Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:31:14.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Factors for Surgical-Site Infections Following Cesarean Section

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Carol A. Killian ,
Eileen M. Graffunder ,
Timothy J. Vinciguerra  and
Richard A. Venezia
Carol A. Killian*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
Eileen M. Graffunder
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
Timothy J. Vinciguerra
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
Richard A. Venezia
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, New York
*
Infection Control Practitioner, Department of Epidemiology, Albany Medical Center, New Scotland Ave, Albany, NY 12208
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To identify risk factors associated with surgical-site infections (SSIs) following cesarean sections.

Design:

Prospective cohort study.

Setting:

High-risk obstetrics and neonatal tertiary-care center in upstate New York.

Patients:

Population-based sample of 765 patients who underwent cesarean sections at our facility during 6-month periods each year from 1996 through 1998.

Methods:

Prospective surgical-site surveillance was conducted using methodology of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Infections were identified during admission, within 30 days following the cesarean section, by read-mission to the hospital or by a postdischarge survey.

Results:

Multiple logistic-regression analysis identified four factors independently associated with an increased risk of SSI following cesarean section: absence of antibiotic prophylaxis (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 1.50-4.6; P=.008); surgery time (OR, 1.01; CI95, 1.00-1.02; P=.04); <7 prenatal visits (OR, 3.99; CI95, 1.74-9.15; P=.001); and hours of ruptured membranes (OR, 1.02; CI95,1.01-1.03; P=.04).

Patients given antibiotic prophylaxis had significantly lower infection rates than patients who did not receive antibiotic prophylaxis (F=02), whether or not active labor or ruptured membranes were present.

Conclusion:

Among the variables identified as risk factors for SSI, only two have the possibility to be changed through interventions. Antibiotic prophylaxis would benefit all cesarean patients regardless of active labor or ruptured membranes and would decrease morbidity and length of stay. Women's healthcare professionals also must continue to encourage pregnant women to start prenatal visits early in the pregnancy and to maintain scheduled visits throughout the pregnancy to prevent perinatal complications, including postoperative infection.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 22 , Issue 10 , October 2001 , pp. 613 - 617
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Kreutner, A, Del-Bene, V, Delamar, D, Bodden, J, Loadholt, C. Perioperative cephalosporin prophylaxis in cesarean section: effects on endometritis in the high risk patient. Am J Obstei Gynecol 1979;134:925–935.Google Scholar
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of cesarean delivery-United States. MMWR 1993;44:303–307.Google Scholar
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC National Vital Statistic Reports Births. Final Data for 1997. 1997;47(18).Google Scholar
4. Hemsell, D. Prophylactic antibiotics in gynecologic and obstetric surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(suppl 110):S821–S841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Cunningham, F, Hauth, J, Strong, J, Kappus, S. Infectious morbidity following cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1978;52:656–661.Google Scholar
6. Gibbs, R, Blanco, J, St Clair, P. A case control study of wound abscess after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:498–501.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Emmons, S, Krohn, M, Jackson, M, Eschenbach, D. Development of wound infections among women undergoing cesarean section. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:559–564.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Faro, S. Antibiotic prophylaxis. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1989;16:279–289.Google Scholar
9. Gibbs, R. Infection after cesarean section. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1988;28:697.Google Scholar
10. Beatti, P, Rings, T, Hunter, M, Lake, Y. Risk factors for wound infection following caesarean section. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1994;34:398–402.Google Scholar
11. Casey, B, Cox, S. Chorioamnionitis and endometritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997;11:203–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hirsch, HA. Prophylactic antibiotics in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Med 1985;8(6B):S170–S176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Pirwany, I, Mahmood, T. Audit of infective morbidity following cesarean section at a district general hospital. J Obstet Gynecol 1997;17:439–443.Google Scholar
14. Appuzio, JJ, Reyelt, C, Pelosi, M, Sen, P, Louria, DB. Prophylactic antibiotics for cesarean section: comparison of high- and low-risk patients for endomyometritis. Obstet Gynecol 1982;59:693–698.Google Scholar
15. Duff, P, Smith, P, Keiser, J. Antibiotic prophylaxis in low risk cesarean section. J Repro Med 1982;27:133–138.Google Scholar
16. Ehrenkranz, N, Blackwelder, W, Pfaff, S, Poppe, D, Yerge, D, Kaslow, R. Infections complicating low-risk cesarean sections in community hospitals: efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162:337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Classen, D, Evans, R, Pestotnik, S, Horn, S, Menlove, R, Burke, J. The timing of prophylactic administration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281–286.Google Scholar
18. Gordon, H, Phelps, D, Blanchard, K. Prophylactic cesarean section antibiotics: maternal and neonatal morbidity before and after cord clamping. Obstet Gynecol 1979;53:151–156.Google Scholar
19. Cunningham, G, Leveno, K, DePalma, R, Roark, M, Rosenfield, C. Perioperative antimicrobials for cesarean delivery: before or after cord clamping? Obstet Gynecol 1983;62:151–154.Google Scholar
20. Guidelines for Prenatal Care. 4th ed, revised. Elk Grove, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics and College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1997.Google Scholar
21. Abramowicz, M. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett 1999;41:75–79.Google Scholar
22. ASHP Commission on Therapeutics. ASHP therapeutic guidelines on antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Clin Pharm 1992;11:483–513.Google Scholar
23. Page, C, Bohnen, J, Fletcher, J, McManus, A, Solomkin, J, Wittmann, D. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds: guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128:79–88.Google Scholar
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System Manual. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 1994.Google Scholar
25. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR. Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:247–280.Google Scholar
26. Gravel-Tropper, D. Underestimation of surgical site infection rates in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:22–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Horan, T, Culver, D, Gaynes, R. Results of a multicenter study on risk factors for surgical site infections following c-section. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:84. Abstract.Google Scholar
28. Mugford, M, Kingston, J, Chalmers, I. Reducing the incidence of infection after cesarean section: implications of prophylaxis with antibiotics for hospital resources. BMJ 1989;299:1003–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Duff, P. Prophylactic antibiotics for cesarean delivery: a simple cost-effective strategy for prevention of postoperative morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987;157:794–798.Google Scholar