An intraoperative irrigation regimen to reduce the surgical site infection rate following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a gentamicin antibiotic intraoperative irrigation regimen (regimen A) with a povidone-iodine intraoperative irrigation regimen (regimen B) and to evaluate the ability of adjunctive local vancomycin powder (regimen C) to reduce the surgical site infection (SSI) rate following idiopathic scoliosis correction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single centre, two-surgeon cohort study of paediatric scoliosis procedures involving 118 patients under the age of 18 years who underwent correction for idiopathic scoliosis over a period of 42 months. Patients' baseline characteristics, pseudarthrosis and rates of SSI were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in all three groups, with the exception of sex distribution. Over a quarter (27%) of patients with regimen B were male compared with 13% and 6% for regimens A and C respectively. Patients were mostly followed up for a minimum of 12 months. The SSI rate for both superficial and deep infections was higher with regimen A (26.7%) than with regimens B and C (7.0% and 6.3% respectively). The SSI rates for regimens B and C were comparable. No patients developed complications related to vancomycin toxicity, metalwork failure or pseudarthrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Wound irrigation with a povidone-iodine solution reduces SSIs following adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery. The direct application of vancomycin powder to the wound is safe but does not reduce the SSI rate further in low risk patients. Additional studies are needed to elucidate whether it is effective at higher doses and in high risk patient groups.

Risk Features for Surgical-Site Infections in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

OBJECTIVE: To identify preoperative and perioperative features that may lead to a risk of surgical-site infection (SSI) after coronary artery bypass surgery.

DESIGN: 884 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting in 1992 and 1993 were studied. The associations between 23 preoperative and perioperative features and the presence of SSI at the donor site or in the chest area were evaluated by univariate analysis followed by multivariate logistic regression analysis.

SETTING: A university hospital.

RESULTS: 172 patients (19.5%) either had an SSI recorded before discharge or had received antibiotics prescribed for a suspected SSI during the 1-month surveillance period after discharge. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed an extreme body mass index (BMI;P=.015), female gender (P=.023), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD;P=.030) to be independent risk features for SSI. The donor site was infected in 136 patients (15.4%), an event for which female gender (P=.003) was the only independent risk feature. Forty-seven patients (5.3%) had an SSI of the chest area, with diabetes (P=.003) and extreme BMI (P=.010) as independent risk features.

CONCLUSION: Extreme BMI, female gender, and COPD are highly significant independent predictors of the development of SSI. Female gender is a risk feature specifically for SSI at the donor site, whereas diabetes and extreme BMI predict it in the chest area.

Impact of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevalence among S. aureus Isolates on Surgical Site Infection Risk after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Objective.

Cephalosporins are recommended for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent cardiothoracic surgical site infections (SSIs) except in patients withβ-lactam allergy or in settings with a “high” prevalence of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) among S.aureusisolates (hereafter, “MRSA prevalence”); however, “high” remains undefined. We sought to identify the MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis would minimize SSIs relative toβ-lactam prophylaxis.

Methods.

We developed a decision analysis model to estimate SSI likelihood when either glycopeptides orβ-lactams were used for prophylaxis in cardiothoracic surgery. Event probabilities were derived from a systematic literature review. A similar cost-minimization model was also developed.

Results.

At 0% MRSA prevalence, SSI probability was 3.64% with glycopeptide prophylaxis and 3.49% withβ-lactam prophylaxis. At MRSA prevalences of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%, SSI probabilities with glycopeptide prophylaxis did not change, but they were 3.98%, 4.48%, 4.97%, and 5.47% withβ-lactam prophylaxis. The threshold of MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis minimized SSI probability and cost was 3%. In sensitivity analyses, variations in most model estimates only modestly affected the threshold.

Conclusion.

Glycopeptide prophylaxis minimizes the risk of SSIs and cost when MRSA prevalence exceeds 3%. At very low MRSA prevalence (between 3% and 10%), the SSI minimization provided by glycopeptide prophylaxis is small and may be within the error of the model. Given the current MRSA prevalence in most community and healthcare settings, clinicians should consider routine prophylaxis with vancomycin. Our findings may have important policy implications, as benefits in cardiothoracic surgery antibiotic prophylaxis must be weighed against the limitations of increased glycopeptide use.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) related complications in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection after surgery is generally low, but affects up to 33% of patients after certain types of surgery. Postoperative MRSA infection can occur as surgical site infections (SSIs), chest infections, or bloodstream infections (bacteraemia). The incidence of MRSA SSIs varies from 1% to 33% depending upon the type of surgery performed and the carrier status of the individuals concerned. The optimal prophylactic antibiotic regimen for the prevention of MRSA after surgery is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of all methods of antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of postoperative MRSA infection and related complications in people undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2013 we searched the following databases: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (The Cochrane Library); NHS Economic Evaluation Database (The Cochrane Library); Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid EMBASE; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one antibiotic regimen used as prophylaxis for SSIs (and other postoperative infections) with another antibiotic regimen or with no antibiotic, and that reported the methicillin resistance status of the cultured organisms. We did not limit our search for RCTs by language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion in the review, and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups and planned to calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We planned to perform meta-analysis using both a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 RCTs, with 4704 participants, in this review. Eleven trials performed a total of 16 head-to-head comparisons of different prophylactic antibiotic regimens. Antibiotic prophylaxis was compared with no antibiotic prophylaxis in one trial. All the trials were at high risk of bias. With the exception of one trial in which all the participants were positive for nasal carriage of MRSA or had had previous MRSA infections, it does not appear that MRSA was tested or eradicated prior to surgery; nor does it appear that there was high prevalence of MRSA carrier status in the people undergoing surgery.There was no sufficient clinical similarity between the trials to perform a meta-analysis. The overall all-cause mortality in four trials that reported mortality was 14/1401 (1.0%) and there were no significant differences in mortality between the intervention and control groups in each of the individual comparisons. There were no antibiotic-related serious adverse events in any of the 561 people randomised to the seven different antibiotic regimens in four trials (three trials that reported mortality and one other trial). None of the trials reported quality of life, total length of hospital stay or the use of healthcare resources. Overall, 221/4032 (5.5%) people developed SSIs due to all organisms, and 46/4704 (1.0%) people developed SSIs due to MRSA.In the 15 comparisons that compared one antibiotic regimen with another, there were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed SSIs. In the single trial that compared an antibiotic regimen with placebo, the proportion of people who developed SSIs was significantly lower in the group that received antibiotic prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav (or cefotaxime if allergic to penicillin) compared with placebo (all SSI: RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.65; MRSA SSI RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.83). In two trials that reported MRSA infections other than SSI, 19/478 (4.5%) people developed MRSA infections including SSI, chest infection and bacteraemia. There were no significant differences in the proportion of people who developed MRSA infections at any body site in these two comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylaxis with co-amoxiclav decreases the proportion of people developing MRSA infections compared with placebo in people without malignant disease undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy insertion, although this may be due to decreasing overall infection thereby preventing wounds from becoming secondarily infected with MRSA. There is currently no other evidence to suggest that using a combination of multiple prophylactic antibiotics or administering prophylactic antibiotics for an increased duration is of benefit to people undergoing surgery in terms of reducing MRSA infections. Well designed RCTs assessing the clinical effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens are necessary on this topic.

Impact of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prevalence among S. aureus isolates on surgical site infection risk after coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE

Cephalosporins are recommended for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent cardiothoracic surgical site infections (SSIs) except in patients with β-lactam allergy or in settings with a "high" prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among S. aureus isolates (hereafter, "MRSA prevalence"); however, "high" remains undefined. We sought to identify the MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis would minimize SSIs relative to β-lactam prophylaxis.

METHODS

We developed a decision analysis model to estimate SSI likelihood when either glycopeptides or β-lactams were used for prophylaxis in cardiothoracic surgery. Event probabilities were derived from a systematic literature review. A similar cost-minimization model was also developed.

RESULTS

At 0% MRSA prevalence, SSI probability was 3.64% with glycopeptide prophylaxis and 3.49% with β-lactam prophylaxis. At MRSA prevalences of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%, SSI probabilities with glycopeptide prophylaxis did not change, but they were 3.98%, 4.48%, 4.97%, and 5.47% with β-lactam prophylaxis. The threshold of MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis minimized SSI probability and cost was 3%. In sensitivity analyses, variations in most model estimates only modestly affected the threshold.

CONCLUSION

Glycopeptide prophylaxis minimizes the risk of SSIs and cost when MRSA prevalence exceeds 3%. At very low MRSA prevalence (between 3% and 10%), the SSI minimization provided by glycopeptide prophylaxis is small and may be within the error of the model. Given the current MRSA prevalence in most community and healthcare settings, clinicians should consider routine prophylaxis with vancomycin. Our findings may have important policy implications, as benefits in cardiothoracic surgery antibiotic prophylaxis must be weighed against the limitations of increased glycopeptide use.

Prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery

The recent appearance of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis strains that have reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, and the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci, raise the specter of endovascular infections that will be difficult or impossible to cure with available drugs. We review issues concerning the prophylactic use of vancomycin in adult cardiology and cardiac surgery with special attention to dosing and indications. There is no indication for the routine use of prophylactic vancomycin in pacemaker implantations, cardiac catheterization, and transesophageal echocardiography. In institutions with a high incidence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis, vancomycin may be used for antibiotic prophylaxis in place of cephalosporins for pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. The strongest evidence in support of the prophylactic use of vancomycin is during cardiac surgeries, particularly valvular surgeries in institutions with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus and S. epidermidis. When vancomycin is used prior to open heart surgery, the dose should be 15 mg/kg rather than the standard 1 g dose that is often recommended in the literature and used by 85% of institutional pharmacists who responded to our survey. Cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should assume leadership roles in promoting its responsible use.

Clinical, microbiological, and economic benefit of a change in antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac surgery

Vancomycin and rifampicin replaced cephazolin as antibiotic prophylaxis for coronary artery bypass surgery at our institution. Following this intervention, there was a significant decrease (P < .001) in the surgical-site infection rate from 10.5 (95% confidence interval, 8.2 to 13.3) to 4.9 (95% confidence interval, 3.2 to 7.1) infections per 100 procedures. An estimated $576,655 (Australian) was saved between two 12-month periods.

Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of vancomycin prophylaxis with that of cefazolin in preventing surgical site infections in a tertiary medical center with a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections.

METHODS

All adult patients (> or = 18 years) scheduled for cardiac surgery requiring sternotomy were randomly assigned to receive vancomycin (1 g every 12 hours) or cefazolin (1 g every 8 hours). Prophylaxis was started during the induction of anesthesia and continued for only 24 hours. Patients were followed up for at least 30 days (1 year for those receiving a cardiac implant). Surgical site infections were stratified according to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System risk index.

RESULTS

Of the 885 patients included in the study, 452 received vancomycin and 433 received cefazolin. The overall surgical site infection rates were similar in the two groups (43 cases in the vancomycin group, 9.5%, vs 39 cases in the cefazolin group, 9.0%, P =.8). Superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection rates were also similar in the two groups. There was a trend toward more frequent organ-space infections and infections with beta-lactam-resistant organisms among patients receiving cefazolin, but this trend did not reach statistical significance. In contrast, surgical site infections caused by methicillin-susceptible staphylococci were significantly more common in the vancomycin group (17 cases, 3.7%, vs 6 cases, 1.3%, P =.04). The durations of postoperative hospitalization and the mortalities were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial suggests that vancomycin and cefazolin have similar efficacy in preventing surgical site infections in cardiac surgery.

A randomized trial of surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis with and without vancomycin in organ transplant patients

BACKGROUND

Gram-positive organisms, including vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), have emerged as major pathogens on the organ transplant service at our institution. We hypothesized that our use of vancomycin as part of routine surgical prophylaxis increased the risk of VRE colonization and infection; conversely, there was concern that failure to use vancomycin prophylaxis would increase peri-operative morbidity due to gram-positive organisms.

METHODS

Renal transplant recipients (n = 88) were randomized to receive either a) vancomycin/ceftriaxone or b) cefazolin; and pancreas transplants (n = 24) to receive either a) vancomycin/gentamicin or b) cefazolin/gentamicin. Stool samples or rectal swabs were obtained for culture for enterococci within 24 h of transplantation and weekly while hospitalized.

RESULTS

Enterococci were isolated on stool culture from 38 (34%) of 102 patients at the time of transplantation; 4 (11%) of the isolates were VRE. The percentage of patients who subsequently acquired VRE was low (1-7% per wk) but remained constant during hospitalization. There was no association between new VRE detection and vancomycin use for either prophylactic or therapeutic purposes. Forty-four patients (39%) had a post-operative infection with 46% of these infections due to gram-positive organisms; rates were unaffected by prophylactic vancomycin use. Pancreas transplant patients who did not receive vancomycin prophylaxis had a significantly longer initial hospitalization (p = 0.03); however, differences were not statistically significant when total length of stay (LOS) within the first 90 d of transplantation was compared.

CONCLUSIONS

Vancomycin surgical prophylaxis does not appear to have an effect on VRE colonization or infection, or on rates of infection with gram-positive bacteria. Elimination of vancomycin prophylaxis in renal transplant patients may be a reasonable part of an overall program to limit vancomycin usage, although as a single measure, its impact may be minimal. Vancomycin surgical prophylaxis may be of greater importance in pancreas transplants.