Practice parameters for antibiotic prophylaxis--supporting documentation. The Standards Task Force. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons

Antibiotic prophylaxis prior to colonoscopy with biopsy does not decrease risk of prosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty recipients

Introduction

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk continues to receive much attention given its associated morbidity and costs to patients and healthcare systems. It has been hypothesized that invasive colonoscopies may increase the risk of PJI. However, the decision to administer antibiotic prophylaxis lacks clinical guidance. In this study we aimed to compare PJI rates in patients undergoing colonoscopies with and without antibiotic prophylaxis against a control group, analyzing PJI occurrences at 90 days, 6 months, 9 months, and 1-year post-procedure and (2) assess the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis on PJI rates to inform clinical guidelines.

Methods

We queried a national, all-payer database to identify all primary total knee arthroplasty procedures without prior history of PJI between January 2010 and October 2020 (n = 1.9 million). All patients who had a diagnosis of PJI within one year of index procedure were excluded. There were three cohorts identified: colonoscopy with biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis; colonoscopy with biopsy with antibiotic prophylaxis; and a control of no prior colonoscopy. Both colonoscopy cohorts were slightly younger and had higher comorbidities than the controls. The PJI diagnoses were identified at four separate time intervals within one-year after colonoscopy: 90-days; 6-months; 9-months; and 1-year. Chi-square analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals were conducted for PJI rates between groups at all time-points.

Results

Among all cohorts, no significant differences in PJI rates were found at 90-days (P = 0.459), 6-months (P = 0.608), 9-months (P = 0.598), and 1-year (P = 0.330). Similarly, direct comparison of both colonoscopy groups, with and without antibiotic prophylaxis, demonstrated no PJI rate differences at 90-day (P = 0.540), 6-months (P = 0.812), 9-months (P = 0.958), and 1-year (P = 0.207). Ranges of ORs between the colonoscopy cohorts were 1.07-1.43.

Conclusion

Invasive colonoscopy does not increase the risk of PJI in patients who have pre-existing knee implants. Furthermore, antibiotic prophylaxis may not be warranted in patients undergoing colonoscopy who have a planned biopsy.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis is Often Unnecessary for Screening Colonoscopies Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Incidence of bacteremia following screening colonoscopy is low, but risk of hematogenous spread causing prosthetic joint infection (PJI) may exist in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. In multivariate analyses, we examined PJI risk among three TKA cohorts: (1) colonoscopy recipients given antibiotic prophylaxis; (2) colonoscopy recipients not given antibiotic prophylaxis; and (3) no colonoscopy. We assessed: 90-day to one-year (A) PJI risk, and (B) risk factors for post-colonoscopy PJI.

METHODS

We queried a national, all-payer database for primary TKA recipients from 2010 to 2020. Patients who had colonoscopies and who did (n=2,558) or did not have antibiotic prophylaxis (n=20,000) were identified. These were compared those who did not undergo colonoscopy (n=20,000). The 20,000 patients were randomly selected to mitigate type 1 errors. Multivariate regressions compared PJI risk factors, such as alcohol abuse (AA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and diabetes.

RESULTS

Both colonoscopy cohorts had no increased PJI risk compared to non-colonoscopy (odds ratio (OR)<2.20, P≥0.064). Alcohol abuse, diabetes, and RA were found to be risk factors further enhancing likelihood of PJI for TKA patients not receiving antibiotics undergoing colonoscopies (OR>1.35, P≤0.044).

CONCLUSION

Overall, antibiotic prophylaxis does not decrease PJI risk following colonoscopy TKA recipients. After adjusting for known risk factors, both colonoscopy cohorts demonstrated similar PJI risks compared to the non-colonoscopy cohort. However, AA, diabetes, and RA were associated with further increased PJI risk for TKA patients undergoing colonoscopies compared to those who did not. Therefore, if undergoing colonoscopy after TKA, our findings suggest that most patients do not need to have antibiotics except for these high-risk patients.

Diagnostic and Invasive Colonoscopy Are Not Risk Factors for Revision Surgery Due to Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is routinely performed for colorectal cancer screening in patients who have a preexisting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) prostheses. However, colonoscopy is theorized to provoke transient bacteremia, providing a potential nidus for periprosthetic joint infection. This study aimed to investigate the risk of aseptic and septic revision surgery in patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy or invasive colonoscopy within one year following UKA, TKA, or THA.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a national database. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology. In total, 52,891 patients underwent UKA, 1,049,218 underwent TKA, and 526,296 underwent THA. Data were analyzed with univariate analysis preceding multivariable logistic regressions to investigate outcomes of interest at 2 and 3 years from the index procedure.

RESULTS

Diagnostic colonoscopy resulted in no increase in odds of all-cause or septic revision surgery for any prostheses. At both time points, invasive colonoscopy resulted in lower odds of all-cause revision (P < .05) for patients with UKA, decreased odds of septic revision (P < .001) for patients with TKA, and decreased odds of both all-cause and septic revision (P < .05) for patients with THA.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that diagnostic colonoscopy was not a significant risk factor for revision following UKA, TKA, or THA. Paradoxically, invasive colonoscopy was protective against revision, even with very minimal use of antibiotic prophylaxis observed. This study addresses the theory that colonoscopy procedures may threaten an existing joint prosthesis via transient bacteremia and shows no increase in revision outcomes following colonoscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Patients With Total Knee Arthroplasty Undergoing Colonoscopy: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The post-colonoscopy periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk in patients with total prosthetic knee joints has limited research. The present study investigated the PJI risk and determined the risk factors for post-colonoscopy PJI in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) recipients. The hypothesis was that colonoscopy is associated with an increased PJI risk in patients with total prosthetic knee joints. This study can potentially help guide the decision making for prophylactic antibiotic use for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This nationwide matched cohort study used claims data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database and enrolled patients who underwent unilateral TKA between 2008 and 2016. The history of diagnostic colonoscopy was investigated at least 1 year postoperatively. The propensity score was matched between colonoscopy and non-colonoscopy cohorts, and the post-colonoscopy PJI risk was compared. The PJI risk following invasive colonoscopic procedures, including biopsy, polypectomy, and mucosal or submucosal resection, was investigated, and the risk factors for post-colonoscopy PJI were determined.

RESULTS

In total, 45,612 and 211,841 patients were matched in the colonoscopy and control cohorts, respectively. The colonoscopy cohort had greater 9-month and 1-year PJI risks from the index colonoscopy date than the matched controls (9 months: hazard ratio [HR] 1.836, P = .006; 1 year: HR 1.822, P = .031). Invasive colonoscopic procedures did not increase the PJI risk at any time point post-colonoscopy. The only significant risk factor for PJI was post-traumatic arthritis (adjusted HR 4.034, P = .023).

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy was associated with an increased PJI risk in TKA recipients, regardless of concomitant invasive colonoscopic procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Prognostic.

An unexpected pathogen causing prosthetic joint infection following screening colonoscopy

A 61-year-old woman with a right total knee arthroplasty presented with 1 week of atraumatic right knee swelling, pain, and fevers 2 weeks following a routine screening colonoscopy. Aspiration was concerning for prosthetic joint infection and she underwent definitive treatment with irrigation and debridement with polyethylene exchange followed by a 6-week course of oral metronidazole. Cultures speciated as Bacteroides fragilis with the presumed source being the colonoscopy causing transient bacteremia and subsequent seeding of the right knee. This case highlights the need for consideration of guidelines regarding prophylactic antibiotics to prevent prosthetic joint infection after endoscopic procedures.

Grenzen des laparoskopischen Operierens bei abdomineller Sepsis

<b><i>Hintergrund: </i></b>Zahlreiche präklinische Daten weisen auf Vorteile des laparoskopischen Operierens auch bei abdomineller Sepsisquelle und septischem Patienten hin. <b><i>Methode und Ergebnisse: </i></b>Anhand derzeit verfügbarer Literatur betrachten wir die Möglichkeiten und Limitierungen laparoskopischen Operierens beim septischen Patienten mit abdominellem Fokus. Neben generellen Überlegungen werden im Speziellen das Vorgehen bei Appendizitis, Cholezystitis, perforiertem Ulkus, Sigmadivertikulitis und akuter Pankreatitis erörtert. <b><i>Schlussfolgerungen: </i></b>Erfahrene laparoskopische Chirurgen können die Sanierung der abdominellen Sepsisquelle bei Appendizitis, Cholezystitis, perforiertem Ulkus oder auch Sigmadivertikulitis sicher durchführen. Kombinationen aus interventionellen Techniken und minimal invasiven Operationen bieten insbesondere bei der perforierten Sigmadivertikulitis und bei infizierten Pankreasnekrosen innovative Ansätze, die derzeit in multizentrischen prospektiven Studien untersucht werden.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in noncardiac prosthetic device recipients

BACKGROUND

Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis involves the use of ≥ 1 antimicrobial agent just prior to the time when a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure, which may induce infection, is to be performed. In the context of this article, antimicrobial agent(s) are administered to patients with ≥ 1 implanted prosthetic device in order to prevent metastatic seeding of the device(s) during bacteremia induced by a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure. Antimicrobial agents used in this context are only administered periprocedurally. Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis of endocarditis in recipients of cardiac prosthetic materials (including valves, shunts, conduits, and patches) has been reasonably well established. However, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of other types of prosthetic devices has been the subject of much controversy, with a wide variety of recommendations being made.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature on the topic of secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of noncardiac prosthetic devices and make evidence-based recommendations for each type of device, where possible.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for English-language articles published from 1950 to the present (January 2012). Search terms included "prophylaxis," "antibiotics," "antimicrobials," "prosthetic devices," "prosthesis-related infections," "bacteremia," the names of the individual types of prosthetic devices, and the names of the individual procedures potentially inducing bacteremia. Articles dealing with any aspect relevant to this topic were eligible for review. The bibliographies of retrieved articles were also carefully scanned to identify any articles not previously identified.

RESULTS

Based on review of the available literature, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis is justified in only a few specific circumstances. For recipients of prosthetic vascular grafts/stents, hemodialysis arteriovenous shunts, and ventriculoatrial/ventriculovenous shunts, prophylaxis is warranted during the initial 6 months, initial 6 weeks, and at all times after implantation/revision, respectively, when dental procedures capable of inducing high-level bacteremia are planned. Prosthetic joint recipients should receive prophylaxis in the following 3 circumstances: 1) patient is to undergo dental procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus either the patient is still within 2 years of device implantation/revision or the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection; 2) patient is to undergo genitourinary tract procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for high-risk bacteriuria; and 3) patient is to undergo perforating dermatologic surgery on the oral mucosa or at skin sites at increased risk for surgical site infection plus patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection. The data are inadequate to justify secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis for recipients of other types of prosthetic devices. On the basis of 9 surveys of prescriber behavior, it is apparent that there exists, over a wide geographic area, a wide disconnect between clinical practice and the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines issued by the professional organizations representing these prescribers. Antimicrobial agent overuse was especially problematic among orthopedic and colorectal surgeons, urologists, and family practitioners. Dentists and maxillofacial surgeons followed guidelines more closely.

CONCLUSION

Device-, procedure-, and patient characteristic-dependent factors elicited over many years have narrowed down the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis recommendations for noncardiac prosthetic devices to a small number. Despite this, physician prescribers frequently do not follow prophylaxis guidelines established by their own professional organizations. Risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies have found that no prophylaxis is actually superior to universal prophylaxis, likely due to known antimicrobial toxicities, such as anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions and Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Much work remains in establishing and extending the scientific basis for secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis and transforming this knowledge into appropriate action by the clinician.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in adults

Antimicrobial prophylaxis is commonly used by clinicians for the prevention of numerous infectious diseases, including herpes simplex infection, rheumatic fever, recurrent cellulitis, meningococcal disease, recurrent uncomplicated urinary tract infections in women, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in patients with cirrhosis, influenza, infective endocarditis, pertussis, and acute necrotizing pancreatitis, as well as infections associated with open fractures, recent prosthetic joint placement, and bite wounds. Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis is recommended for various surgical procedures to prevent surgical site infections. Optimal antimicrobial agents for prophylaxis should be bactericidal, nontoxic, inexpensive, and active against the typical pathogens that can cause surgical site infection postoperatively. To maximize its effectiveness, intravenous perioperative prophylaxis should be administered within 30 to 60 minutes before the surgical incision. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should be of short duration to decrease toxicity and antimicrobial resistance and to reduce cost.

Bacterial endocarditis following rubber band ligation in a patient with a ventricular septal defect: report of a case and guideline analysis

Rubber band ligation is a common option used to treat symptomatic internal hemorrhoids. Severe complications such as pelvic sepsis are a rare occurrence. We report a case of endocarditis leading to septic pulmonary and renal emboli following single-quadrant rubber band ligation. The patient had a known ventricular septal defect and developed low back pain and fever after ligation of a right anterior internal hemorrhoid. He was found to have septic pulmonary emboli, a renal wedge septic infarct, and a large vegetation on his membranous ventricular septal defect requiring operative intervention. Before this report, rubber band ligation has not been associated with endocarditis. According to several guidelines, this patient did not require antibiotic prophylaxis. It is unclear whether prophylaxis could have prevented this complication. Surgeons utilizing rubber band ligation need to be familiar with all potential complications.

Transrectal and Transvaginal Sonographic Intervention of Infected Pelvic Fluid Collections

Infected pelvic fluid collections are relatively common particularly after abdominal or pelvic surgery or in patients suffering from benign intestinal disease such as diverticulitis, appendicitis, or Crohn's disease. Historically the treatment of pelvic abscess has been either laparotomy with lavage or blind surgical incision and drainage through the rectal or vaginal wall. More recently, computed tomography and ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage has become the procedure of choice, when feasible, for the treatment of pelvic abscess. However, many deep pelvic collections are not amenable to percutaneous technique. Transrectal or transvaginal ultrasound-guided abscess drainage is a safe and effective method used in the treatment of deep pelvic abscesses. The purpose of this article is to review the techniques, patient selection, pre- and post-procedural care, and monitoring aspects of transrectal or transvaginal ultrasound-guided drainage.