Is antibiotic prophylaxis generally safe and effective in surgical and nonsurgical scenarios? Evidence from an umbrella review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

The authors aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis through surgical and nonsurgical scenarios and assess the strength of evidence.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

The authors performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An evidence map was created to summarize the absolute benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in each scenario and certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-five meta-analyses proved eligible with 725 RCTs and 78 clinical scenarios in surgical and medical prophylaxis. Of 119 health outcomes, 67 (56.3%) showed statistically significant benefits, 34 of which were supported by convincing or highly suggestive evidence from RCTs. For surgeries, antibiotic prophylaxis may minimize infection occurrences in most surgeries except Mohs surgery, simple hand surgery, herniorrhaphy surgery, hepatectomy, thyroid surgery, rhinoplasty, stented distal hypospadias repair, midurethral sling placement, endoscopic sinus surgery, and transurethral resection of bladder tumors with only low to very low certainty evidence. For nonsurgery invasive procedures, only low to very low certainty evidence showed benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis for cystoscopy, postoperative urinary catheterization, and urodynamic study. For medical prophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis showed greater benefits in nonemergency scenarios, in which patients were mainly with weakened immune systems, or at risk of recurrent chronic infections. Antibiotics prophylaxis may increase antibiotic resistance or other adverse events in most scenarios and reached significance in cystoscopy, afebrile neutropenia following chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical and nonsurgical scenarios is generally effective and seems independent of surgical cleanliness and urgency of diseases. Its safety is not well determined due to lack of available data. Nevertheless, the low quality of current evidence limits the external validity of these findings, necessitating clinicians to judiciously assess indications, balancing low infection rates with antibiotic-related side effects.