Importance of Adding Neomycin to Metronidazole for Bowel Preparation1

The common prophylactic therapy for bowel surgery is ineffective for clearing Bacteroidetes, the primary inducers of systemic inflammation, and causes faster death in response to intestinal barrier damage in mice

Introduction and objective

The role of secreted gut microbial components in the initiation of systemic inflammation and consequences of antibiotic therapies on this inflammatory process are poorly elucidated. We investigate whether peripheral innate cells mount an inflammatory response to gut microbial components, the immune cells that are the primary drivers of systemic inflammation, the bacterial populations that are predominantly responsible, and whether perioperative antibiotics affect these processes.

Method and experimental design

Conditioned supernatants from gut microbes were used to stimulate murine innate cell types in vitro and in vivo, and proinflammatory responses were characterised. Effects of antibiotic therapies on these responses were investigated using a model of experimental intestinal barrier damage induced by dextran sodium sulfate.

Results

Proinflammatory responses in the periphery are generated by components of anaerobes from the Bacteroidetes phylotype and these responses are primarily produced by myeloid dendritic cells. We found that the common prophylactic therapy for sepsis (oral neomycin and metronidazole administered to patients the day prior to surgery) is ineffective for clearing Bacteroidetes from the murine intestine. A point of critical consequence of this result is the increased systemic inflammation and premature death observed in treated mice, and these outcomes appear to be independent of gut bacterial spread in the initial phase of intestinal barrier damage. Importantly, spillage of gut microbial products, rather than dissemination of gut microbes, may underlay the initiation of systemic inflammation leading to death.

Conclusions

Our data further affirm the importance of a balanced gut microflora biodiversity in host immune homeostasis and reinforce the notion that inadequate antibiotic therapy can have detrimental effects on overall immune system.

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.

Short-term systemic prophylaxis with cefoxitin and doxycycline in colorectal surgery. A prospective, randomized study

The efficacy of cefoxitin or doxycycline as antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery was compared in 102 elective operations. Both drugs were used perioperatively only. Cefoxitin was used in 55 cases and doxycycline in 47. Ten patients in the cefoxitin group and 4 in doxycycline group had wound infections. Three intraabdominal abscesses were seen, one after cefoxitin and two after doxycycline prophylaxis. All three were due to anastomotic leakage. Bacteriologic studies revealed no negative ecologic effects of prophylaxis. The short-term prophylaxis used did protect against serious infectious complications. The extended spectrum of cefoxitin provided no added benefit in prophylaxis. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease treated preoperatively with salicylazosulfapyridine run a greater risk of postoperative infection in spite of the prophylaxis.

A comparison of intravenous and oral metronidazole as prophylactic in colorectal surgery

In a prospective randomized double-blind trial we have compared oral (n = 46) and parenteral prophylaxis (n = 51) with metronidazole in elective colonic resection. All patients received oral or intravenous metronidazole, together with oral neomycin. The overall infection rate was 11.3 per cent. Six out of 46 patients in the oral group (13 per cent) had a wound infection postoperatively compared with 5 out of 51 patients who received intravenous metronidazole (9.8 per cent). These results suggest that there is no significant difference whether metronidazole is administered intravenously of orally as a prophylactic in elective colonic surgery.