{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03825136612021858, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03200624512099922, 'mean_word_length': 5.605670103092783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Audit of Post-Splenectomy Prophylaxis in a Single Tertiary Center in Slovenia: Where Are We and What Should Be Done?

Background: Patients who have had splenectomies are at increased risk for severe infections and overwhelming sepsis caused by pneumococci, meningococci, Haemophilus influenzae, and other encapsulated pathogens. Prophylactic measures are important to reduce mortality in this group; among them are vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis, and education. We performed a retrospective audit of post-splenectomy prophylactic measures, focusing on vaccinations and antibiotic prophylaxis coverage. Patients and Methods: We included 156 adult patients who had splenectomies between January 2010 and December 2018 in a study conducted at a single tertiary medical center. Data regarding vaccinations, antibiotic prophylaxis, and severe infections in the post-splenectomy period were obtained from medical records and supplemented by a patient-devised questionnaire. Results: Overall 121 of 156 (77.5%) of patients received a basic pneumococcal vaccination, although only 27 of 70 (38.6%) received re-vaccination after five years. Lower vaccination coverage was observed for meningococcal diseases and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) disease with 57.0% (89/156) and 55.7% (87/156) vaccination coverage, respectively. A difference in pneumococcal vaccination coverage between patients after elective splenectomy (81/91; 89.0%) and non-elective splenectomy (40/65; 61.5%) was observed. However, no difference was observed among meningococcal and Hib vaccination coverage. Antibiotic prophylaxis was recommended to patients more frequently after elective splenectomy (41/82; 50.0%) than non-elective (16/56; 28.6%) yet after an elective splenectomy, patients discontinued the prophylaxis more often than those after a non-elective surgery. Overall, only 30 of 146 (20.5%) of patients received antibiotic prophylaxis over two years. In the observed period, 12.3% of patients suffered a severe infection. Conclusion: Our study shows that there is adequate basic pneumococcal vaccination coverage among patients after a splenectomy particularly after an elective splenectomy, but there is a lack of and an inadequate implementation of other prophylactic measures. There is an urgent need for an organized approach involving better education of healthcare practitioners as well as patients concerning the risk of asplenia. In addition, an improved long-term follow-up is needed including establishing a central registry for the asplenic patients in Slovenia.