Short-term prophylaxis in clean-contaminated surgery

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of levofloxacin in bronchial mucosa and lung tissue of patients undergoing pulmonary operation

Levofloxacin is a major antimicrobial agent that is used for the treatment of community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). The present study was designed to investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of levofloxacin in bronchial mucosa and lung tissue. A total of 32 patients undergoing pulmonary surgery were randomly assigned to one of four groups (8 subjects/group). All patients received a single dose of 500 mg levofloxacin orally prior to the operation. Blood, lung tissue and bronchial mucosa samples were collected prior to treatment and at 1.5, 4, 8, 12 and 24 h following treatment. The drug concentration was determined and PK and PD profiles were calculated using MATLAB software. The peak concentration of levofloxacin was 7.0±1.2 µg/g in lung tissues and 9.4±2.1 µg/g in bronchial mucosa. The corresponding area under the curve between 0 and 24 h (AUC0-24) was 85.7±8.5 and 137.3±19.4 µg h/g. The mean permeability of levofloxacin (ratio of concentration in tissue to that in plasma) was 2.4 in lung tissue and 4.4 in the bronchial mucosa. The PK profiles of levofloxacin in the plasma, lung and bronchial mucosa were described using an integrated one-compartment model. The probability of fAUC0-24/minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) target attainment of levofloxacin against Streptococcus pneumoniae in the lung and bronchial mucosa was maintained at 100% when MIC ≤1 mg/l, while the cumulative fraction of fAUC0-24/MIC in the corresponding tissues was 94.4 and 98.1%, respectively. The present study demonstrated the high permeability of levofloxacin in the lung and bronchial mucosa of patients undergoing pulmonary surgery. In conclusion, treatment using 500 mg levofloxacin exhibits good clinical and microbiological efficacy for use in LRTIs that are caused by S. pneumoniae. This trial was registered retrospectively in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on January 13, 2020 (registration no. ChiCTR2000029096).

Risk factors for perineal wound infection after abdominoperineal resection of advanced lower rectal cancer

PURPOSE

Abdominoperineal resection (APR) of advanced lower rectal cancer carries a high incidence of perineal wound infection. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate risk factors for perineal wound infection after APR.

METHODS

The study group comprised 154 patients who underwent APR for advanced lower rectal cancer in our department from January 1990 through December 2012. The following 15 variables were studied as potential risk factors for perineal wound infection: sex, age, body-mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, diabetes mellitus, preoperative albumin level, preoperative hemoglobin level, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy(NCRT), surgical procedure (open surgery vs. laparoscopic surgery), operation time, bleeding volume, intraoperative transfusion, tumor diameter, invasion depth, and histopathological stage.

RESULTS

Among the 154 patients, 30 (19%) had perineal wound infection. Univariate analysis showed that a hemoglobin level of ≤11 g/dL (p = 0.001) and NCRT (p = 0.001) were significantly related to perineal wound infection. On multivariate analysis including the preoperative albumin level (≤3.5 g/dL) in addition to the above 2 variables, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) was the only independent risk factor for perineal wound infection. Perineal wound infection developed in 31% of patients who received NCRT, as compared with 10% of patients who did not receive NCRT. The relative risk of perineal infection in the former group was 4.092 as compared with the latter group (p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

NCRT is a risk factor for perineal wound infection after APR in patients with advanced lower rectal cancer.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery: An Observational Prospective Study Conducted in a Large Teaching Hospital in Naples

This was a 9-month observational prospective study conducted in two steps to evaluate surgical prophylaxis procedures used by surgeons in several departments of the Second University of Naples (SUN). In step 1 (4 months), we collected and analyzed data on surgical interventions and antibiotic prophylaxis. Surgeons were informed of the analysis outcome and were given an antibiotic prophylaxis protocol based on international guidelines. In step 2 (5 months), we collected data on surgical interventions and antibiotic prophylaxis, and compared them with step 1 data. The analysis of 354 forms (step 1) showed that third-generation cephalosporins were the preferred prophylactic antibiotics. The analysis of 369 forms (step 2) showed that ceftriaxone and ampicillin were the most frequently used antibiotics. Surgeons did not comply with guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis as regards type of antibiotic and treatment duration but implementation of antibiotic prophylaxis protocols resulted in more appropriate and better timing of antibiotic prophylaxis.

[Pharmacoeconomic results of introducing antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery at a university hospital]

OBJECTIVES

The introduction of antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery was designed and pre-intervention (controls) and post-intervention (cases) evaluations were carried out at a university tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Prospective recording of information on prophylaxis in all patients undergoing non-emergency abdominal surgery was analysed during a 3-week period before and after implementing an antimicrobial prophylaxis program. Adequacy of prophylaxis was defined as prescription of antibiotics (type, dose and duration of treatment) according to the Guidelines.

RESULTS

In the pre-intervention study: included 36 patients; prophylaxis was inadequate in all patients (long-term in 22 cases; antibiotic class and long-term in 2 cases; antibiotic class, dose and long-term in 12 cases); mean duration of prophylaxis was 6 days (range 1 to 10 days); mean antibiotic cost per patient was 77 euro (range 9 to 412 euro); overall antibiotic cost for the 36 patients was 2770 euro. In the post-intervention study: included 37 patients: prophylaxis was inadequate in 11 patients (long-term in 10 cases; antibiotic class and long-term in 1 case); mean duration of prophylaxis was 2 days (range 1 to 9 days); mean antibiotic cost per patient was 16 euro (range 2 to 78 euro); overall antibiotic cost for the 37 patients was 593 euro. In the pre-intervention period antibiotic cost was 38 times higher than expected. In the post-intervention period it was 1.6 times higher than expected.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common reason of prophylaxis inadequacy is prolonged antibiotic treatment. A multidisciplinary intervention that comprises infectious diseases, surgical and pharmacy departments improves prophylaxis prescribing practice and avoids erroneous prescribing of antibiotics with both microbiological and economical cost savings.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postpartum perineal wound complications: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To estimate whether prophylactic antibiotics at the time of repair of third- or fourth-degree perineal tears after vaginal delivery prevent wound infection and breakdown.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Patients who sustained third- or fourth-degree perineal tears after a vaginal delivery were recruited for the study. Each patient was given a single intravenous dose of a second-generation cephalosporin (cefotetan or cefoxitin) or placebo before repair of third- or fourth-degree perineal tears. Obstetricians and patients were blinded to study drug. The perineum was inspected for evidence of infection or breakdown at discharge from the hospital and at 2 weeks postpartum. Primary end points were gross disruption or purulent discharge at site of perineal repair by 2 weeks postpartum.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients were recruited for the study. Of these, 83 patients received placebo and 64 patients received antibiotics. Forty patients (27.2%) did not return for their 2-week appointment. Of the patients seen at 2 weeks postpartum, 4 of 49 (8.2%) patients who received antibiotics and 14 of 58 (24.1%) patients who received placebo developed a perineal wound complication (P=.037). There were no differences between groups in parity, incidence of diabetes, operative delivery, or third-degree compared with fourth-degree lacerations.

CONCLUSION

By 2 weeks postpartum, patients who received prophylactic antibiotics at the time of third- or fourth-degree laceration repair had a lower rate of perineal wound complications than patients who received placebo.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clincaltrials.gov, NCT00186082.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intravenous Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Alone with Oral and Intravenous Antimicrobial Prophylaxis for the Prevention of a Surgical Site Infection in Colorectal Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

The use of preoperative oral antibiotics during preparation for elective colorectal surgery remains controversial. This was a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone with combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical site infection (SSI) in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Five hundred patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 491 were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis or combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI within 6 weeks of elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

The incidence of SSI was similar in the two treatment groups: intravenous alone, 10.7%; and oral and intravenous, 7.0% (difference 3.7%; 95% confidence interval -4.8% to 5.6%). No critical adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The addition of oral antibiotics to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis showed no advantage in the prevention of SSI.

Prospective, randomised study on antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Is it really necessary to use oral antibiotics?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in addition to mechanical cleansing is the current standard of care prior to colonic surgery. The question of whether the antibiotics should be administered intravenously or orally, or by both routes, remains controversial. Our aim was to compare three methods of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred consecutive elective colorectal resections were studied. All patients had preoperative mechanical colon cleansing with oral sodium phosphate and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis with cefoxitin (one dose before skin incision and two postoperative doses). Patients were randomised to one of the following three groups: group A: three doses of oral antibiotic (neomycin and metronidazole) at the time of mechanical colon cleansing; group B: one dose of oral antibiotic; group C: no oral antibiotics. All patients were followed during their hospital stay and at 7, 14 and 30 days post-surgery.

RESULTS

Vomiting occurred in 31%, 11% and 9% of the studied patients (groups A, B and C, respectively) (p<0.001). Nausea was present in 44%, 18% and 13% of patients (p<0.001). Abdominal pain was recorded in 13%, 10% and 4% of patients (p: 0.077). Wound infection was present in 7%, 8% and 6% and suture dehiscence occurred in 2%, 2% and 3% of the patients in the three groups (no differences among them). Neither were differences found among the three groups in terms of urinary infections, pneumonia, postoperative ileus or intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSION

The addition of three doses of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with lower patient tolerance in terms of increased nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain, and has shown no advantages in the prevention of postoperative septic complications. Therefore, we recommend that oral antibiotics should not be used prior to colorectal surgery.

Rifaximin, a poorly absorbed antibiotic: pharmacology and clinical potential

Rifaximin (4-deoxy-4'-methylpyrido[1',2'-1,2]imidazo- [5,4-c]-rifamycin SV) is a synthetic antibiotic designed to modify the parent compound, rifamycin, in order to achieve low gastrointestinal (GI) absorption while retaining good antibacterial activity. Both experimental and clinical pharmacology clearly show that this compound is a nonsystemic antibiotic with a broad spectrum of antibacterial action covering Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms, both aerobes and anaerobes. Being virtually nonabsorbed, its bioavailability within the GI tract is rather high with intraluminal and fecal drug concentrations that largely exceed the minimal inhibitory concentration values observed in vitro against a wide range of pathogenic organisms. The GI tract represents, therefore, the primary therapeutic target and GI infections the main indication. The appreciation of the pathogenic role of gut bacteria in several organic and functional GI diseases has increasingly broadened its clinical use, which is now extended to hepatic encephalopathy, small intestine bacterial overgrowth, inflammatory bowel disease and colonic diverticular disease. Potential indications include the irritable bowel syndrome and chronic constipation, Clostridium difficile infection and bowel preparation before colorectal surgery. Because of its antibacterial activity against the microorganism and the lack of strains with primary resistance, some preliminary studies have explored the rifaximin potential for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Oral administration of this drug, by getting rid of enteric bacteria, could also be employed to achieve selective bowel decontamination in acute pancreatitis, liver cirrhosis (thus preventing spontaneous bacterial peritonitis) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use (lessening in that way NSAID enteropathy). This antibiotic has, therefore, little value outside the enteric area and this will minimize both antimicrobial resistance and systemic adverse events. Indeed, the drug proved to be safe in all patient populations, including young children. Although rifaximin has stood the test of time, it still attracts the attention of both basic scientists and clinicians. As a matter of fact, with the advancement of the knowledge on microbial-gut interactions in health and disease novel indications and new drug regimens are being explored. Besides widening the clinical use, the research on rifaximin is also focused on the synthesis of new derivatives and on the development of original formulations designed to expand the spectrum of its clinical use.