Plus Sutures for preventing surgical site infection: a systematic review of clinical outcomes with economic and environmental models

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) represent ~ 20% of all hospital-acquired infections in surgical patients and are associated with prolonged hospital stay, admission to intensive care, and mortality. We conducted a systematic review with economic and environmental models to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures (Plus Sutures) provide benefits over non-coated sutures in the reduction of SSI risk.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in fifteen databases. A total of 1,991 records were retrieved. Following deduplication and screening by two independent reviewers, 31 randomized controlled trials in adults and children were included in the review. Similarity of the studies was assessed by narrative review and confirmed by quantitative assessment. A fixed effects meta-analysis of SSI incidence model including all groups of patients estimated a risk ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.79) indicating those in the Plus Sutures group had a 29% reduction in the risk of developing an SSI compared with those in the control group (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

The economic model estimated the use of Plus Sutures to result in average cost savings of £13.63 per patient. Plus Sutures remained cost-saving in all subgroup analyses with cost-savings ranging between £11 (clean wounds) and £140 (non-clean wounds). The environmental impact of SSI is substantial, and the model suggests that the introduction of Plus Sutures could result in potential environmental benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that Plus Sutures are associated with a reduced incidence of SSI across all surgery types alongside cost savings when compared with standard sutures.

Recommendations for change in infection prevention programs and practice

Fifty years of evolution in infection prevention and control programs have involved significant accomplishments related to clinical practices, methodologies, and technology. However, regulatory mandates, and resource and research limitations, coupled with emerging infection threats such as the COVID-19 pandemic, present considerable challenges for infection preventionists. This article provides guidance and recommendations in 14 key areas. These interventions should be considered for implementation by United States health care facilities in the near future.

Prevention of Orthopedic Prosthetic Infections Using Evidence-Based Surgical Site Infection Care Bundles: A Narrative Review

Background: The number of primary/revision total joint replacements (TJR) are expected to increase substantially with an aging population and increasing prevalence of comorbid conditions. The 30-day re-admission rate, in all orthopedic specialties, is 5.4% (range, 4.8%-6.0%). A recent publication has documented that the surgical site infection (SSI) infection rate associated with revision total knee (rTKR, 15.6%) and revision total hip (rTHR, 8.6%) arthroplasties are four to seven times the rate of the primary procedures (2.1%-2.2%). These orthopedic infections prolong hospital stays, double re-admissions, and increase healthcare costs by a factor of 300%. Methods: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library publications, which reported the infection risk after TKR and THR, was undertaken (January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2021). The search also included documentation of evidence-based practices that lead to improved post-operative outcomes. Results: The evidence-based approach to reducing the risk of SSI was grouped into pre-operative, peri-operative, and post-operative periods. Surgical care bundles have existed within other surgical disciplines for more than 20 years, although their use is relatively new in peri-operative orthopedic surgical care. Pre-admission chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) showers/cleansing, staphylococcal decolonization, maintenance of normothermia, wound irrigation, antimicrobial suture wound closure, and post-operative wound care has been shown to improve clinical outcome in randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses. Conclusions: Evidence-based infection prevention care bundles have improved clinical outcomes in all surgical disciplines. The significant post-operative morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost, associated with SSIs after TJR can be reduced by introduction of evidence-based pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative interventions.

Comparison of Antimicrobial Activity Between Bacitracin-Soaked Sutures and Triclosan Coated Suture

BACKGROUND

With the easily available option for surgeons to soak their suture in antibiotic irrigation solution intraoperatively in mind, this study was designed to evaluate the ability of suture soaked in bacitracin irrigation solution to inhibit the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using standard experimental procedure, sterile suture was soaked in Bacitracin, and dried for 10 min or 6 h, incubated for 24 h on inoculated plates, and examined for zone of inhibition around the suture. This was compared to control unsoaked suture and antimicrobial suture (AMS) currently on the market to determine if the minor intraoperative procedural change of placing suture in antibiotic irrigation solution instead of on the sterile table could confer comparable antimicrobial activity.

RESULTS

The study found the Bacitracin-soaked suture (BSS) consistently inhibited the growth of the test organisms. For both organisms, the BSS exhibited a significantly larger zone of inhibition compared to the unsoaked control suture (P < 0.0001). However, both the AMS currently on the market, and a bacitracin aliquot, exhibited significantly larger zones of inhibition compared to both drying times of the BSS (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Placing sutures in a bacitracin irrigation solution intraoperatively instead of directly on the sterile table can achieve some of the in vitro antimicrobial effect seen from AMS currently on the market. This may result in reduced rates of surgical site infections and associated costs without major procedural change and at reduced overhead.

Assessment of the Risk and Economic Burden of Surgical Site Infection Following Colorectal Surgery Using a US Longitudinal Database: Is There a Role for Innovative Antimicrobial Wound Closure Technology to Reduce the Risk of Infection?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical procedures place substantial burden on health care systems because of the high complication risk, of surgical site infections in particular. The risk of surgical site infection after colorectal surgery is one of the highest of any surgical specialty.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, cost of infections after colorectal surgery, and potential economic benefit of using antimicrobial wound closure to improve patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort analysis and probabilistic cost analysis were performed.

SETTINGS

The analysis utilized a database for colorectal patients in the United States between 2014 and 2018.

PATIENTS

A total of 107,665 patients who underwent colorectal surgery were included in the analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate of infection was together with identified between 3 and 180 days postoperatively, infection risk factors, infection costs over 24 months postoperatively by payer type (commercial payers and Medicare), and potential costs avoided per patient by using an evidence-based innovative wound closure technology.

RESULTS

Surgical site infections were diagnosed postoperatively in 23.9% of patients (4.0% superficial incisional and 19.9% deep incisional/organ space). Risk factors significantly increased risk of deep incisional/organ-space infection and included several patient comorbidities, age, payer type, and admission type. After 12 months, adjusted increased costs associated with infections ranged from $36,429 to $144,809 for commercial payers and $17,551 to $102,280 for Medicare, depending on surgical site infection type. Adjusted incremental costs continued to increase over a 24-month study period for both payers. Use of antimicrobial wound closure for colorectal surgery is projected to significantly reduce median payer costs by $809 to $1170 per patient compared with traditional wound closure.

LIMITATIONS

The inherent biases associated with retrospective databases limited this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical site infection cost burden was found to be higher than previously reported, with payer costs escalating over a 24-month postoperative period. Cost analysis results for adopting antimicrobial wound closure aligns with previous evidence-based studies, suggesting a fiscal benefit for its use as a component of a comprehensive evidence-based surgical care bundle for reducing the risk of infection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B358. EVALUACIÓN DEL RIESGO Y LA CARGA ECONÓMICA DE LA INFECCIÓN DEL SITIO QUIRÚRGICO DESPUÉS DE UNA CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL UTILIZANDO UNA BASE DE DATOS LONGITUDINAL DE EE.UU.: ¿EXISTE UN PAPEL PARA LA TECNOLOGÍA INNOVADORA DE CIERRE DE HERIDAS ANTIMICROBIANAS PARA REDUCIR EL RIESGO DE INFECCIÓN?: Los procedimientos quirúrgicos colorrectales suponen una carga considerable para los sistemas de salud debido al alto riesgo de complicaciones, particularmente las infecciones del sitio quirúrgico. El riesgo de infección posoperatoria del sitio quirúrgico colorrectal es uno de los más altos de cualquier especialidad quirúrgica.El propósito de este estudio fue determinar la incidencia, el costo de las infecciones después de la cirugía colorrectal y el beneficio económico potencial del uso del cierre de la herida con antimicrobianos para mejorar los resultados de los pacientes.Análisis retrospectivo de cohorte observacional y análisis de costo probabilístico.El análisis utilizó la base de datos para pacientes colorrectales en los Estados Unidos entre 2014 y 2018.Un total de 107,665 pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal.Se identificó una tasa de infección entre 3 y 180 días después de la operación, los factores de riesgo de infección, los costos de infección durante 24 meses posteriores a la operación por tipo de pagador (pagadores comerciales y Medicare), y los costos potenciales evitados por paciente utilizando una tecnología innovadora de cierre de heridas basada en evidencias.Infecciones del sitio quirúrgico, diagnosticadas postoperatoriamente en el 23,9% de los pacientes (4,0% incisional superficial y 19,9% incisional profunda / espacio orgánico). Los factores de riesgo aumentaron significativamente el riesgo de infección profunda por incisión / espacio orgánico e incluyeron comorbilidades selectivas del paciente, edad, tipo de pagador y tipo de admisión. Después de 12 meses, el aumento de los costos asociados con las infecciones varió de $ 36,429 a $ 144,809 para los pagadores comerciales y de $ 17,551 a $ 102,280 para Medicare, según el tipo de infección del sitio quirúrgico. Los costos incrementales ajustados continuaron aumentando durante un período de estudio de 24 meses para ambos pagadores. Se prevé que el uso del cierre antimicrobiano de la herida para la cirugía colorrectal reducirá significativamente los costos medios del pagador en $ 809- $ 1,170 por paciente en comparación con el cierre tradicional de la herida.Los sesgos inherentes asociados a las bases de datos retrospectivas limitaron este estudio.Se encontró que la carga del costo de la infección del sitio quirúrgico es mayor que la reportada previamente, y los costos del pagador aumentaron durante un período postoperatorio de 24 meses. Los resultados del análisis de costos para la adopción del cierre de heridas antimicrobianas se alinean con estudios previos basados en evidencia, lo que sugiere un beneficio fiscal para su uso como componente de un paquete integral de atención quirúrgica basada en evidencia para reducir el riesgo de infección. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B358.

The economic benefits of surgical site infection prevention in adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) present a significant burden to healthcare and patients in terms of excess length of stay, distress, disability and death. SSI risk and the associated economic burden may be reduced through adherence to prevention guidelines although the irreducible minimum is unclear.

AIM

To evaluate the methods used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of prevention strategies for all SSIs.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to January 2020 to identify English language economic evaluation studies, embedded economic evaluations, and studies with some analysis in relation to cost and benefit in adult patients receiving surgical care in any setting. Risk of bias was assessed using two published checklists.

FINDINGS

Thirty-two studies involving 24,043 participants were included. Most studies evaluated SSI prevention in orthopaedic surgeries. Antibiotic prophylaxis, screening, treating, or decolonization of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and surgical wound closure were the main methods evaluated. Methods ranged from cost-analyses to cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses. Synthesis of results was not possible due to heterogeneity. All studies reported some economic benefit associated with preventing SSI; however, measures of benefit were not reported consistently and the quality of studies was low to moderate. Limited evidence in relation to SSI impact on quality of life was identified.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence in relation to the economic benefits of SSI prevention is limited. Further robust studies that utilize sound economic and epidemiological methods are required to inform future investment decisions in SSI prevention.

Introduction of a care bundle effectively and sustainably reduces patient-reported surgical site infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections and is particularly prevalent following colorectal surgery. It is associated with an increase in patient morbidity and healthcare costs. SSI is difficult to monitor as it frequently presents after discharge from hospital, especially if enhanced recovery programmes are in place.

AIM

To develop an effective method for measuring patient-reported 30-day SSI in patients undergoing colorectal resection. To implement a new care bundle capable of delivering a sustainable reduction in SSI.

METHODS

The Public Health England SSI surveillance questionnaire was used. Several data collection methods were tested including postal and telephone-based systems. A new SSI bundle was introduced in our centre incorporating four evidence-based interventions: 2% chlorhexidine skin preparation; repeat-dose antibiotics after 4 h; dual-ring wound protectors; and triclosan-coated sutures for wound closure. System changes were introduced to ensure that the change was sustainable.

FINDINGS

The most reliable method of measuring patient-reported SSI was found to be postal questionnaire with telephone calls made to non-responders. Response rates to the SSI surveillance questionnaire were consistently >75%. Introduction of the new care bundle produced a significant reduction in SSI from 20% to 10% (P ≤ 0.0001) which has been sustained for six years.

CONCLUSION

This is a reliable method for measuring 30-day patient-reported SSI rates. The introduction of this new care bundle has halved the rate of SSI from 20% to 10%.

Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of Cost Analyses in the Use of Prophylactic Antibiotics

Introduction: The preoperative phase is an important period in which to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Prophylactic antibiotic use helps to reduce SSI rates, leading to reductions in hospitalization time and cost. In clinical practice, besides effectiveness and safety, the selection of prophylactic antibiotic agents should also consider the evidence with regard to costs and microbiological results. This review assessed the current research related to the use of antibiotics for SSI prophylaxis from an economic perspective and the underlying epidemiology of microbiological findings.

Methods: A literature search was carried out through PubMed and Embase databases from 1 January 2006 to 31 August 2017. The relevant studies which reported the use of prophylactic antibiotics, SSI rates, and costs were included for analysis. The causing pathogens for SSIs were categorized by sites of the surgery. The quality of reporting on each included study was assessed with the “Consensus on Health Economic Criteria” (CHEC).

Results: We identified 20 eligible full-text studies that met our inclusion criteria, which were subsequently assessed, studies had in a reporting quality scored on the CHEC list averaging 13.03 (8–18.5). Of the included studies, 14 were trial-based studies, and the others were model-based studies. The SSI rates ranged from 0 to 71.1% with costs amounting to US$480-22,130. Twenty-four bacteria were identified as causative agents of SSIs. Gram negatives were the dominant causes of SSIs especially in general surgery, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, and obstetric cesarean sections.

Conclusions: Varying results were reported in the studies reviewed. Yet, information from both trial-based and model-based costing studies could be considered in the clinical implementation of proper and efficient use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent SSIs and antimicrobial resistance.

The role of antimicrobial sutures in preventing surgical site infection

INTRODUCTION Healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) are falling following widespread and enforced introduction of guidelines, particularly those that have addressed antibiotic resistant pathogens such as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus or emergent pathogens such as Clostridium difficile, but no such decline has been seen in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI), either in the UK, the EU or the US. SSI is one of the HCAIs, which are all avoidable complications of a surgical patient's pathway through both nosocomial and community care. METHODS This report is based on a meeting held at The Royal College of Surgeons of England on 21 July 2016. Using PubMed, members of the panel reviewed the current use of antiseptics and antimicrobial sutures in their specialties to prevent SSI. FINDINGS The group agreed that wider use of antiseptics in surgical practice may help in reducing reliance on antibiotics in infection prevention and control, especially in the perioperative period of open elective colorectal, hepatobiliary and cardiac operative procedures. The wider use of antiseptics includes preoperative showering, promotion of hand hygiene, (including the appropriate use of surgical gloves), preoperative skin preparation (including management of hair removal), antimicrobial sutures and the management of dehisced surgical wounds after infection. The meeting placed emphasis on the level I evidence that supports the use of antimicrobial sutures, particularly in surgical procedures after which the SSI rate is high (colorectal and hepatobiliary surgery) or when a SSI can be life threatening even when the rate of SSI is low (cardiac surgery).

The DISINFECT Initiative: Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical INFECTions in Gynecologic Oncology

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) lead to increased patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Our objective was to decrease the SSI rate following gynecologic surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery for gynecologic malignancy or benign disease received the following: patient education; preoperative antibacterial soap; appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis; change of gloves and use of clean instruments at surgical closure; surgical dressing for 48 h; and a post-discharge phone call. The baseline SSI rate was determined retrospectively (1 April 2014-30 June 2014), while the post-intervention SSI rate was determined prospectively (16 February 2015-15 October 2015). The main outcome was the overall SSI rate with secondary outcomes, including the rate of superficial, deep, incisional and organ space infection, as well as the cost effectiveness of the bundle.

RESULTS

A total of 232 baseline and 555 post-intervention patients were included in the study. No differences were observed between the baseline and post-intervention groups with regard to median body mass index (BMI), surgical approach, receipt of preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, and cases including bowel surgery. Overall, the SSI rate decreased significantly from baseline [12.5 %] to post-intervention [7.4 %] (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 90 % confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.85; p = 0.01). A 40 % decrease was noted in the rate of superficial and deep infections (9.5 vs. 5.9 %; OR 0.60, 90 % CI 0.38-0.97; p = 0.04) and SSIs after open surgery (21.4 vs. 13.2 %; OR 0.56, 90 % CI 0.34-0.92; p = 0.03). The estimated cost of the intervention was $19.26/case and the net total amount saved during the post-intervention period was $65,625 month.

CONCLUSIONS

This bundled intervention led to a significant decrease in the overall SSI rate and was cost effective. The largest decreases in SSIs were in incisional infections and following open surgery.

Meta-analysis of the potential economic impact following introduction of absorbable antimicrobial sutures

BACKGROUND

Despite several randomized trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have demonstrated the effectiveness of antimicrobial (triclosan-coated or -impregnated) sutures (TCS), the clinical and economic impact of using these sutures compared with conventional non-antimicrobial-coated absorbable sutures (NCS) remains poorly documented.

METHODS

An independent systematic review and meta-analysis of all published evidence from January 2005 to September 2016 comparing TCS with NCS was conducted. Surgical-site infection (SSI) was the primary outcome. The results of the meta-analysis were used in a decision-tree deterministic and stochastic cost model, using the National Health Service (NHS England)-based cost of inpatient admissions for infections and differential costs of TCS versus NCS.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in the final assessment from an initial 163 identified citations; 20 of 34 studies were randomized, and 17 of 34 reported blinding of physicians and assessors. Using a random-effects model, the odds ratio for SSI in the TCS compared with NCS control groups was statistically significant (odds ratio 0·61, 95 per cent c.i. 0·52 to 0·73; P < 0·001). There was significant heterogeneity (I² = 49 per cent). Using random-effects event estimates of SSI for TCS and NCS for each individual wound type, the mean savings per surgical procedure from using antimicrobial sutures were significant: £91·25 (90 per cent c.i. 49·62 to 142·76) (€105·09 (57·15 to 164·41); exchange rate 15 November 2016) across all wound types.

CONCLUSION

The reviewed literature suggested that antimicrobial sutures may result in significant savings across various surgical wound types.

Hospital-Acquired Infections: Current Trends and Prevention

Health care-associated infections (HAIs) are the primary cause of preventable death and disability among hospitalized patients. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), complications or infections secondary to either device implantation or surgery are referred to as HAIs. Specifically, the CDC monitors surgical site infections, central-line-associated bloodstream infection, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonias. This article explores HAIs specific to pathophysiology, epidemiology, and prevention, and how nurses can work together with other health care providers to decrease the incidence of these preventable complications.

Efficacy of triclosan-coated sutures for reducing risk of surgical site infection in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent type of nosocomial infections. Triclosan-coated sutures are often used to reduce the risk of SSI, but studies examining this have given conflicting results. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of triclosan-coated sutures for reducing risk of SSI in adults.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify randomized clinical trials evaluating triclosan-coated sutures for preventing SSI on patients 18 y or older.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized clinical trials involving 5256 participants were included. Triclosan-coated sutures were associated with lower risk of SSI than uncoated sutures across all surgeries (risk ratio [RR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.88, P < 0.001). Similar proportions of patients experienced wound dehiscence with either type of suture (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.49-1.89, P = 0.92). Subgroup analysis showed lower risk of SSI with triclosan-coated sutures in abdominal surgeries (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.99, P = 0.04) and group with prophylactic antibiotic (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04). However, such risk reduction was not observed in cardiac surgeries, breast surgeries, or group without prophylactic antibiotic.

CONCLUSIONS

Triclosan-coated sutures can decrease the incidence of SSI in abdominal surgeries and might not interfere with wound healing process. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to examine whether triclosan-coated sutures are effective at preventing SSI in non-abdominal surgeries and to further study the interaction of antibiotic prophylaxis with triclosan-coated sutures.