Antimicrobial prophylaxis in dogs undergoing catheter-based cardiac interventions and pacemaker implantation – A survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobial use for catheter-based cardiac interventions and pacemaker implementation in dogs do not exist. Optimizing antimicrobial use by rationalizing indications and the duration of administration is essential against the ever-growing threat of antimicrobial resistance. The aim of our study was to reveal the current habits of prophylactic antimicrobial use among veterinarians who perform transvascular cardiac interventions in dogs. A digital survey was offered via the mailing list of an international veterinary cardiology-interest group. The 141 respondents reported large variations in protocols (e.g., 47 different prophylaxis protocols for pacemaker implantation). Protocols differed on administration (yes/no), drug, and the route and duration of administration (only intravenous, or intravenous followed by oral antimicrobials). The median duration of antimicrobial course was 7 days (range: 0-21 days). Antimicrobial prophylaxis was administered by 89 % of 141 respondents for occlusion of patent ductus arteriosus, 76 % of 139 respondents for balloon valvuloplasty of pulmonary valve stenosis, 93 % of 56 respondents for transpulmonary stenting, and 96 % of 136 respondents for transvenous pacemaker implantation. The existence of institutional guidelines was reported by 30 % of the respondents, although these also showed substantial variation (e.g., 27 guidelines from 40 institutions for pacemaker implantation). Veterinarians use prophylactic antimicrobials more often and for longer periods for cardiac interventions than their human counterparts. Antibiotic prophylaxis shows little consistency between veterinarians, and does not appear to be supported by evidence of necessity. This warrants re-evaluation of use, and creation of guidelines describing rational use of antimicrobials in interventional cardiac procedures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".