Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38113041›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2023

Pharmacokinetics of Locally Applied Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

Mathilde Nejrup Hemmingsen, Anne Karen Bennedsen, Randa Bismark Kullab, Caroline Barskov Norlin, Mathias Ørholt, Andreas Larsen, Mats Bue, Mads Lichtenberg, Frederik Boetius Hertz, Tine Engberg Damsgaard and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mathilde Nejrup HemmingsenDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anne Karen BennedsenDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Randa Bismark KullabDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Caroline Barskov NorlinDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mathias ØrholtDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas LarsenDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mats BueDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Mads LichtenbergDepartment of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Frederik Boetius HertzDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tine Engberg DamsgaardDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Peter Vester-GlowinskiDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Søren Johannes SørensenSection of Microbiology, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Thomas BjarnsholtDepartment of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Mikkel HerlyDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rigshospitalet · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DKAarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Antibiotic irrigation of breast implants is widely used internationally, but no clinical study has investigated the pharmacokinetics of antibiotic prophylaxis in the breast implant pocket. Objectives: To evaluate how long locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin concentrations in the implant pocket remain above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for the most common bacterial infections and to measure systemic uptake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was performed at the Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, between October 25, 2021, and September 22, 2022, among 40 patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction who were part of the ongoing BREAST-AB trial (Prophylactic Treatment of Breast Implants With a Solution of Gentamicin, Vancomycin and Cefazolin Antibiotics for Women Undergoing Breast Reconstructive Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial). Patients were randomized to receive locally applied gentamicin, cefazolin, and vancomycin or placebo. Samples were obtained from the surgical breast drain and blood up to 10 days postoperatively. Exposures: The breast implant and the implant pocket were irrigated with 160 μg/mL of gentamicin, 2000 μg/mL of cefazolin, and 2000 μg/mL of vancomycin in a 200-mL saline solution. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the duration of antibiotic concentrations above the MIC breakpoint for Staphylococcus aureus according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: gentamicin, 4 μg/mL; cefazolin, 2 μg/mL; and vancomycin, 2 μg/mL. Secondary outcomes included the time above the MIC for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other relevant bacteria, as well as systemic uptake. Results: The study included 40 patients (median age, 44.6 years [IQR, 38.3-51.4 years]; median body mass index, 23.9 [IQR, 21.7-25.9]) with a median number of 3 drain samples (range, 1-10 drain samples) and 2 blood samples (range, 0-6 blood samples). Vancomycin and cefazolin remained above the MIC for S aureus significantly longer than gentamicin (gentamicin, 0.9 days [95% CI, 0.5-1.2 days] for blood samples vs 6.9 days [95% CI, 2.9 to 10.9 days] for vancomycin [P = .02] vs 3.7 days [95% CI, 2.2-5.2 days] for cefazolin [P = .002]). The gentamicin level remained above the MIC for P aeruginosa for 1.3 days (95% CI, 1.0-1.5 days). Only cefazolin was detectable in blood samples, albeit in very low concentrations (median concentration, 0.04 μg/mL [range, 0.007-0.1 μg/mL]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that patients treated with triple-antibiotic implant irrigation during breast reconstruction receive adequate prophylaxis for S aureus and other common implant-associated, gram-positive bacteria. However, the protection against P aeruginosa may be inadequate.

Indexed as

CefazolinMammaplastyAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic ProphylaxisFemaleGentamicinsHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesStaphylococcus aureusVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCefazolinGentamicinsVancomycin

Identifiers

PMID38113041
PMCPMC10731505
OpenAlexW4389935777

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.