Abstract:PurposeTo determine if prophylactic antibiotic use lowers the incidence of infection in the first week following tunneled dialysis catheter exchange.Materials and MethodsOur 28 ambulatory surgery centers performed dialysis catheter exchanges for poorly functiong catheters. Some physicians give prophylactic antibiotics and some do not. Initiated as part of our QA program, and an MOC project, we evaulated each patient's outcome one week after their procedure. Data recorded when the procedures were performed included presence of preexisting infection, use of antibiotic, antibiotic type, route of administration, and timing of administration. Follow-up phone calls scheduled 6-8 days after intervention, were made to each patient's dialysis center to determine the presence of the following complications: infection, bleeding, nausea/vomiting, respiratory difficulty, and pain. This information was enteried into a central database. The QA/MOC team assessed the data. A WIRB exemption was obtained for publication of a retrospective analysis of the database from 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2011. All patient identifiers were removed and the database was submitted for statistical analysis. Only patients without preexisting infection were included in the analysis.ResultsThere was a significant decrease in the rate of infection in patients who received IV antibiotics, primarily cefazolin 1gm, given pre-procedure or intraprocedure just prior to the intervention. Oral antibiotics given peri-procedure did not decrease infection rates. There was no significant difference in other rates of complications between those who did and did not receive antibiotics.ConclusionIntravenous cefazolin given prophylactically just prior to tunneled dialysis catheter exchange significantly reduces the rate of infection at one week. Table 1 To determine if prophylactic antibiotic use lowers the incidence of infection in the first week following tunneled dialysis catheter exchange. Our 28 ambulatory surgery centers performed dialysis catheter exchanges for poorly functiong catheters. Some physicians give prophylactic antibiotics and some do not. Initiated as part of our QA program, and an MOC project, we evaulated each patient's outcome one week after their procedure. Data recorded when the procedures were performed included presence of preexisting infection, use of antibiotic, antibiotic type, route of administration, and timing of administration. Follow-up phone calls scheduled 6-8 days after intervention, were made to each patient's dialysis center to determine the presence of the following complications: infection, bleeding, nausea/vomiting, respiratory difficulty, and pain. This information was enteried into a central database. The QA/MOC team assessed the data. A WIRB exemption was obtained for publication of a retrospective analysis of the database from 1/1/2010 through 12/31/2011. All patient identifiers were removed and the database was submitted for statistical analysis. Only patients without preexisting infection were included in the analysis. There was a significant decrease in the rate of infection in patients who received IV antibiotics, primarily cefazolin 1gm, given pre-procedure or intraprocedure just prior to the intervention. Oral antibiotics given peri-procedure did not decrease infection rates. There was no significant difference in other rates of complications between those who did and did not receive antibiotics. Intravenous cefazolin given prophylactically just prior to tunneled dialysis catheter exchange significantly reduces the rate of infection at one week. Table 1

Antibiotic prophylaxis after extraction of urinary catheter prevents urinary tract infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Antibiotics prophylaxis at the time of catheter removal after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

ANTIBIOTIC PROPHYLAXIS AT TIME OF CATHETER REMOVAL FOLLOWING LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED STUDY

Nursing Effect Analysis of Urinary Tract Infections in Urology Surgery Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Systematic Review: Antimicrobial Urinary Catheters To Prevent Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Hospitalized Patients

Antibiotic prophylaxis for urinary catheter manipulation following arthroplasty: a systematic review

[Antibacterial prophylaxis with fosfomycin at the time of the urethral catheter removal after radical prostatectomy (prospective randomized trial)]

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical wound infections in clean and clean-contaminated surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Risk factors for catheter‐associated urinary tract infection among hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies

The Duration of Antibiotics Prophylaxis at the Time of Catheter Removal after Radical Prostatectomy: Clinically Integrated, Cluster, Randomized Trial

Prophylactic Antibioitic Use During Dialysis Catheter Exchange

Effect of a Collaborative Medical-Nursing Catheter Removal Protocol on Incidence of Urinary Tract Infections in Urology Patients: A Retrospective Study

Antibiotic Selection and Duration for Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection in Non-Hospitalized Older Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Replacement of Urinary Catheter for Urinary Tract Infections: A Prospective Observational Study

Effect of early removal of urinary catheter on recovery after vaginal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Does antimicrobial coating and impregnation of urinary catheters prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection? A review of clinical and preclinical studies

A Prospective Controlled Trial on Prophylactic Efficacy of Cefazoline Lock Solution for Catheter-Related Infection in Hemodialysis Patients

Tailoring Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Ureteroscopic Procedures Based on Local Resistance Profiles May Lead to Reduced Rates of Infections and Urosepsis

Prophylactic antibiotic treatment following laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections: did the AUA guidelines make a difference?