Does Duration of Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Matter in Cardiac Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of short-term (<24 hours) versus longer-term antibiotic prophylaxis (≥24 hours) in open heart surgery. BACKGROUND: The optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis for adults undergoing cardiac surgery is unknown and guideline recommendations are inconsistent. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL for parallel-group randomized trials comparing any antibiotic prophylaxis administered for <24 hours to any antibiotic prophylaxis for ≥24 hours in adult patients undergoing open heart surgery. Reference lists of selected articles, clinical practice guidelines, review articles, and congress abstracts were searched. Study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were performed independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Of the 1338 citations identified by our search strategy, 12 studies involving 7893 patients were selected. Compared with short-term antibiotic prophylaxis, longer-term antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the risk of sternal surgical site infection (SSI) by 38% (risk ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.69, P = 0.002) and deep sternal SSI by 68% (risk ratio 1.68, 95% CI 1.12-2.53, P = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, infections overall and adverse events. Eleven of the trials were at high risk for bias due to limitations in study design. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis of ≥24 hours may be more efficacious in preventing sternal SSIs in patients undergoing cardiac surgery compared to shorter regimens. The findings however are limited by the heterogeneity of antibiotic regimens used and the risk of bias in the published studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".