Abdominal sepsis

Purpose of review To summarize the recent evidence on the treatment of abdominal sepsis with a specific emphasis on the surgical treatment. Recent findings A multitude of surgical approaches towards abdominal sepsis are practised. Recent evidence shows that immediate closure of the abdomen has a better outcome. A short course of antibiotics has a similar effect as a long course of antibiotics in patients with intra- abdominal infection without severe sepsis. Summary Management of abdominal sepsis requires a multidisciplinary approach. Closing the abdomen permanently after source control and only reopening it in case of deterioration of the patient without other ( percutaneous) options is the preferred strategy. There is no convincing evidence that damage control surgery is beneficial in patients with abdominal sepsis. If primary closure of the abdomen is impossible because of excessive visceral edema, delayed closure using negative pressure therapy with continuous mesh- mediated fascial traction shows the best result

Perioperative care bundles for the prevention of surgical-site infections: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Care bundles are used widely to prevent surgical-site infections (SSIs). Recent systematic reviews suggested larger effects from bundles with more interventions. These reviews were largely based on uncontrolled before-after studies and did not consider their biases. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of care bundles to prevent SSIs and explore characteristics of effective care bundles. METHODS: A systematic review, reanalysis, and meta-analysis of available evidence were undertaken. RCTs, controlled before-after studies, and uncontrolled before-after studies with sufficient data for reanalysis as interrupted time series studies (ITS) were eligible. Studies investigating the use of a care bundle, with at least one intraoperative intervention, compared with standard care were included. RESULTS: Four RCTs, 1 controlled before-after study, and 13 ITS were included. Pooled data from RCTs were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis of ITS resulted in a level change of -1.16 (95 per cent c.i.-1.78 to -0.53), indicating a reduction in SSI. The effect was larger when the care bundle comprised a higher proportion of evidence-based interventions. Meta-regression analyses did not show statistically significant associations between effect estimates and number of interventions, number of evidence-based interventions, or proportion of evidence-based interventions. CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis of ITS indicated that perioperative care bundles prevent SSI. This effect is inconsistent across RCTs. Larger bundles were not associated with a larger effect, but the effect may be larger if the care bundle contains a high proportion of evidence-based interventions. No strong evidence for characteristics of effective care bundles was identified

Intraoperative Redosing of Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Addition to Preoperative Prophylaxis Versus Single-dose Prophylaxis for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: A Meta-analysis and GRADE Recommendation

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) with additional intraoperative redosing compared to single-dose preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Preoperative SAP is standard care for the prevention of SSI. During long surgical procedures, additional intraoperative redosing of SAP is advised, but there is great variability in redosing strategies and compliance rates. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL on June 25th, 2021 according to PROSPERO registration CRD42021229035. We included studies that compared the effect of preoperative SAP with additional intraoperative redosing to single dose preoperative SAP (no redosing) on SSI incidence in patients undergoing any type of surgery. Two researchers performed data appraisal and extraction of summary data independently. Meta-analyses were stratified per study type. We used a generic inverse variance random-effects model to estimate a pooled odds ratio with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 2 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 8 cohort studies comprising of 9470 patients. Pooled odds ratios for SSI in patients receiving intraoperative redosing compared to those without redosing were 0.47 (95% CI: 0.19-1.16. I2 = 36%) for RCTs and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79, I2 = 56%) for observational cohorts. There was considerable clinical heterogeneity among antibiotics used and redosing protocols. GRADE-assessment showed overall low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative redosing of SAP may reduce incidence of SSI compared to a single dose preoperative SAP in any type of surgery, based on studies with considerable heterogeneity of antibiotic regimens and redosing protocols

Effect of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Antibiotic prophylaxis is frequently continued for 1 day or more after surgery to prevent surgical site infection. Continuing antibiotic prophylaxis after an operation might have no advantage compared with its immediate discontinuation, and it unnecessarily exposes patients to risks associated with antibiotic use. In 2016, WHO recommended discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery. We aimed to update the evidence that formed the basis for that recommendation. METHODS For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and WHO regional medical databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis that were published from Jan 1, 1990, to July 24, 2018. RCTs comparing the effect of postoperative continuation versus discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of surgical site infection in patients undergoing any surgical procedure with an indication for antibiotic prophylaxis were eligible. The primary outcome was the effect of postoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis continuation versus its immediate discontinuation on the occurrence of surgical site infection, with a prespecified subgroup analysis for studies that did and did not adhere to current best practice standards for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) with corresponding 95% CIs using a random effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). We evaluated heterogeneity with the χ2 test, I2, and τ2, and visually assesed publication bias with a contour-enhanced funnel plot. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017060829. FINDINGS We identified 83 relevant RCTs, of which 52 RCTs with 19 273 participants were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled RR of surgical site infection with postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis versus its immediate discontinuation was 0·89 (95% CI 0·79-1·00), with low heterogeneity in effect size between studies (τ2=0·001, χ2 p=0·46, I2=0·7%). Our prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant association between the effect estimate and adherence to best practice standards of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis: the RR of surgical site infection was reduced with continued antibiotic prophylaxis after surgery compared with its immediate discontinuation in trials that did not meet best practice standards (0·79 [95% CI 0·67-0·94]) but not in trials that did (1·04 [0·85-1·27]; p=0·048). Whether studies adhered to best practice standards explained all variance in the pooled estimate from the primary meta-analysis. INTERPRETATION Overall, we identified no conclusive evidence for a benefit of postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis over its discontinuation. When best practice standards were followed, postoperative continuation of antibiotic prophylaxis did not yield any additional benefit in reducing the incidence of surgical site infection. These findings support WHO recommendations against this practice. FUNDING None

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections.

BACKGROUND Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. To reduce SSIs, prophylactic intra-operative wound irrigation (pIOWI) has been advocated, although the results to date are equivocal. To develop recommendations for the new World Health Organization (WHO) SSI prevention guidelines, a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis were conducted on the effectiveness of pIOWI using different agents as a means of reducing SSI. METHODS The PUBMED, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and WHO databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either pIOWI with no pIOWI or with pIOWI using different solutions and techniques were retrieved with SSI as the primary outcome. Meta-analyses were performed, and odds ratios (OR) and the mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random effects model. RESULTS Twenty-one studies were suitable for analysis, and a distinction was made between intra-peritoneal, mediastinal, and incisional wound irrigation. A low quality of evidence demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for incisional wound irrigation with an aqueous povidone-iodine (PVP-I) solution in clean and clean contaminated wounds (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.73; p = 0.007); 50 fewer SSIs per 1,000 procedures (from 19 fewer to 64 fewer)). Antibiotic irrigation had no significant effect in reducing SSIs (OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.64-2.12; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION Low-quality evidence suggests considering the use of prophylactic incisional wound irrigation to prevent SSI with an aqueous povidone-iodine solution. Antibiotic irrigation does not show a benefit and therefore is discouraged

Timing of Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Surgical Site Infection: TAPAS, An Observational Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that surgical site infection (SSI) risk differs, after administration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) within 60-30 or 30-0 minutes before incision. BACKGROUND: The importance of appropriate timing of SAP before surgery has long been recognized. However, available evidence is contradictive on the best timing within a 60-0 minutes time interval before incision. Here, we aim to evaluate previous contradictions with a carefully designed observational cohort. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted in a Dutch tertiary referral center. For 2 years, consecutive patients with SAP indication undergoing general, orthopedic, or gynecologic surgery were followed for the occurrence of superficial and deep SSI as defined by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. The association between timing of SAP and SSI was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: After 3001 surgical procedures, 161 SSIs were detected. In 87% of the procedures, SAP was administered within 60 minutes before incision. Only antibiotics with short infusion time were used. Multivariable logistic regression indicated there was no conclusive evidence of a difference in SSI risk after SAP administration 60-30 minutes or 30-0 minutes before incision [odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval (0.57-1.19)]. CONCLUSIONS: For SAP with short infusion time no clear superior timing interval within the 60-minute interval before incision could be identified in this cohort. We were unable to reproduce differences in SSI risk found in earlier studies

Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health protection programme for the prevention of surgical site infections after elective abdominal surgery (EPOCH): Study protocol of a randomised controlled, multicentre, superiority trial

Introduction Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common postoperative complication. During the development of the new WHO guidelines on SSI prevention, also in the Netherlands was concluded that perioperative care could be optimised beyond the current standard practice. We selected a limited set of readily available, cheap and evidence-based interventions from these new guidelines that are not part of standard practice in the Netherlands and formulated an Enhanced PeriOperative Care and Health bundle (EPOCH). Here, we describe the protocol for an open-label, randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial to test the effect of the EPOCH bundle added to (national) standard care in comparison to standard care alone on the incidence of SSI. Methods and analysis EPOCH consists of intraoperative high fractional inspired oxygen (0.80); goal-directed fluid therapy; active preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative warming; perioperative glucose control and treatment of severe hyperglycaemia (>10 mmol l-1) and standardised surgical site handling. Patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery with an incision larger than 5 cm are eligible for inclusion. Participants are randomised daily, 1:1 according to variable block sizes, and stratified per participating centre to either EPOCH added to standard care or standard care only. The primary endpoint will be SSI incidence according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition within 30 days as part of routine clinical follow-up. Four additional questionnaires will be sent out over the course of 90 days to capture disability and costs. Other secondary endpoints include anastomotic leakage, incidence of incisional hernia, serious adverse events, hospital readmissions, length of stay and cost effectiveness. Analysis of the primary endpoint will be on an intention-to-treat basis. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference 2015_121). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and summaries shared with stakeholders. This protocol is published before analysis of the results. Trial registration number Registered in the Dutch Trial Register: NL5572