Effect of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial

Comparison of the Efficacy of Cephalosporins and Non-cephalosporins in Preventing Surgical Site Infections in Colorectal Surgery Patients: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy of cephalosporin and non-cephalosporin antibiotics in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients undergoing colorectal surgery, providing a scientific basis for the selection of perioperative antibiotics through systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, this research employed an extensive literature search strategy across multiple databases to identify relevant studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Inclusion criteria were studies on adults undergoing colorectal surgery who received preoperative prophylaxis with either cephalosporin or non-cephalosporin antibiotics. Exclusion criteria included preoperative diagnosis of infectious diseases and preoperative use of antimicrobial agents. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software to assess the effectiveness of both antibiotic classes in preventing SSIs, including subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 872 patients. Meta-analysis revealed that the incidence of SSI in the cephalosporin group was lower than in the non-cephalosporin group (14.8% vs 25.1%), with statistical significance (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.38-2.74, PP = =0.0001). However, no significant difference in SSI risk was observed between the groups within 30 days (OR = =1.92, 95% CI: 1.08-3.42). Subgroup analysis indicated that higher-quality studies were associated with larger effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that cephalosporin antibiotics may be superior to non-cephalosporins in preventing SSIs following colorectal surgery, especially in the short term. However, their long-term efficacy in SSI prevention may be similar. The selection of perioperative antibiotics should consider factors such as the antimicrobial spectrum, pharmacokinetic properties, and bacterial resistance.

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.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis With Ampicillin-sulbactam Compared With Cefazolin for Esophagectomy: Nationwide Inpatient Database Study in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of antimicrobial prophylaxis with ampicillin-sulbactam (ABPC/SBT) compared with cefazolin (CEZ) on the short-term outcomes after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND

CEZ is widely used for antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophagectomy without procedure-specific evidence, whereas ABPC/SBT is preferred in some hospitals to target both aerobic and anaerobic oral bacteria.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between July 2010 and March 2019 were extracted from a nationwide Japanese inpatient database. Overlap propensity score weighting was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes [including surgical site infection (SSI), anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure] between antimicrobial prophylaxis with CEZ and ABPC/SBT after adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were also performed using propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses.

RESULTS

Among 17,772 eligible patients, 16,077 (90.5%) and 1695 (9.5%) patients were administered CEZ and ABPC/SBT, respectively. SSI, anastomotic leakage, and respiratory failure occurred in 2971 (16.7%), 2604 (14.7%), and 2754 patients (15.5%), respectively. After overlap weighting, ABPC/SBT was significantly associated with a reduction in SSI [odds ratio 0.51 (95% CI: 0.43-0.60)], anastomotic leakage [0.51 (0.43-0.61)], and respiratory failure [0.66 (0.57-0.77)]. ABPC/SBT was also associated with reduced respiratory complications, postoperative length of stay, and total hospitalization costs. The proportion of Clostridioides difficile colitis and noninfectious complications did not differ between the groups. Propensity score matching and instrumental variable analyses demonstrated equivalent results.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of ABPC/SBT as antimicrobial prophylaxis for esophagectomy was associated with better short-term postoperative outcomes compared with CEZ.

Is a care pathway for enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery environmentally responsible?

INTRODUCTION

Above and beyond the environmentally responsible operating theater, the environmental impact of the pathways of surgically treated patients seems essential but has seldom been considered in the literature. On a parallel track, enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) programs are presently deemed a standard of care. The objective of this review is to determine the carbon footprint of the ERP approach in colorectal surgery.

METHOD

This a narrative review based on articles referenced in PubMed. Our search was centered on the environmental impact of an ERP in the context of colorectal surgery. A number of measures included in the national and international guidelines were studied. We utilized the terms "carbon footprint", "sustainability", "energy cost", "environmental footprint", "life cycle assessment" AND a key word for each subject found in the ERP recommendations.

RESULTS

Most ERP measures in the context of colorectal surgery are factually or intuitively virtuous from an ecological standpoint. With a 3-day reduction in average hospital stay resulting from ERP, the program permits a reduction of at least 375kg CO2e/patient (Appendices 1 and 2). The most substantial part of this reduction is achieved during the perioperative period. While some measures, such as short fasting, are ecologically neutral, others (treatment of comorbidities, smoking cessation, hypothermia prevention, antibiotic prophylaxis, laparoscopy, absence of drains or probes, thromboprophylaxis, early feeding and mobilization…) lead to fewer postoperative complications, and can consequently be considered as environmentally responsible. Conversely, other measures, one example being robotic surgery, leave a substantial carbon footprint.

CONCLUSION

ERP is congruent with two pillars of sustainable development: the social pillar (improved patient recovery, and better caregiver working conditions fostered by team spirit), and the economic pillar (decreased healthcare expenses). While the third, environmental pillar is intuitively present, the low number of published studies remains a limitation to be overcome in future qualitative studies.

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.

The Impact of Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics in Colorectal Cancer Surgery (MECCA Study): A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Colorectal cancer surgery has been associated with surgical site infections (SSIs), leading to an increase in postoperative morbidity, length of stay and total cost. The aim of the present randomized study was to investigate the relationship between the preoperative administration of oral antibiotic therapy and SSI rate, as well as other postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery in a university surgical department were included in the present study. Patients were randomized into two groups using the "block randomization" method. The intervention group received three doses of 400 mg rifaximin and one dose of 500 mg metronidazole per os, as well as mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The control group underwent only mechanical bowel preparation the day before surgery. The study has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03563586). Results: Two hundred and five patients were finally included in the present study, 97 of whom received preoperative antibiotic therapy per os (intervention group). Patients of this group demonstrated a significantly lower SSI rate compared with patients who did not receive preoperative antibiotic therapy (7% vs. 16%, p = 0.049). However, preoperative antibiotic administration was not correlated with any other postoperative outcome (anastomotic leak, overall complications, readmissions, length of stay). Conclusions: Preoperative antibiotic therapy in combination with mechanical bowel preparation seemed to be correlated with a lower SSI rate after colorectal cancer surgery.

Wound Microbiota and Its Impact on Wound Healing

Wound healing is a complex process influenced by age, systemic conditions, and local factors. The wound microbiota's crucial role in this process is gaining recognition. This concise review outlines wound microbiota impacts on healing, emphasizing distinct phases like hemostasis, inflammation, and cell proliferation. Inflammatory responses, orchestrated by growth factors and cytokines, recruit neutrophils and monocytes to eliminate pathogens and debris. Notably, microbiota alterations relate to changes in wound healing dynamics. Commensal bacteria influence immune responses, keratinocyte growth, and blood vessel development. For instance, Staphylococcus epidermidis aids keratinocyte progression, while Staphylococcus aureus colonization impedes healing. Other bacteria like Group A Streptococcus spp. And Pseudomonas affect wound healing as well. Clinical applications of microbiota-based wound care are promising, with probiotics and specific bacteria like Acinetobacter baumannii aiding tissue repair through molecule secretion. Understanding microbiota influence on wound healing offers therapeutic avenues. Tailored approaches, including probiotics, prebiotics, and antibiotics, can manipulate the microbiota to enhance immune modulation, tissue repair, and inflammation control. Despite progress, critical questions linger. Determining the ideal microbiota composition for optimal wound healing, elucidating precise influence mechanisms, devising effective manipulation strategies, and comprehending the intricate interplay between the microbiota, host, and other factors require further exploration.

Association between the introduction of a national targeted intervention program and the incidence of surgical site infections in Swiss acute care hospitals

BACKGROUND

In Switzerland, the national surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance program showed a modest decrease in SSI rates for different procedures over the last decade. The study aimed to determine whether a multimodal, targeted intervention program in addition to existing SSI surveillance is associated with decreased SSI rates in the participating hospitals.

METHODS

Prospective multicenter pre- and postintervention study conducted in eight Swiss acute care hospitals between 2013 and 2020. All consecutive patients > 18 years undergoing cardiac, colon, or hip/knee replacement surgery were included. The follow-up period was 30 days and one year for implant-related surgery. Patients with at least one follow-up were included. The intervention was to optimize three elements of preoperative management: (i) hair removal; (ii) skin disinfection; and (iii) perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. We compared SSI incidence rates (main outcome measure) pre- and postintervention (three years each) adjusted for potential confounders. Poisson generalized linear mixed models fitted to quarter-yearly confirmed SSIs and adjusted for baseline differences between hospitals and procedures. Adherence was routinely monitored through on-site visits.

RESULTS

A total of 10 151 patients were included, with a similar median age pre- and postintervention (69.6 and IQR 60.9, 76.8 years, vs 69.5 and IQR 60.4, 76.8 years, respectively; P = 0.55) and similar proportions of females (44.8% vs. 46.1%, respectively; P = 0.227). Preintervention, 309 SSIs occurred in 5 489 patients (5.6%), compared to 226 infections in 4 662 cases (4.8%, P = 0.09) postintervention. The adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for overall SSI after intervention implementation was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96, P = 0.02). For cardiac surgery (n = 2 927), the aIRR of SSI was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.72, P < 0.001). For hip/knee replacement surgery (n = 4 522), the aIRR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.48, P = 0.63), and for colon surgery (n = 2 702), the aIRR was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.14, P = 0.49).

CONCLUSIONS

The SSI intervention bundle was associated with a statistically significant decrease in SSI cases. A significant association was observed for cardiac surgery. Adding a specific intervention program can add value compared to routine surveillance only. Further prevention modules might be necessary for colon and orthopedic surgery.

Preoperative oral antibiotic administration in patients undergoing curative resection with stoma creation for colorectal cancer: effectiveness in preventing surgical site infection and the possibility of peristomal candidiasis induced by enterobacterial alteration

AIM

There are many reports that preoperative oral antibiotics (OAs) are effective in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in colorectal surgery. However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of OAs. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of OAs in preventing SSIs and the possibility that OAs induce enterobacterial alteration in the intestinal tract.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 389 patients who underwent R0 resection and stoma creation for colorectal cancer in our department between 2009 and 2020. We focused on the incidence of peristomal candidiasis (PSC) as an indicator of enterobacterial alteration and used kanamycin (KM) and metronidazole (MNZ) as the OAs. A low-dose group received 1000 mg/day of both KM and MNZ, and a high-dose group received 2000 mg/day of both KM and MNZ.

RESULTS

SSI occurred in 60 of the 389 cases (15.4%). Regardless of stoma type, SSI was significantly more common in the non-OA group, while PSC was significantly less common. When examined by OA dose, the incidence of SSI was not significantly different between the low-dose and high-dose groups. However, PSC was significantly more common in the high-dose group than in the non-OA and low-dose groups. Analysis of bacterial and fungal levels in stool samples showed that bacterial levels after OAs were significantly lower than before OAs, while fungal levels increased.

CONCLUSION

OAs significantly reduce SSI in colorectal cancer surgery. However, excess OAs were significantly associated with the occurrence of PSC without contributing to further reduction in SSI.

Region-specific protection effect of preoperative oral antibiotics combined with mechanical bowel preparation before laparoscopic colorectal resection: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral antibiotics (OA) combined with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) significantly decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). However, the prophylactic effects in region-specific colorectal surgery have not been assessed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from 2019 to 2022. Patients were eligible if they were diagnosed with nonmetastatic colorectal malignancy, and laparoscopic colorectal surgery was indicated. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to the experimental (OA+MBP preparation) or control group (MBP preparation). The randomization was further stratified by resected region. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs. Patients were followed up for 1 month postoperatively, and all complications were recorded.

RESULT

Between 2019 and 2022, 157 and 152 patients were assigned to the experimental and control groups, respectively, after 51 patients were excluded. The incidence of SSIs in the control group (27/152) was significantly higher than that in the experimental group (13/157; P =0.013), as was the incidence of superficial SSIs (5/157 vs. 14/152, P =0.027) and deep SSIs (7/157 vs. 16/152, P =0.042). After redistribution according to the resected region, the incidence of SSIs was significantly higher in the control group with left-sided colorectal resection (descending, sigmoid colon, and rectum) (9/115 vs. 20/111, P =0.022) but was similar between the groups with right-sided colon resection (ascending colon) (3/37 vs. 7/36, P =0.286). No differences were noted between the groups in terms of other perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

OA+MBP before colorectal surgery significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs. Such a prophylactic effect was particularly significant for left-sided resection. This preparation mode should be routinely adopted before elective left-region colorectal surgeries.

Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery: network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and oral antibiotics in surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and other perioperative outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal preoperative bowel preparation strategy in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed with searches from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2022. Primary outcomes included surgical site infection and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality rate, ileus, length of stay, return to theatre, other infections, and side effects of antibiotic therapy or bowel preparation.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs involving 16 314 patients were included in the final analysis: 3465 (21.2 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics alone, 5268 (32.3 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 1710 (10.5 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, 4183 (25.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 262 (1.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + enemas, and 1426 (8.7 per cent) had oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation. With intravenous antibiotics as a baseline comparator, network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total surgical site infection risk with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.47 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.68)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.76)), whereas oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation resulted in a higher surgical site infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.84 (95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 2.81)). Anastomotic leak rates were lower with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.63 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.90)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.94)) compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. There was no significant difference in outcomes with mechanical bowel preparation in the absence of intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics in the main analysis.

CONCLUSION

A bowel preparation strategy with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, should represent the standard of care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

The Role of Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Anastomotic Leak Prevention during Elective Colorectal Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction: Despite several perioperative care advancements and innovations in surgical procedures and technologies, the incidence rate of anastomotic leaks (ALs) after colorectal surgery has not substantially decreased. Gut microbiota can play a critical role in the healing process of anastomotic tissue and alterations in its composition may be largely to blame for anastomotic insufficiency. The use of specific antibiotics for preoperative large bowel decontamination could significantly influence the rate of ALs. The aim of this study was to systematically assess the various antibiotic prophylactic regimen strategies for primary prevention of ALs during colorectal surgery, in view of the available evidence. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) analyzing prophylactic antibiotic bowel preparation in colorectal surgery were included. PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through to 30 November 2022. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated. The primary outcome was AL rate; secondary outcomes were superficial/deep surgical site infections (SSIs). The PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out the present systematic review. Results: Thirteen RCTs published between 1977 and 2022, with a total of 4334 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered orally in 11/13 studies and intravenously in 2 studies. Patients randomly assigned to antibiotic prophylaxis, regardless of the regimen, had a reduced risk of ALs (p = 0.003) compared to mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) alone. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis was also more effective in significantly reducing SSIs (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The evidence points to an advantage of oral antibiotic prophylaxis in terms of AL rate, a significant contributor to perioperative morbidity, mortality, and rising healthcare expenditures. In light of such results, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis should be strongly encouraged prior to colorectal surgery.