Risk of <i>Clostridium difficile</i> Infection after Perioperative Antibacterial Prophylaxis before and during an Outbreak of Infection due to a Hypervirulent Strain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative antibacterial prophylaxis (PAP) is an important component of surgical site infection prevention but may be associated with adverse effects, such as Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Since the emergence of a hypervirulent strain of C. difficile, the risk of development of CDI after PAP has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of PAP-induced CDI after selected surgical procedures and to compare such risk before with such risk after the emergence of the hypervirulent strain of C. difficile. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study including all patients aged > or = 18 years who underwent either abdominal hysterectomy, hip arthroplasty, craniotomy, or colon, cardiac, or vascular surgery from August 1999 through May 2005 in a tertiary care hospital in Quebec, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 8373 surgical procedures were performed, and PAP was used in 7600 of these interventions. Of 98 CDI episodes identified, 40 occurred after patients received PAP only. The risk of CDI was 14.9 cases per 1000 surgical procedures among patients who received PAP only during the period 2003-2005, compared with 0.7 cases per 1000 surgical procedures during the period 1999-2002 (P < .001). The independent risk factors associated with CDI in patients given PAP only were older age, administration of cefoxitin (rather than cefazolin) alone or in combination with another drug, and year of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a large epidemic of CDI associated with the emergence of a novel strain, 1.5% of patients who received PAP as their sole antibiotic treatment developed CDI. In situations in which the only purpose of PAP is to prevent infrequent and relatively benign infections, the risks may outweigh the benefits in some elderly patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".