study, including nurses, doctors, statisticians, reviewers, and editors. They were not financially compensated for their contributions.

Funding

This work was supported by the third Outstanding Young and Middle-aged Talents Training Program of Jiangsu Provincial People's Hospital (YNRCQN0314); Young Scholars Fostering Fund of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (PY2022017); Jiangsu Province Hospital Management Innovation Research Project (JSYGY-3-2023-559); Project of Chinese Hospital Reform and Development Institute, Nanjing University (NDYG2023039).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Hospital Acquired Infection Control and Public Health Management, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Xiaoju Ma, Youpeng Chen & Yan Lu

  2. Big Data Center, Scientific Research Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Qiangsheng He

  3. Clinical Research Center, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Qiangsheng He

  4. Department of Infectious Diseases, The Seventh Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

    Youpeng Chen

  5. Department of Medical Services, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Ping Zhu

  6. Department of Pharmacy, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Ji Zhang

  7. Department of Infection Control, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, No. 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China

    Wen-sen Chen, Yongxiang Zhang, Wei-hong Zhang & Zhanjie Li

  8. Department of Infections Disease, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Chuanlong Zhu

  9. Pancreas Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, No. 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China

    Qiang Li

Authors
  1. Xiaoju Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiangsheng He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Youpeng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yan Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ping Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ji Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Wen-sen Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yongxiang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Wei-hong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Chuanlong Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Qiang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Zhanjie Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: XM, YC, ZL, and QL. Provision of study materials or patients: QL, YZ, WZ, and CZ. Collection and assembly of data: XM, ZL and PZ. Data analysis and interpretation: QH, ZL, WC, YL and JZ.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qiang Li or Zhanjie Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been approved by the ethical committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University review board.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ma, X., He, Q., Chen, Y. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis after 48 h postoperatively are not associated with decreased surgical site infections and other healthcare associated infections in pancreatic surgery patients: a retrospective cohort study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 12, 138 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01348-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01348-3

Keywords

Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control

ISSN: 2047-2994

Contact us