Preoperative oral antibiotics with versus without mechanical bowel preparation to reduce surgical site infections following colonic resection: Protocol for an international randomized controlled trial (ORALEV2)

Bowel preparation for elective colorectal resection: multi-treatment machine learning analysis on 6241 cases from a prospective Italian cohort

BACKGROUND

Current evidence concerning bowel preparation before elective colorectal surgery is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of anastomotic leakage (AL), surgical site infections (SSIs), and overall morbidity (any adverse event, OM) after elective colorectal surgery using four different types of bowel preparation.

METHODS

A prospective database gathered among 78 Italian surgical centers in two prospective studies, including 6241 patients who underwent elective colorectal resection with anastomosis for malignant or benign disease, was re-analyzed through a multi-treatment machine-learning model considering no bowel preparation (NBP; No. = 3742; 60.0%) as the reference treatment arm, compared to oral antibiotics alone (oA; No. = 406; 6.5%), mechanical bowel preparation alone (MBP; No. = 1486; 23.8%), or in combination with oAB (MoABP; No. = 607; 9.7%). Twenty covariates related to biometric data, surgical procedures, perioperative management, and hospital/center data potentially affecting outcomes were included and balanced into the model. The primary endpoints were AL, SSIs, and OM. All the results were reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Compared to NBP, MBP showed significantly higher AL risk (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.23-2.71; p = .003) and OM risk (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.10-1.72; p = .005), no significant differences for all the endpoints were recorded in the oA group, whereas MoABP showed a significantly reduced SSI risk (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.79; p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

MoABP significantly reduced the SSI risk after elective colorectal surgery, therefore representing a valid alternative to NBP.

Oral Antibiotics Alone versus Oral Antibiotics Combined with Mechanical Bowel Preparation for Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matching Re-Analysis of the iCral 2 and 3 Prospective Cohorts

The evidence regarding the role of oral antibiotics alone (oA) or combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MoABP) for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. A prospective database of 8359 colorectal resections gathered over a 32-month period from 78 Italian surgical units (the iCral 2 and 3 studies), reporting patient-, disease-, and procedure-related variables together with 60-day adverse events, was re-analyzed to identify a subgroup of 1013 cases (12.1%) that received either oA or MoABP. This dataset was analyzed using a 1:1 propensity score-matching model including 20 covariates. Two well-balanced groups of 243 patients each were obtained: group A (oA) and group B (MoABP). The primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage (AL) and surgical site infection (SSI) rates. Group A vs. group B showed a significantly higher AL risk [14 (5.8%) vs. 6 (2.5%) events; OR: 3.77; 95%CI: 1.22-11.67; p = 0.021], while no significant difference was recorded between the two groups regarding SSIs. These results strongly support the use of MoABP for elective colorectal resections.

Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Surgical site infection (SSI) impacts 5-20% of patients after elective colorectal surgery. There are varying reports on the effectiveness of oral antibiotics (OAB) with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) in preventing SSI. We aim to determine the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI after elective colorectal surgery. We also determine if a specific OAB regimen will be more effective than others.

METHODS

This study investigated the impact of OAB and MBP in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ACP Journal Club, and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published by June 2022. All RCTs comparing various preoperative bowel preparation regimens, including pairwise or multi-intervention comparisons, were included. To establish the role of OAB and MBP in preventing SSI, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis on all RCTs. We further performed subgroup analysis to determine the most effective OAB regimen.

RESULTS

Among included 46 studies with a total of 12690 patients, patients in the MBP + OAB group were less likely to have SSI than those having MBP-only (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.39-0.76), and without MBP and OAB (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.32-0.84). OAB regimen C (kanamycin + metronidazole) and A (neomycin + metronidazole) demonstrated a significantly reduced incidence of SSI, compared to regimen B (neomycin + erythromycin) with OR 0.24 (95% CrI 0.07-0.79) and 0.26 (95% CrI 0.07-0.99) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

OAB with MBP reduces the risk of SSI after elective colorectal surgery. Providing adequate aerobic and anaerobic coverage with OAB may confer better protection against SSI.

Preoperative combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The success of elective colorectal surgery is mainly influenced by the surgical procedure and postoperative complications. The most serious complications include anastomotic leakages and surgical site infections (SSI)s, which can lead to prolonged recovery with impaired long-term health.  Compared with other abdominal procedures, colorectal resections have an increased risk of adverse events due to the physiological bacterial colonisation of the large bowel. Preoperative bowel preparation is used to remove faeces from the bowel lumen and reduce bacterial colonisation. This bowel preparation can be performed mechanically and/or with oral antibiotics. While mechanical bowel preparation alone is not beneficial, the benefits and harms of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation is still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the evidence for the use of combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation for preventing complications in elective colorectal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and trial registries on 15 December 2021. In addition, we searched reference lists and contacted colorectal surgery organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult participants undergoing elective colorectal surgery comparing combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MBP+oAB) with either MBP alone, oAB alone, or no bowel preparation (nBP). We excluded studies in which no perioperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was given.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. Pooled results were reported as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs analysing 5264 participants who underwent elective colorectal surgery. None of the included studies had a high risk of bias, but two-thirds of the included studies raised some concerns. This was mainly due to the lack of a predefined analysis plan or missing information about the randomisation process. Most included studies investigated both colon and rectal resections due to malignant and benign surgical indications. For MBP as well as oAB, the included studies used different regimens in terms of agent(s), dosage and timing.  Data for all predefined outcomes could be extracted from the included studies. However, only four studies reported on side effects of bowel preparation, and none recorded the occurrence of adverse effects such as dehydration, electrolyte imbalances or the need to discontinue the intervention due to side effects. Seventeen trials compared MBP+oAB with sole MBP. The incidence of SSI could be reduced through MBP+oAB by 44% (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.74; 3917 participants from 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the risk of anastomotic leakage could be reduced by 40% (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.99; 2356 participants from 10 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). No difference between the two comparison groups was found with regard to mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.82; 639 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.32; 2013 participants from 6 studies, low-certainty of evidence) and length of hospital stay (MD -0.19, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.44; 621 participants from 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Three trials compared MBP+oAB with sole oAB. No difference was demonstrated between the two treatment alternatives in terms of SSI (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.21; 960 participants from 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), anastomotic leakage (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.45; 960 participants from 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.50; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.33; 709 participants from 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.1 respectively 0.2, 95% CI -0.68 to 1.08; data from 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (396 participants) compared MBP+oAB versus nBP. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of MBP+oAB on the incidence of SSI as well as mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.23 respectively RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; low-certainty evidence), while no effect on the risk of anastomotic leakages (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.42; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of postoperative ileus (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.8 to 1; low-certainty evidence) could be demonstrated.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate-certainty evidence, our results suggest that MBP+oAB is probably more effective than MBP alone in preventing postoperative complications. In particular, with respect to our primary outcomes, SSI and anastomotic leakage, a lower incidence was demonstrated using MBP+oAB. Whether oAB alone is actually equivalent to MBP+oAB, or leads to a reduction or increase in the risk of postoperative complications, cannot be clarified in light of the low- to very low-certainty evidence. Similarly, it remains unclear whether omitting preoperative bowel preparation leads to an increase in the risk of postoperative complications due to limited evidence. Additional RCTs, particularly on the comparisons of MBP+oAB versus oAB alone or nBP, are needed to assess the impact of oAB alone or nBP compared with MBP+oAB on postoperative complications and to improve confidence in the estimated effect. In addition, RCTs focusing on subgroups (e.g. in relation to type and location of colon resections) or reporting side effects of the intervention are needed to determine the most effective approach of preoperative bowel preparation.

A Network Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Effect of Preoperative Oral Antibiotics with and Without Mechanical Bowel Preparation on Surgical Site Infection Rate in Colorectal Surgery

Objective

To compare the effect of different methods of bowel preparation on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI), anastomotic leakage (AL), and mortality in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Background

Recent guidelines advise mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics (MBP-OA) for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery. Recent trials suggest oral antibiotics (OA) alone may be sufficient.

Methods

PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched from inception until 10-08-2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multiple methods of bowel preparation (mechanical bowel preparation [MBP], OA, MBP-OA, or no preparation) with regards to clinical outcomes such as incidence of SSI, AL, and mortality rates. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the network effects of the different treatment options.

Results

We included 48 studies with 13,611 patients. Compared to no preparation, combined direct and indirect network estimates showed a relative risk (RR) for SSI of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.72) for MBP-OA, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49-0.95) for OA, and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.26) for MBP. The RR for MBP-OA compared to OA was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.60-1.19); in sensitivity analysis of mainly laparoscopic procedures this effect of MBP-OA was more profound (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99).

Conclusions

This network meta-analysis of RCTs finds that both mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics and oral antibiotics alone are comparably effective in the prevention of SSI. The evidence is uncertain about the relative benefit of MBP-OA compared to OA alone. Therefore, it seems justified to use either of the 2 for the prevention of SSI in colorectal surgery.

Are colorectal surgery patients willing to accept an increased risk of surgical site infection to avoid mechanical bowel preparation? Implications for future trial design

AIM

Recent evidence has shown no difference in the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) with oral antibiotics alone (OA) and oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation (OA + MBP), suggesting that the use of MBP may be safely avoided. The aim of this work was to determine the absolute risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

METHOD

Standardized, in-person interviews were conducted using the threshold task with patients attending colorectal surgery clinics who had previously had MBP. Participants were asked which option they preferred when the absolute risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Next, their switch point was determined by increasing the risk of SSI with OA by 1% intervals until their preference changed from OA to OA + MBP. Median switch point scores were reported and represented the absolute increased risk of SSI that patients would accept with OA relative to OA + MBP.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the interview. All participants chose OA over OA + MBP when the risk of SSI was 7% for both options. Switch points ranged from 8% to 25%, with a median of 10%, indicating that participants were willing to accept up to a 3% increase in absolute risk of developing a SSI with OA to avoid MBP.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that patients are willing to accept an increased risk of up to 3% for SSI with OA relative to OA + MBP. Incorporating patient preferences into the planning of future trials has the potential to improve the uptake of trial results into clinical practice.

Bowel decontamination before colonic and rectal surgery

Several strategies are available to reduce adverse events after colonic and rectal surgery. Oral and intravenous antibiotics have proven efficacy in reducing surgical-site infections, and might be beneficial against anastomotic leaks. The role of mechanical bowel preparation needs further elucidation.