We have located links that may give you full text access.
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis with Ampicillin-sulbactam Compared with Cefazolin for Esophagectomy: Nationwide Inpatient Database Study in Japan.
Annals of Surgery 2023 December 16
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis with ampicillin-sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) compared with cefazolin (CEZ) on the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: CEZ is widely used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophagectomy without procedure-specific evidence, whereas ABPC/SBT is preferred in some hospitals to target both aerobic and anaerobic oral bacteria.
METHODS: Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between July 2010 and March 2019 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Overlap propensity score weighting was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes [including surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure] between antimicrobial prophylaxis with CEZ and ABPC/SBT, after adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses.
RESULTS: Among 17,772 eligible patients, 16,077 (90.5%) and 1695 (9.5%) patients were administered CEZ and ABPC/SBT, respectively. SSI, anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure occurred in 2971 (16.7%), 2604 (14.7%), and 2754 patients (15.5%), respectively. After overlap weighting, ABPC/SBT was significantly associated with a reduction in SSI [odds ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.60)], anastomotic leakage [0.51 (0.43-0.61)], and respiratory failure [0.66 (0.57-0.77)]. ABPC/SBT was also associated with reduced respiratory complications, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. The proportion of Clostridioides difficile colitis and noninfectious complications did not differ between the groups. Propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated equivalent results.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of ABPC/SBT as antimicrobial prophylaxis for esophagectomy was associated with better short-term postoperative outcomes compared to CEZ.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: CEZ is widely used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophagectomy without procedure-specific evidence, whereas ABPC/SBT is preferred in some hospitals to target both aerobic and anaerobic oral bacteria.
METHODS: Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between July 2010 and March 2019 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Overlap propensity score weighting was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes [including surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure] between antimicrobial prophylaxis with CEZ and ABPC/SBT, after adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses.
RESULTS: Among 17,772 eligible patients, 16,077 (90.5%) and 1695 (9.5%) patients were administered CEZ and ABPC/SBT, respectively. SSI, anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure occurred in 2971 (16.7%), 2604 (14.7%), and 2754 patients (15.5%), respectively. After overlap weighting, ABPC/SBT was significantly associated with a reduction in SSI [odds ratio 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.60)], anastomotic leakage [0.51 (0.43-0.61)], and respiratory failure [0.66 (0.57-0.77)]. ABPC/SBT was also associated with reduced respiratory complications, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. The proportion of Clostridioides difficile colitis and noninfectious complications did not differ between the groups. Propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated equivalent results.
CONCLUSIONS: The administration of ABPC/SBT as antimicrobial prophylaxis for esophagectomy was associated with better short-term postoperative outcomes compared to CEZ.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app