Is Single-Dose Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Sufficient to Control Infections in Gastrointestinal Oncological Surgeries?

Antibiotics for preventing infection at the surgical site: Single dose vs. multiple doses

Background

Surgical site infections are common and expensive infections that can cause fatalities or poor patient outcomes. To prevent these infections, antibiotic prophylaxis is used. However, excessive antibiotic use is related to higher costs and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance.

Objectives

The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in preventing the development of surgical site infections.

Methods

PubMed was used to find clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in avoiding the development of surgical site infections. The study included trials that were published between 1984 and 2022. Seventy-four clinical trials were included in the analysis. Odds ratios were used to compare groups with 95% confidence intervals. The data were displayed using OR to generate a forest plot. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4) was used to do the meta-analysis.

Results

Regarding clean operations, there were 389 surgical site infections out of 5,634 patients in a single dose group (6.90%) and 349 surgical site infections out of 5,621 patients in multiple doses group (6.21%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.95, upper CI = 1.30). Regarding clean-contaminated operations, there were 137 surgical site infections out of 2,715 patients in a single dose group (5.05%) and 137 surgical site infections out of 2,355 patients in multiple doses group (5.82%) (OR = 0.87, lower CI = 0.68, upper CI = 1.11). Regarding contaminated operations, there were 302 surgical site infections out of 3,262 patients in a single dose group (9.26%) and 276 surgical site infections out of 3,212 patients in multiple doses group (8.59%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.84, upper CI = 1.47). In general, there were 828 surgical site infections out of 11,611 patients in a single dose group (7.13%) and 762 surgical site infections out of 11,188 patients in multiple doses group (6.81%) (OR = 1.05, lower CI = 0.93, upper CI = 1.20). The difference between groups was not significant.

Conclusion

The present study showed that using a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was equally effective as using multiple doses of antibiotics in decreasing surgical site infections.

Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Reduces the Rate of Surgical Site Infection in Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Surgical site infection occurs with high frequency in gastrointestinal surgery, contributing to the high incidence of morbidity and mortality. The accepted practice worldwide for the prevention of surgical site infection is providing single- or multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis. However, most suitable antibiotic and optimal duration of prophylaxis are still debated. The aim of the systematic review is to assess the efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis in controlling surgical site infection rate following esophagogastric surgery. PubMed and Cochrane databases were systematically searched until 31 October 2021, for randomized controlled trials comparing different antimicrobial regimens in prevention surgical site infections. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods. Overall, eight studies concerning gastric surgery and one study about esophageal surgery met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were detected between single- and multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis. Most trials assessed the performance of cephalosporins or inhibitor of bacterial beta-lactamase. Antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) is effective in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. Multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis is not recommended for patients undergoing gastric surgery. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial prophylaxis in esophageal cancer patients.

Role of Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II Score in Predicting Outcomes of Peritonitis Due to Hollow Viscous Perforation: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) is the most commonly used severity-of-disease scoring system in ICUs worldwide. There is a paucity of data describing the role of APACHE II score in predicting outcomes of peritonitis due to hollow viscous perforation. This study aims at identifying the importance of the APACHE II score in predicting outcomes of patients with peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation.

Methods

The study is a prospective, observational study that included all the patients diagnosed with perforation peritonitis who underwent emergency laparotomy and were admitted to the Department of Surgery from May 2017 to May 2018. APACHE II scores were assigned to all patients in order to calculate their individual risk of mortality before undergoing emergency surgery. The accuracy in outcome prediction of the APACHE II system was assessed by means of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Pearson correlation coefficient and its significance test.

Result

A total of 50 patients with perforation peritonitis were included in this study. Peptic ulcer disease was the major etiology leading to perforation in 54% of patients, followed by gangrenous bowel. The mean APACHE II score was 9.54. Out of the 50 patients, seven patients succumbed to the illness. All the seven patients whose APACHE II score > 16 developed systemic complications, and three of them developed a local complication.

Conclusion

APACHE II score correlated well with the outcome in the current study, and APACHE II score also correlated well with the hospital and ICU stay.