Infection after elective colorectal surgery: bacteriological analysis of failures in a randomized trial of cefotetan vs. ertapenem prophylaxis

Bacteremia due to Clostridium innocuum: Analysis of four cases and literature review

Clostridium innocuum is a Gram-positive anaerobic spore-forming bacillus that has been identified as part of the normal intestinal microbiota. This bacterium has been rarely associated with human infections, and only few severe infections have been reported until now. In this work, we report on four patients with bacteremia due to C. innocuum, which were well identified by MALDI-TOF MS. Moreover, a review of the previous published cases of bacteremia due to this anaerobic bacterium has been performed.

Clostridium innocuum: Microbiological and clinical characteristics of a potential emerging pathogen

Clostridium innocuum is an anaerobic, gram-positive, spore-forming bacterium identified by Smith and King in 1962 after being isolated from a patient with an appendiceal abscess. Its name, C. innocuum, reflected its clinically "innocuous" nature based on observed lack of virulence in animal models of infection. Since that time, C. innocuum has been identified as both part of the normal intestinal flora and the cause of a rare, intrinsically vancomycin-resistant opportunistic infection in immunocompromised patients. More recently, reports from Taiwan suggest that C. innocuum, in addition to being a known extraintestinal pathogen, may also be a diarrheal pathogen that causes a C. difficile infection-like antibiotic-associated diarrheal illness. However, unanswered questions about the clinical relevance of C. innocuum remain. Here we review the microbiological and clinical characteristics of this emerging pathogen.

Microorganisms associated with incisional infections after gastrointestinal surgery in dogs and cats

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rate of incisional infections after gastrointestinal surgery in dogs and cats and describe the aerobic bacteria isolated from these infections.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

ANIMALS

Client-owned dogs (n = 210) and cats (n = 66).

METHODS

Records of dogs and cats that underwent gastrointestinal surgery at the Matthew J. Ryan Veterinary Hospital at the University of Pennsylvania were reviewed for surgical procedures, presence of an infection, bacterial species isolated, perioperative antimicrobials administered, and outcome.

RESULTS

The median duration of follow-up was 14 days (4-35). Incisional infections were recorded in 7% (20/276) of cases. Among those 20 cases, culture results were available in 12 of 20 cases. The most common bacterial isolate cultured was Escherichia coli. The most common perioperative antimicrobials administered to treat incisional infection were cefazolin and cefoxitin. Only two of the bacterial isolates were susceptible to these antimicrobials. Bacteria isolated from incisional infections were most often susceptible to chloramphenicol, imipenem, and gentamicin.

CONCLUSION

Bacterial isolates from incisional infections in this population consisted of native gastrointestinal flora, which was often resistant to the most commonly used perioperative antimicrobials.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Contamination at time of surgery is the most likely source of incisional infection after gastrointestinal surgery. This rate of infection justifies more rigorous intraoperative hygiene protocols and evaluation of the antimicrobials' susceptibility of causative bacteria to guide antimicrobial treatment.

Field Wound Care: Prophylactic Antibiotics

Adequate management of wounds requires numerous interventions, one of which is the appropriate use of antimicrobials to attempt to minimize the risk of excess morbidity or mortality without increasing toxicity or multidrug resistant bacterial acquisition. There are numerous recommendations and opinions for not only the use of systemic prophylactic antimicrobials, but also the agent, dose, route, and duration. To best address the implementation of systemic antimicrobials in a field scenario, one must weigh the factors that go into that decision and then determine the best agents possible. The epidemiologic triangle (ie, the host, the agent, and the environment) forms the basis for selecting the correct prophylactic antibiotic for field wound care. Extreme conditions can be encountered in both military and nonmilitary systems, requiring a unique selection process to make the right antibiotic choice. A modifiable weighted matrix, recommended previously for point of injury combat casualty care, assists in selecting the best oral and intravenous/intramuscular agent based on the epidemiologic risk determination.

Improving antibiotic prophylaxis in gastrointestinal surgery patients: A quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

A surgical site infection (SSI) is a frequent complication following gastrointestinal surgery, but the careful selection and administration of prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the risk. The aim of this study was to develop a package of interventions that could be used to improve surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) at our institution.

METHODS

A pre-post quality improvement project at a private hospital in Saudi Arabia was conducted between January 2014 until July 2016. A multidisciplinary team was assembled to identify and overcome barriers that were responsible for patients receiving suboptimal antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients were included if they had undergone surgery on their appendix, colon, rectum, or small intestine. Compliance with use of an adapted order form, as well as appropriate antibiotic selection, dosing, timing, and timing of re-dosing, were measured. Data on the rates of SSI before and after the intervention were also obtained.

RESULTS

Of the 269 patients included in the study, 161 (61.5%) had appendix surgery, 86 (32.8%) had colorectal surgery, and 15 (5.7%) had small bowel surgery. The surgery was performed laparoscopically in 218 (83.5%) of patients. Utilization of the adapted order form increased from 1.8% to 92.0% following the intervention (p < 0.001). Compliance with a bundle of appropriate antibiotic selection, dosing and timing improved from 47.3% to 82.2% after the intervention (p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a non-statistically significant reduction in SSI rate (9.1% vs 5.1%; p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Our quality improvement intervention was successful in improving SAP for patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery at our institution.

Antibiotic resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: what impact on the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery?

Antibiotic prophylaxis, introduced in the 1940s, brought in an era of relatively safe colorectal surgery. This was achieved in part due to the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by Enterobacteriaceae. Since then, Enterobacteriaceae have become increasingly resistant to the antibiotics commonly used for prophylaxis. The impact of being colonized preoperatively with resistant Enterobacteriaceae on the efficacy of colorectal SSI prophylaxis, if any, is unknown. It is also difficult to predict the likely impact of resistance as the exposure‒response relationships have not been determined for antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. Neither is it known which test for resistance to use; the importance of the concentration of Enterobacteriaceae in the colon, the ability of different species of Enterobacteriaceae to cause SSIs, and the comparative ability of minimum inhibitory concentration or presence of a resistance mechanism in predicting SSI risk have yet to be established. Clinical research is urgently needed to answer these questions.

Current evidence regarding prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck and maxillofacial surgery

Antibiotic prophylaxis is commonly used to decrease the rate of infections in head and neck surgery. The aim of this paper is to present the available evidence regarding the application of antibiotic prophylaxis in surgical procedures of the head and neck region in healthy patients. A systemic literature review based on Medline and Embase databases was performed. All reviews and meta-analyses based on RCTs in English from 2000 to 2013 were included. Eight out of 532 studies fulfilled all requirements. Within those, only seven different operative procedures were analyzed. Evidence exists for the beneficial use of prophylactic antibiotics for tympanostomy, orthognathic surgery, and operative tooth extractions. Unfortunately, little high-level evidence exists regarding the use of prophylactic antibiotics in head and neck surgery. In numerous cases, no clear benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis has been shown, particularly considering their potential adverse side effects. Antibiotics are often given unnecessarily and are administered too late and for too long. Furthermore, little research has been performed on the large number of routine cases in the above-mentioned areas of specialization within the last few years, although questions arising with respect to the treatment of high-risk patients or of specific infections are discussed on a broad base.

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.

Antianaerobic antimicrobials: spectrum and susceptibility testing

Susceptibility testing of anaerobic bacteria recovered from selected cases can influence the choice of antimicrobial therapy. The Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) has standardized many laboratory procedures, including anaerobic susceptibility testing (AST), and has published documents for AST. The standardization of testing methods by the CLSI allows comparisons of resistance trends among various laboratories. Susceptibility testing should be performed on organisms recovered from sterile body sites, those that are isolated in pure culture, or those that are clinically important and have variable or unique susceptibility patterns. Organisms that should be considered for individual isolate testing include highly virulent pathogens for which susceptibility cannot be predicted, such as Bacteroides, Prevotella, Fusobacterium, and Clostridium spp.; Bilophila wadsworthia; and Sutterella wadsworthensis. This review describes the current methods for AST in research and reference laboratories. These methods include the use of agar dilution, broth microdilution, Etest, and the spiral gradient endpoint system. The antimicrobials potentially effective against anaerobic bacteria include beta-lactams, combinations of beta-lactams and beta-lactamase inhibitors, metronidazole, chloramphenicol, clindamycin, macrolides, tetracyclines, and fluoroquinolones. The spectrum of efficacy, antimicrobial resistance mechanisms, and resistance patterns against these agents are described.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after surgery is generally low, but affects up to 33% of patients after certain types of surgery. Postoperative MRSA infection can occur as surgical site infections (SSIs), chest infections, or bloodstream infections (bacteraemia). The incidence of MRSA SSIs varies from 1% to 33% depending upon the type of surgery performed and the carrier status of the individuals concerned. The optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for the prevention of MRSA after surgery is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of all methods of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of postoperative MRSA infection and related complications in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2013 we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one antibiotic regimen used as prophylaxis for SSIs (and other postoperative infections) with another antibiotic regimen or with no antibiotic, and that reported the methicillin resistance status of the cultured organisms. We did not limit our search for RCTs by language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion in the review, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We planned to perform meta-analysis using both a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants, in this review. Eleven trials performed a total of 16 head-to-head comparisons of different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Antibiotic prophylaxis was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in one trial. All the trials were at high risk of bias. With the exception of one trial in which all the participants were positive for nasal carriage of MRSA or had had previous MRSA infections, it does not appear that MRSA was tested or eradicated prior to surgery; nor does it appear that there was high prevalence of MRSA carrier status in the people undergoing surgery.There was no sufficient clinical similarity between the trials to perform a meta-analysis. The overall all-cause mortality in four trials that reported mortality was 14/1401 (1.0%) and there were no significant differences in mortality between the intervention and control groups in each of the individual comparisons. There were no antibiotic-related serious adverse events in any of the 561 people randomised to the seven different antibiotic regimens in four trials (three trials that reported mortality and one other trial). None of the trials reported quality of life, total length of hospital stay or the use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221/4032 (5.5%) people developed SSIs due to all organisms, and 46/4704 (1.0%) people developed SSIs due to MRSA.In the 15 comparisons that compared one antibiotic regimen with another, there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed SSIs. In the single trial that compared an antibiotic regimen with placebo, the proportion of people who developed SSIs was significantly lower in the group that received antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav (or cefotaxime if allergic to penicillin) compared with placebo (all SSI: RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; MRSA SSI RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83). In two trials that reported MRSA infections other than SSI, 19/478 (4.5%) people developed MRSA infections including SSI, chest infection and bacteraemia. There were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed MRSA infections at any body site in these two comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with placebo in people without malignant disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence to suggest that using a combination of multiple prophylactic antibiotics or administering prophylactic antibiotics for an increased duration is of benefit to people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well designed RCTs assessing the clinical effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens are necessary on this topic.

Current concepts in laboratory testing to guide antimicrobial therapy

Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) is indicated for pathogens contributing to an infectious process that warrants antimicrobial therapy if susceptibility to antimicrobials cannot be predicted reliably based on knowledge of their identity. Such tests are most frequently used when the etiologic agents are members of species capable of demonstrating resistance to commonly prescribed antibiotics. Some organisms have predictable susceptibility to antimicrobial agents (ie, Streptococcus pyogenes to penicillin), and empirical therapy for these organisms is typically used. Therefore, AST for such pathogens is seldom required or performed. In addition, AST is valuable in evaluating the activity of new and experimental compounds and investigating the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistant pathogens. Several laboratory methods are available to characterize the in vitro susceptibility of bacteria to antimicrobial agents. When the nature of the infection is unclear and the culture yields mixed growth or usual microbiota (wherein the isolates usually bear little relationship to the actual infectious process), AST is usually unnecessary and results may, in fact, be dangerously misleading. Phenotypic methods for detection of specific antimicrobial resistance mechanisms are increasingly being used to complement AST (ie, inducible clindamycin resistance among several gram-positive bacteria) and to provide clinicians with preliminary direction for antibiotic selection pending results generated from standardized AST (ie, β-lactamase tests). In addition, molecular methods are being developed and incorporated by microbiology laboratories into resistance detection algorithms for rapid, sensitive assessment of carriage states of epidemiologically and clinically important pathogens, often directly from clinical specimens (ie, presence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in fecal specimens).

Recent trends in the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in pediatric surgery

AIMS

The use of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) in children is poorly characterized. The aims of this study were to examine (1) trends in the use of AP for commonly performed operations, (2) appropriateness in the context of available guidelines, and (3) adverse events potentially attributable to AP.

METHODS

We conducted a 5-year retrospective analysis of 22 children's hospitals (January 2005-March 2009) for all patients younger than 18 years who underwent 1 of the 40 commonly performed general and urological procedures. Indications for AP were defined by published specialty-specific guidelines. Clostridium difficile infection and surrogate events for drug allergy (diphenhydramine and epinephrine administrations) were examined as potential antibiotic-associated adverse events.

RESULTS

Procedures of 246,316 were identified, of which 25% met criteria for AP. Eighty-two percent of the children received antibiotics during procedures when AP was indicated (range, 60%-96% by hospital), and 40% of the patients received antibiotics when there was no indication (range, 10%-83%). The likelihood of receiving AP was significantly different between hospitals for all procedures examined (P < .0001 for each procedure). Adverse events were significantly more frequent in children receiving AP than in those who did not (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] C difficile: 18.8 [6.9-51.5], P < .0001; epinephrine: 1.8 [1.7-2.0], P < .0001; diphenhydramine: 6.0 [5.6-6.5], P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation exists in the use of AP in the pediatric surgical population. Many children do not receive AP when indicated, and an even greater proportion may receive antibiotics when there is no indication. These findings may have profound implications from a public health perspective when extrapolated to all children undergoing surgical procedures.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery: focus on ertapenem

Despite improvement in infection control measures and surgical practice, surgical site infections (SSIs) remain a major cause of morbidity and mortality. In colorectal surgery, perioperative administration of a suitable antimicrobial regimen that covers both anaerobic and aerobic bacteria is universally accepted. In a prospective, double-blind, randomized study ertapenem was recently found to be more effective than cefotetan, a parenteral cephalosporin so broadly used as to be considered as gold standard in the prevention of SSIs following colorectal surgery. In this adequate and well controlled study, the superiority of ertapenem over cefotetan was clearly demonstrated from the clinical and bacteriological points of view. However, data that directly compares ertapenem with other antimicrobial regimen effective in preventing SSIs following colorectal surgery are lacking; furthermore, the possible risk of promotion of carbapenem resistance associated with widespread use of ertapenem prophylaxis as well as the ertapenem effects on the intestinal gut flora are of concern. Further comparative studies of ertapenem versus other widely used prophylactic regimens for colorectal surgery in patients submitted to mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation as well as further research on adverse events of antibiotic prophylaxis, including emergence of resistance and Clostridium difficile infection, seem warranted.