Couldn't find what you looking for?

TRY OUR SEARCH!

Table of Contents

How likely would you be to die from a routine operation if prophylactic antibiotics were just 30 percent less effective? A new study found out.

Though, as the World Health Organization says, there are indeed steps individuals can take towards preventing a post-antibiotic world, it's important to keep in mind that refraining from the incorrect use of antibiotics yourself doesn't keep you safe from antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms. You may not have encountered antibiotic-resistant bacteria before, but those bacteria know all about the antibiotics available, and won't respond to them even if you've never taken antibiotics before in your life. 

One way in which antibiotic resistance can affect you personally is reduced protection from infections if you have surgery, ranging from an operation to remove a tumor, to an appendectomy, a cesarean section, or even a prostate biopsy. Whenever the body is opened up for surgery, it's vulnerable to bacteria. Prophylactic antibiotics — what military experts might call a "pre-emptive strike" — are a key part of safe surgical procedures today. Will it stay that way?

A new meta-analysis published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases and conducted by scientists from the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics, and Policy set out to examine just what will happen if prophylactic antibiotics become less effective. They looked both at the number of infection-related deaths and the efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics administered to patients who undergo routine surgical procedures. 

The researches created a projection that shows how many more infections would occur if prophylactic antibiotics would become 30, 70, and 100 percent less effective respectively. The results? Shocking, but not surprising. Should prophylactic antibiotics become just 30 percent less effective, the research team estimates 120,000 additional infection cases a year, 6,300 of which would be fatal

Do you think that doesn't sound too bad? Keep in mind that they looked only at infections resulting from chemotherapy and the 10 most common surgical procedures, and just in the United States of America!

What are the most common surgical procedures? We're talking colorectal surgery, cesarean sections, hysterectomy, transrectal prostate biopsy, spinal surgery, surgical abortion, appendectomy, total hip replacements, the implantation of pacemakers, surgery for hip fractures, and chemotherapy for cancer. 

What if prophylactic antibiotics became 70 percent less effective? Then, according to the study, we're dealing with 280,000 more infections, 15,000 of which would be fatal. Just in the US. On an annual basis. From surgeries we see as routine today.

The study's authors warn: "Our estimates suggest that currently recommended antibiotic prophylactic regimens might have insufficient activity against the most commonly reported pathogens that cause infections after surgeries and cancer chemotherapy. This very high proportion of resistant pathogens might be partly explained by the disproportionate effect of prophylactic antibiotics on susceptible pathogens, leaving a residual subset of resistant pathogens, or by the emergence of resistant pathogens replacing a proportion of susceptible pathogens."

Before antibiotics were discovered, infections were the prime cause of mortality. If we don't want to be heading that way again, we need to take action — now. We desperately need new classes of antibiotics, and we need to reassess the way in which we use those we already have, pronto.

Your thoughts on this

User avatar Guest
Captcha