Prevention of infection in aortic or aortoiliac peripheral arterial reconstruction

Prevention of infection in aortic or aortoiliac peripheral arterial reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) results from the narrowing of arteries. Aortic aneurysms - abnormal dilatations in artery walls - are a related concern. For severe cases, arterial reconstruction surgery is the treatment option. Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a feared and common complication of vascular surgery. These infections have a significant global healthcare impact. Evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures is essential.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, including antimicrobial therapy, antisepsis, and wound management, for the prevention of infection in people undergoing any open or hybrid aortic or aortoiliac peripheral arterial reconstruction.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, LILACS, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 11 November 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel (e.g. cluster or individual) or split-body design, and quasi-RCTs, which assessed any intervention to reduce or prevent infection following aortic or aortoiliac procedures for the treatment of aneurysm or PAD. There were no limitations regarding age and sex.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third review author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs with 4952 participants. Fifteen studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one domain, and 19 studies had an unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We analysed 10 different comparisons for eight different outcomes. The comparisons were antibiotic versus placebo or no treatment; short-duration antibiotics (≤ 24 hours) versus long-duration antibiotics (> 24 hours); different types of systemic antibiotics (one versus another); antibiotic-bonded implant versus standard implant; Dacron graft versus stretch polytetrafluoroethylene graft; prophylactic closed suction drainage versus undrained wound; individualised goal-directed therapy (IGDT) versus fluid therapy based on losses, standard haemodynamic parameters and arterial blood gas values (standard care); comprehensive geriatric assessment versus standard preoperative care; percutaneous versus open-access technique; and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard dressing. The primary outcomes were graft infection rate and SSI rate. The secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, arterial reconstruction failure rate, re-intervention rate, amputation rate, pain resulting from the intervention, and adverse events resulting from the interventions to prevent infection. We did not assess all the outcomes across the different comparisons. The main findings are presented below. Antibiotic versus placebo or no treatment (five studies) Very low-certainty evidence from five included studies suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis reduces SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.71; 5 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) 9). With very low- to low-certainty evidence, there was little or no difference between the groups in the other assessed outcomes (graft infection rate, all-cause mortality, re-intervention rate, and amputation rate). We did not quantitatively assess other outcomes in this comparison. Short duration antibiotics (≤ 24 hours) versus long duration antibiotics (> 24 hours) (three studies) Very low-certainty evidence from three included studies suggests that there is little or no difference in graft infection rate (RR 2.74, 95% CI 0.11 to 65.59; 1 study, 88 participants) or SSI rate (RR 3.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 7.71; 1 study, 88 participants) between short- and long-duration antibiotic prophylaxis. We did not quantitatively assess other outcomes in this comparison. Different types of systemic antibiotics (one versus another) (seven studies) We grouped seven studies comparing one antibiotic to another into three subgroups that compared different classes of antibiotics amongst themselves. We found little or no difference between the groups analysed. Graft infection rate: beta-lactams versus cephalosporins (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.71; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence); glycopeptides versus cephalosporins (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 103.05; 1 study, 238 participants; low-certainty evidence); one cephalosporin versus another (RR not estimable, CI not estimable; 1 study; 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence); SSI rate: beta-lactams and cephalosporins (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.53; 2 studies, 229 participants; very low-certainty evidence); glycopeptides versus cephalosporins (RR 2.17, 95% CI 0.65 to 7.23; 2 studies, 312 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and one cephalosporin versus another (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.21 to 7.45; 3 studies, 625 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We could extract all-cause mortality data for the glycopeptide versus cephalosporin comparison; there was little or no difference between groups (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.83; 1 study, 238 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not quantitatively assess other outcomes in this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the use of prophylactic antibiotics may prevent SSIs in aortic or aortoiliac peripheral arterial reconstruction. We found no superiority amongst specific antibiotics or differences in extended antibiotic use (over 24 hours) compared with shorter use (up to 24 hours), with low-certainty evidence. For other interventions, very low- to moderate-certainty evidence showed little or no difference across various outcomes. We advise interpreting these conclusions with caution due to the limited number of events in all groups and comparisons.