Mortality Rate and Antibiotic Resistance in Complicated Diverticulitis: Report of 272 Consecutive Patients Worldwide: A Prospective Cohort Study

Free perforation during the first episode of acute diverticulitis: can it be avoided?

The aims of the present study are to compare the severity of acute diverticulitis in the first episode and in later bouts, and to determine whether there are risk factors for the presence of free perforation at the onset of diverticulitis. A single-center retrospective study was conducted of patients who developed a first episode of acute diverticulitis between January 2011 and August 2021 diagnosed by computed tomography and followed up for at least 1 year. Free perforation was considered to be present in patients with diverticulitis stage III and IV according to the Hinchey classification (modified by Wasvary). The analysis included 394 patients (224 men and 170 women) with a mean age of 58 years. Forty-eight patients (12.2%) presented free perforation at some point in the course of the disease, 43 during the first episode and 5 during subsequent bouts. The perforation subgroup showed higher rates of stoma creation and mortality (relative risks of 12.3 and 23.5, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.041 95% CI 1.016-1.067), lung disease (OR 2.154 95% CI 1.038-4.472) and immunosuppression (OR: 2.812 95% CI 1.315-6.015) were independent factors for free perforation at diverticulitis onset. Free perforation occurs more frequently during the first episode of acute diverticulitis. Older patients, immunosuppressed patients and those with respiratory disease have a greater risk of presenting freely perforated diverticulitis. Therefore, it is essential to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion in these patients to activate early focus control and thus avoid fatal outcomes.

Is There an Impact of the Duration of Antibiotic Therapy on the Outcome of Nonsurgical Treatment of Complicated Diverticulitis?

BACKGROUND

Patients treated nonsurgically for complicated diverticulitis are managed by antibiotics. However, there are no recommendations concerning their duration. We aimed to determine the impact of the duration of antibiotic therapy on the risk of failure of nonsurgical treatment of complicated acute diverticulitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with computer tomography (CT)-diagnosed complicated diverticulitis between January 2015 and April 2020. Treatment failure was defined as early recurrence and/or a persistent abscess by control CT.

RESULTS

In total, 148 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria [87 men (58.8%), mean age 55±15 y]. The diverticulitis was classified as Hinchey I in 41.9%, Hinchey II in 9.5%, and pericolic free air in 48.6% of cases. The median abscess size was 2.9±1.7 cm. The median duration of antibiotic treatment was 10±4.2 days. The median follow-up was 64±60 months. The rate of failure was 12.8%. In univariate analysis, treatment >10 days (P=0.015) and an abscess >3 cm (P=0.032) were associated with a risk of treatment failure. In multivariate analysis, only the diameter of the abscess remained associated with a risk of failure (odds ratio: 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.4, P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that there is no need to extend the duration of antibiotic treatment beyond 10 days in nonsurgically treated complicated acute diverticulitis.

Physician Responsiveness to Positive Blood Culture Results at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Hospital-Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Background

Patients presenting with suspected infections are typically placed on empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. With mounting evidence supporting the efficacy of using the narrowest spectrum of antimicrobial therapy to cover the suspected pathogen, current guidelines recommend decreasing the breadth of coverage in response to culture results both in relation to microbe identification and antibiotic sensitivity.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of electronic health records at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Minnesota was performed for 208 positive blood cultures with antibiotic spectrum analysis from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The time of reporting for pathogen identification and subsequent pathogen susceptibilities were compared to the time at which any alterations to antibiotic coverage were made. The breadth of antibiotic coverage was recorded using a nonlinear spectrum score. The use of this score allowed for the reliable classification of antibiotic adjustments as either deescalation, escalation, or no change.

Results

The percentage of cases deescalated was higher in response to physician (house staff or attending physician) notification of pathogen susceptibility information when compared with a response to pathogen identification alone (33.2% vs 22.6%). Empiric antibiotics were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen identification in 70.7% of cases and were not altered within 24 hours in response to pathogen sensitivity determination in 58.6% of cases. However, when considering the time frame from when empiric antibiotics were started to 24 hours after notification of susceptibility information, 49.5% of cases were deescalated and 41.5% of cases had no net change in the antibiotic spectrum score. The magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. The mean (SD) time to deescalation of antibiotic coverage was shorter (P =.049) in response to pathogen identification at 8 (7.4) hours compared with sensitivity information at 10.4 (7) hours, but may not be clinically relevant.

Conclusion

Health care providers at the Minneapolis VAMC appear to be using positive blood culture results in a timely fashion consistent with best practices. Because empirically initiated antibiotics typically are broad in spectrum, the magnitude of deescalations were notably larger than escalations. Adherence to these standards may be a reflection of the infectious disease staff oversight of antibiotic administration. Furthermore, the systems outlined in this quality improvement study may be replicated at other VAMCs across the country by either in-house infectious disease staff or through remote monitoring of the electronic health record by other infectious disease experts at a more centralized VAMC. Widespread adoption throughout the Veterans Health Administration may result in improved antibiotic resistance profiles and better clinical outcomes for our nation's veterans.

Management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. A multidisciplinary review and position paper

Perforated diverticulitis is an emergent clinical condition and its management is challenging and still debated. The aim of this position paper was to critically review the available evidence on the management of perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis in order to provide evidence-based suggestions for a management strategy. Four Italian scientific societies (SICCR, SICUT, SIRM, AIGO), selected experts who identified 5 clinically relevant topics in the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis that would benefit from a multidisciplinary review. The following 5 issues were tackled: 1) Criteria to decide between conservative and surgical treatment in case of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis; 2) Criteria or scoring system to choose the most appropriate surgical option when diffuse peritonitis is confirmed 3); The appropriate surgical procedure in hemodynamically stable or stabilized patients with diffuse peritonitis; 4) The appropriate surgical procedure for patients with generalized peritonitis and septic shock and 5) Optimal medical therapy in patients with generalized peritonitis from diverticular perforation before and after surgery. In perforated diverticulitis surgery is indicated in case of diffuse peritonitis or failure of conservative management and the decision to operate is not based on the presence of extraluminal air. If diffuse peritonitis is confirmed the choice of surgical technique is based on intraoperative findings and the presence or risk of severe septic shock. Further prognostic factors to consider are physiological derangement, age, comorbidities, and immune status. In hemodynamically stable patients, emergency laparoscopy has benefits over open surgery. Options include resection and anastomosis, Hartmann’s procedure or laparoscopic lavage. In generalized peritonitis with septic shock, an open surgical approach is preferred. Non-restorative resection and/or damage control surgery appear to be the only viable options, depending on the severity of hemodynamic instability. Multidisciplinary medical management should be applied with the main aims of controlling infection, relieving postoperative pain and preventing and/or treating postoperative ileus. In conclusion, the complexity and diversity of patients with diverticular perforation and diffuse peritonitis requires a personalized strategy, involving a thorough classification of physiological derangement, staging of intra-abdominal infection and choice of the most appropriate surgical procedure.

Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime/avibactam: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Ceftazidime/avibactam is approved for complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections (UTIs) based on results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data regarding its effectiveness in treating hospital-acquired infections or resistant pathogens have not been systematically compiled.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis including RCTs evaluating ceftazidime/avibactam versus comparator for the treatment of any infection. Primary outcome was 30 day all-cause mortality. Subgroups of hospital-acquired infections and specific resistance phenotypes were planned.

Results

Seven publications (eight trials, 4093 patients) were included, reporting a baseline ∼25% of ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. No significant difference between ceftazidime/avibactam and comparator (mostly carbapenem) was demonstrated for 30 day all-cause mortality, late follow-up mortality and clinical response [relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.70-1.72, P = 0.69; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87-1.76, P = 0.25; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01, P = 0.21, respectively, without significant heterogeneity]. Higher microbiological response rate was demonstrated with ceftazidime/avibactam in patients with UTI (RR 1.14, 1.0-1.29, P = 0.05, I2 = 51%). No significant difference in clinical response was demonstrated for patients with ceftazidime-resistant pathogens (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10, P = 0.66, I2 = 0%). Results for other subgroups of resistant pathogens or hospital-acquired infection were not available. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were significantly more common with ceftazidime/avibactam (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.00-1.54, P = 0.05, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions

Ceftazidime/avibactam is clinically and microbiologically as effective as carbapenems for treatment of infections in a setting of ∼25% ESBL-carrying Enterobacteriaceae. Safety of the drug should be further evaluated owing to a higher rate of SAEs compared with carbapenems. Further studies should assess the drug's effectiveness in the treatment of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae.