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

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.

Metabolic bone disease in patients with epilepsy and the use of antiepileptic drugs - Insight from a Danish cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a bone disorder defined by a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD) which can lead to an increased risk of fractures. Patients with epilepsy are more prone to having fractures. When accounting for seizure-related fractures, the epilepsy patient population still suffers from an increased risk of fractures. This can be attributed to adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the use of AEDs and decreased BMD in a large unselected population of Danish patients with epilepsy. METHOD: The study was a cross-sectional study based on data retrieved from 835 patients visiting an outpatient Epilepsy Clinic in Glostrup, Denmark, from January 1st 2006 - January 31st 2018. The data included results from DXA-scans and demographic information. Logistic regression models and other statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: The results showed that the odds for having osteoporosis when taking EIAEDs were 2.2 (95 % CI: 1.2-3.8, P = 0.007) times higher than those taking NEIAEDs. Furthermore, the odds for having osteoporosis increased with duration of epilepsy (OR = 1.0, 95 % CI: 1.0 - 1.0, P = 0.001) and when the patients consume two AEDs compared to one AED (OR = 2.3, 95 % CI: 1.3-4.1, P < 0.001). Additionally, consuming three AEDs compared to one lead to a 2.3 times higher risk of having osteoporosis (95 % CI: 1.2-4.4, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: When accounted for many riskfactors, EIAEDs, polytherapy with AEDs and duration of epilepsy are correlated with osteoporosis. There is a need for using these known riskfactors as guidelines in indentifying patients at increased risk of developing osteoporosis.