Single dose imipenem-cilastatin compared with three doses of cefuroxime and metronidazole as prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized study

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Research shows that administration of prophylactic antibiotics before colorectal surgery prevents postoperative surgical wound infection. The best antibiotic choice, timing of administration and route of administration remain undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Specifically to determine:1. whether antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical wound infection;2. the target spectrum of bacteria (aerobic or anaerobic bacteria, or both);3. the best timing and duration of antibiotic administration;4. the most effective route of antibiotic administration (intravenous, oral or both);5. whether any antibiotic is clearly more effective than the currently recommended gold standard specified in published guidelines;6. whether antibiotics should be given before or after surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review published in 2009 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid). For the update of this review we rewrote the search strategies and extended the search to cover from 1954 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE up to 7 January 2013. We searched CENTRAL on the same date (Issue 12, 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of prophylactic antibiotic use in elective and emergency colorectal surgery, with surgical wound infection as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted and reviewed by one review author and checked by another only for the single, dichotomous outcome of surgical wound infection. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 260 trials and 68 different antibiotics, including 24 cephalosporins and 43,451 participants. Many studies had multiple variables that separated the two study groups; these could not be compared to other studies that tested one antibiotic and had a single variable separating the two groups. We did not consider the risk of bias arising from attrition and lack of blinding of outcome assessors to affect the results for surgical wound infection.Meta-analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference in postoperative surgical wound infection when prophylactic antibiotics were compared to placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.41, high quality evidence). This translates to a reduction in risk from 39% to 13% with prophylactic antibiotics. The slightly higher risk of wound infection with short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotic did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). Similarly risk of would infection was slightly higher with single-dose antibiotics when compared with multiple dose antibiotics, but the results are compatible with benefit and harm (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.10). Additional aerobic coverage and additional anaerobic coverage both showed statistically significant improvements in surgical wound infection rates (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68 and RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71, respectively), as did combined oral and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis when compared to intravenous alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.74), or oral alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76). Comparison of an antibiotic with anaerobic specificity to one with aerobic specificity showed no significant advantage for either one (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36). Two small studies compared giving antibiotics before or after surgery and no significant difference in this timing was found (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.15). Established gold-standard regimens recommended in major guidelines were no less effective than any other antibiotic choice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found high quality evidence that antibiotics covering aerobic and anaerobic bacteria delivered orally or intravenously (or both) prior to elective colorectal surgery reduce the risk of surgical wound infection. Our review shows that antibiotics delivered within this framework can reduce the risk of postoperative surgical wound infection by as much as 75%. It is not known whether oral antibiotics would still have these effects when the colon is not empty. This aspect of antibiotic dosing has not been tested. Further research is required to establish the optimal timing and duration of dosing, and the frequency of longer-term adverse effects such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Research shows that administration of prophylactic antibiotics before colorectal surgery prevents postoperative surgical wound infection (SWI). The best antibiotic choice, timing of administration and route of administration remain undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of SWI in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: specifically to determine, 1 Whether it reduces risk of SWI. 2 The target spectrum/a of bacteria (aerobic and/or anaerobic). 3 The best timing and duration of antibiotic administration. 4 The most effective route of antibiotic administration (intravenous, oral or both). 5 Whether any antibiotic is clearly more effective than the currently recommended gold standard.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, were searched from January, 1980 to December, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of prophylactic antibiotic use in elective and emergency colorectal surgery, with SWI as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted and reviewed by three authors for only the single, dichotomous outcome of SWI.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 182 trials (30,880 participants), and 50 different antibiotics, including 17 cephalosporins. Many studies had multiple variables that separated the two study groups and could not be compared to other studies that tested one antibiotic and had a single variable separating the two groups. Meta-analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference in postoperative SWI when prophylactic antibiotics were compared to placebo/no treatment (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.22 to 0.41). No statistically significant differences were shown when comparing short- and long-term duration of prophylaxis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.27); or single dose versus multiple dose antibiotics (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.05). Additional aerobic coverage and additional anaerobic coverage both showed statistically significant improvements in SWI rates (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71 and RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.85, respectively); as did combined oral and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis when compared to intravenous alone (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74), or oral alone (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.87). Established gold standard regimens were no less effective than any other antibiotic choice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics covering aerobic and aerobic bacteria should be delivered orally and intravenously prior to colorectal surgery. Antibiotics delivered within this framework will reduce the risk of postoperative SWI by at least 75%. Further research is required to establish the optimal timing and duration of dosing, and frequency of longer-term adverse effects such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis.

Carbapenems and monobactams: imipenem, meropenem, and aztreonam

Imipenem and meropenem, members of the carbapenem class of beta-lactam antibiotics, are among the most broadly active antibiotics available for systemic use in humans. They are active against streptococci, methicillin-sensitive staphylococci, Neisseria, Haemophilus, anaerobes, and the common aerobic gram-negative nosocomial pathogens including Pseudomonas. Resistance to imipenem and meropenem may emerge during treatment of P. aeruginosa infections, as has occurred with other beta-lactam agents; Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is typically resistant to both imipenem and meropenem. Like the penicillins, the carbapenems have inhibitory activity against enterococci. In general, the in vitro activity of imipenem against aerobic gram-positive cocci is somewhat greater than that of meropenem, whereas the in vitro activity of meropenem against aerobic gram-negative bacilli is somewhat greater than that of imipenem. Daily dosages may range from 0.5 to 1 g every 6 to 8 hours in patients with normal renal function; the daily dose of meropenem, however, can be safely increased to 6 g. Infusion-related nausea and vomiting, as well as seizures, which have been the main toxic effects of imipenem, occur no more frequently during treatment with meropenem than during treatment with other beta-lactam antibiotics. The carbapenems should be considered for treatment of mixed bacterial infections and aerobic gram-negative bacteria that are not susceptible to other beta-lactam agents. Indiscriminate use of these drugs will promote resistance to them. Aztreonam, the first marketed monobactam, has activity against most aerobic gram-negative bacilli including P. aeruginosa. The drug is not nephrotoxic, is weakly immunogenic, and has not been associated with disorders of coagulation. Aztreonam may be administered intramuscularly or intravenously; the primary route of elimination is urinary excretion. In patients with normal renal function, the recommended dosing interval is every 8 hours. Patients with renal impairment require dosage adjustment. Aztreonam is used primarily as an alternative to aminoglycosides and for the treatment of aerobic gram-negative infections. It is often used in combination therapy for mixed aerobic and anaerobic infections. Approved indications for its use include infections of the urinary tract or lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal and gynecologic infections, septicemia, and cutaneous infections caused by susceptible organisms. Concurrent initial therapy with other antimicrobial agents is recommended before the causative organism has been determined in patients who are seriously ill or at risk for gram-positive or anaerobic infection.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A systematic review was carried out to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of postoperative wound infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Trials Register and the references cited in retrieved studies were searched to identify relevant trials published between 1984 and 1995.

RESULTS

Some 147 relevant trials were identified. The quality of trials has improved over the past 12 years. The results confirm that the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis is effective for the prevention of surgical wound infection after colorectal surgery. There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical wound infections between many different regimens. However, certain regimens appear to be inadequate (e.g. metronidazole alone, doxycycline alone, piperacillin alone, oral neomycin plus erythromycin on the day before operation). A single dose administered immediately before the operation (or short-term use) is as effective as long-term postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (odds ratio 1.17 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.90-1.53)). There is no convincing evidence to suggest that the new-generation cephalosporins are more effective than first-generation cephalosporins (odds ratio 1.07 (95 per cent c.i. 0.54-2.12)).

CONCLUSION

Antibiotics selected for prophylaxis in colorectal surgery should be active against both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Administration should be timed to make sure that the tissue concentration of antibiotics around the wound area is sufficiently high when bacterial contamination occurs. Guidelines should be developed locally in order to achieve a more cost-effective use of antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery.

Imipenem/cilastatin: an update of its antibacterial activity, pharmacokinetics and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of serious infections

The prototype carbapenem antibacterial agent imipenem has a very broad spectrum of antibacterial activity, encompassing most Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobes and anaerobes, including most beta-lactamase-producing species. It is coadministered with a renal dehydropeptidase inhibitor, cilastatin, in order to prevent its renal metabolism in clinical use. Extensive clinical experience gained with imipenem/cilastatin has shown it to provide effective monotherapy for septicaemia, neutropenic fever, and intra-abdominal, lower respiratory tract, genitourinary, gynaecological, skin and soft tissues, and bone and joint infections. In these indications, imipenem/cilastatin generally exhibits similar efficacy to broad-spectrum cephalosporins and other carbapenems and is at least equivalent to standard aminoglycoside-based and other combination regimens. Imipenem/cilastatin is generally well tolerated by adults and children, with local injection site events, gastrointestinal disturbances and dermatological reactions being the most common adverse events. Seizures have also been reported, occurring mostly in patients with impaired renal function or CNS pathology, or with excessive dosage. Although it is no longer a unique compound, as newer carbapenems such as meropenem are becoming available, imipenem/cilastatin nevertheless remains an important agent with established efficacy as monotherapy for moderate to severe bacterial infections. Its particular niche is in treating infections known or suspected to be caused by multiresistant pathogens.