Use of antibiotic prophylaxis is not needed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: a meta-analysis.
EUS
FNA
cephalosporin
lesion
pancreas
Journal
Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology
ISSN: 1747-4132
Titre abrégé: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101278199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2020
Oct 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
18
7
2020
medline:
31
8
2021
entrez:
18
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is limited evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting. Bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. The primary outcome was infection rate. Additional endpoints were severe infection rate and overall rates of adverse events. Six studies, of which one was a randomized controlled trial and five were retrospective, with 1706 patients were included. Most patients were female, and body/tail was the most frequent location of cystic lesions. Overall, eight infectious events were observed in the antibiotic group (0.77%), whereas 12 events were registered in the control group (1.7%), with no difference in terms of infection rate (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.24-1.78; p = 0.40). Again, no difference was observed between the two study groups in terms of either severe infection (odds ratio 0.88, 0.13-5.82; p = 0.89) and overall adverse event rate (odds ratio 1.09, 0.73-1.65; p = 0.67). Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to substantially reduce the risk of infections after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions, and routine use of prophylactic antibiotics should be questioned.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is limited evidence on the use of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in this setting.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
METHODS
Bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. The primary outcome was infection rate. Additional endpoints were severe infection rate and overall rates of adverse events.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Six studies, of which one was a randomized controlled trial and five were retrospective, with 1706 patients were included. Most patients were female, and body/tail was the most frequent location of cystic lesions. Overall, eight infectious events were observed in the antibiotic group (0.77%), whereas 12 events were registered in the control group (1.7%), with no difference in terms of infection rate (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.24-1.78; p = 0.40). Again, no difference was observed between the two study groups in terms of either severe infection (odds ratio 0.88, 0.13-5.82; p = 0.89) and overall adverse event rate (odds ratio 1.09, 0.73-1.65; p = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to substantially reduce the risk of infections after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions, and routine use of prophylactic antibiotics should be questioned.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32674699
doi: 10.1080/17474124.2020.1797486
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM