Risk Factor Analysis and Microbial Etiology of Surgical Site Infections following Lower Segment Caesarean Section

Background. Lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) is a common mode of delivery now and surgical site infection is the second most common infectious complication in these patients. This study was planned with this background to have a comprehensive approach to SSI following LSCS.Methods. 500 consecutive patients undergoing LSCS, irrespective of indication, were studied. A questionnaire was developed to assess the risk factors associated with development of SSI. All patients were followed up from day one of surgery till discharge and then up till the postoperative day 30 after discharge.Results. SSI was identified in 121 (24.2%) out of 500 patients. In all age groups, Gram-negative bacilli were the commonest finding. The commonest isolate wasAcinetobacterspecies (32.03%) followed byStaphylococcus aureusand coagulase negativeStaphylococcus(21.09%). 23.8% ofStaphylococcus aureusstrains were MRSA. By multivariate logistic regression premature rupture of membrane (PROM), antibiotics given earlier than 2 hours and increased duration of stay in the hospital were found to be significant.Conclusions. A proper assessment of risk factors that predispose to SSI and their modification may help in reduction of SSI rates. Also, frequent antimicrobial audit and qualitative research could give an insight into the current antibiotic prescription practices and the factors affecting these practices.</jats:p

Four-Year Visual Outcomes in the Protocol W Randomized Trial of Intravitreous Aflibercept for Prevention of Vision-Threatening Complications of Diabetic Retinopathy

ImportanceAnti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections in eyes with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) without center-involved diabetic macular edema (CI-DME) reduce development of vision-threatening complications from diabetes over at least 2 years, but whether this treatment has a longer-term benefit on visual acuity is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the primary 4-year outcomes of visual acuity and rates of vision-threatening complications in eyes with moderate to severe NPDR treated with intravitreal aflibercept compared with sham. The primary 2-year analysis of this study has been reported.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at 64 clinical sites in the US and Canada from January 2016 to March 2018, enrolling 328 adults (399 eyes) with moderate to severe NPDR (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] severity level 43-53) without CI-DME.InterventionsEyes were randomly assigned to 2.0 mg aflibercept (n = 200) or sham (n = 199). Eight injections were administered at defined intervals through 2 years, continuing quarterly through 4 years unless the eye improved to mild NPDR or better. Aflibercept was given in both groups to treat development of high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) or CI-DME with vision loss.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDevelopment of PDR or CI-DME with vision loss (≥10 letters at 1 visit or ≥5 letters at 2 consecutive visits) and change in visual acuity (best corrected ETDRS letter score) from baseline to 4 years.ResultsAmong participants (mean age 56 years; 42.4% female; 5% Asian, 15% Black, 32% Hispanic, 45% White), the 4-year cumulative probability of developing PDR or CI-DME with vision loss was 33.9% with aflibercept vs 56.9% with sham (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [97.5% CI, 0.28 to 0.57]; P &amp;amp;lt; .001). The mean (SD) change in visual acuity from baseline to 4 years was −2.7 (6.5) letters with aflibercept and −2.4 (5.8) letters with sham (adjusted mean difference, −0.5 letters [97.5% CI, −2.3 to 1.3]; P = .52). Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration cardiovascular/cerebrovascular event rates were 9.9% (7 of 71) in bilateral participants, 10.9% (14 of 129) in unilateral aflibercept participants, and 7.8% (10 of 128) in unilateral sham participants.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients with NPDR but without CI-DME, at 4 years treatment with aflibercept vs sham, initiating aflibercept treatment only if vision-threatening complications developed, resulted in statistically significant anatomic improvement but no improvement in visual acuity. Aflibercept as a preventive strategy, as used in this trial, may not be generally warranted for patients with NPDR without CI-DME.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02634333</jats:sec