Empiric antifungals do not decrease the risk for organ space infection in patients with perforated peptic ulcer

Should Empiric Anti-Fungals Be Administered Routinely for All Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers? A Critical Review of the Existing Literature

A perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency with a high mortality rate. PPUs cause secondary peritonitis due to bacterial and fungal peritoneal contamination. Surgery is the main treatment modality and patient's comorbidites impacts perioperative morbidity and surgical outcomes. Even after surgery, resuscitation efforts should continue. While empiric antibiotics are recommended, the role of empiric anti-fungal treatment is unclear due to a lack of scientific evidence. This literature review demonstrated a paucity of studies evaluating the role of empiric anti-fungals in PPUs, and with conflicting results. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of patient demographics and underlying surgical pathology (PPUs vs. any gastrointestinal perforation), type of anti-fungal agent, timing of administration and duration of use. Other considerations include the need to differentiate between fungal colonization vs. invasive fungal infection. Despite positive fungal isolates from fluid culture, it is important for clinical judgement to identify the right group of patients for anti-fungal administration. Biochemistry investigations including new fungal biomarkers may help to guide management. Multidisciplinary discussions may help in decision making for this conundrum. Moving forward, further research may be conducted to select the right group of patients who may benefit from empiric anti-fungal use.

Antifungal Use in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Western Australian Perspective

Background Perforated peptic ulcer disease has a high mortality rate, and there is consensus regarding the use of antifungals in the management of immunocompromised patients; however, there is variability in the utilization of antifungals in the non-immunocompromised cohort. This study aims to describe the current practice related to the use of antifungals in perforated peptic ulcer disease in Western Australia and to determine the peri-operative morbidity and mortality in the immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised cohort receiving antifungals. Methods Medical records of patients who underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcer in all Western Australian tertiary hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were reviewed retrospectively. Data regarding pre-operative patient factors such as age, gender, and comorbidities, post-operative outcomes such as intra-abdominal sepsis/bleeding, peri-operative antifungal prescription, and abundance of fungal growth on intra-operative samples were collected. Results The study included 359 patients. The antifungal prescription was variable. An American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3 or more, presence of pre-operative shock and acidosis, and level of abundance of fungal growth on intra-operative samples were associated with antifungal prescription. Amongst the non-immunocompromised cohort, receiving antifungals was associated with higher morbidity. Conclusion The use of antifungals for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease was variable. An ASA score of 3 or greater and pre-operative shock and acidosis are pre-operative factors predisposing patients to receiving antifungals. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality amongst immunocompromised patients regardless of antifungal prescription or non-prescription. However, in the non-immunocompromised cohort, those who received antifungals had a higher morbidity compared to those who did not.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

Current Utilization of Antifungal Agents for Intra-abdominal Infections Categorized by Patient Risk Factors During Surgical Procedures: A Literature Review

The high morbidity and mortality rates associated with invasive fungal infections have led to the overutilization of empiric antifungal therapies. With increasing antibiotic resistance, the careful consideration of prophylactic or empiric antifungal use is critical. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the available literature regarding the current practice of utilizing antifungal agents for intra-abdominal infections based on specific surgical procedures and patient risk factors. Relevant articles were identified through a comprehensive literature search of several databases using the keywords antifungal agents, postoperative period, preoperative care, surgical procedures, and intra-abdominal infections. Only articles that evaluated the use of empiric antifungals for suspected or confirmed intra-abdominal infections and surgical procedures were included in this review. Based on the available literature, antifungal prophylaxis is appropriate in patients who meet the criteria for high-risk invasive candidiasis, kidney or liver transplant recipients, severely-immunocompromised patients with perforated peptic ulcer, peritonitis, and patients on peritoneal dialysis who are failing on a therapeutic antibiotic regimen. We acknowledge that the evidence for using antifungal therapy empirically for all surgical procedures is lacking, and the following review is based on available literature and current guidelines.

Role of Empiric Antifungal Therapy in Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcers

Background: It is unclear if the addition of antifungal therapy for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) leads to improved outcomes. We hypothesized that empiric antifungal therapy is associated with better clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with PPU. Patients and Methods: The 2001-2012 Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database was searched for patients with PPU and the included subjects were divided into two groups depending on receipt of antifungal therapy. Propensity score matching by surgical intervention, mechanical ventilation (MV), and vasopressor administration was then performed and clinically important outcomes were compared. Multiple logistic regression was performed to calculate the odds of a composite end point (defined as "alive, hospital-free, and infection-free at 30 days"). Results: A total of 89 patients with PPU were included, of whom 52 (58%) received empiric antifungal therapy. Propensity score matching resulted in 37 pairs. On logistic regression controlling for surgery, vasopressors, and MV, receipt of antifungal therapy was not associated with higher odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-4.7; p = 0.4798) of the composite end point. Conclusions: In critically ill patients with perforated peptic ulcer, receipt of antifungal therapy, regardless of surgical intervention, was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. Selection bias is possible and therefore randomized controlled trials are required to confirm/refute causality.