Are there Patients with Peritonitis Who Require Empiric Therapy for Enterococcus?

Enterococci are an increasingly important cause of nosocomial infections. While the clinical impact of enterococci in cases of bacteremia and super-infections in selected patient populations has been well-established, their role as primary pathogens in polymicrobial intra-abdominal infections remains controversial. While it has been suggested that the presence of enterococci increases the rate of infectious post-operative complication, it has also been demonstrated that polymicrobial intra-abdominal infections involving enterococci can be treated successfully with appropriate surgical drainage and antibiotics, such as cephalosporins, that are not active against enterococci. Therefore, the question arises of whether or not antibiotic coverage against enterococci should be included in the empirical treatment of peritonitis in certain high-risk patient populations. An extensive literature review revealed some evidence arguing in favour of using empirical therapy with enterococcal coverage for intra-abdominal infections in the following cases: (i) immunocompromised patients with nosocomial, post-operative peritonitis; (ii) patients with severe sepsis of abdominal origin who have previously received cephalosporins and other broad-spectrum antibiotics selecting for Enterococcus spp.; (iii) patients with peritonitis and valvular heart disease or prosthetic intravascular material, which place them at high risk of endocarditis. The ideal therapeutic regimen for these high-risk patients remains to be determined, but empirical therapy directed against enterococci should be considere

A Randomized Prospective Study of Cefepime Plus Metronidazole with Imipenem-Cilastatin in the Treatment of Intra-abdominal Infections

Abstract : Background: : Presumptive antimicrobial therapy is an important aspect of the management of intra-abdominal infections. Together with surgery, antimicrobial combinations are still widely used to achieve the required spectrum of activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of parenteral cefepime + metronidazole vs imipenemcilastatin for the treatment of intra-abdominal infections in adult patients. Methods: : Patients with a clinically confirmed diagnosis of intra-abdominal infection were randomized to one of two treatment regimens: cefepime 2 g iv/12 h plus metronidazole 500 mg/8 h or imipenem-cilastatin 500 mg iv/6 h. The primary measure of clinical response was the decline of pre-treatment signs and symptoms of infection. The duration of follow-up was 30 days. Treatment failure was defined as either a lack of improvement or a worsening of pre-treatment signs and symptoms of infection. Surgical management of the infection was determined by the surgeon-in-charge. Results: : Of the 122 intended-to-treat patients included in the study, 60 patients (33 men) were randomized to cefepime + metronidazole and 61 (27 men) to imipenemcilastatin. Cefepime + metronidazole treatment was successful in 52 (87%) patients and imipenem-cilastatin in 44 (72%) patients (p = 0.004). Microbiological eradication was established in similar proportions in both groups (cefepime + metronidazole, 43; imipenem-cilastatin, 38). Conclusion: : Further studies are warranted to confirm the better results with the cefepime + metronidazole regimen for the treatment of intra-abdominal infection

Multicenter Evaluation of a Novel Surveillance Paradigm for Complications of Mechanical Ventilation

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance is time consuming, subjective, inaccurate, and inconsistently predicts outcomes. Shifting surveillance from pneumonia in particular to complications in general might circumvent the VAP definition's subjectivity and inaccuracy, facilitate electronic assessment, make interfacility comparisons more meaningful, and encourage broader prevention strategies. We therefore evaluated a novel surveillance paradigm for ventilator-associated complications (VAC) defined by sustained increases in patients' ventilator settings after a period of stable or decreasing support.We assessed 600 mechanically ventilated medical and surgical patients from three hospitals. Each hospital contributed 100 randomly selected patients ventilated 2-7 days and 100 patients ventilated >7 days. All patients were independently assessed for VAP and for VAC. We compared incidence-density, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, and time required for surveillance for VAP and for VAC. A subset of patients with VAP and VAC were independently reviewed by a physician to determine possible etiology.Of 597 evaluable patients, 9.3% had VAP (8.8 per 1,000 ventilator days) and 23% had VAC (21.2 per 1,000 ventilator days). Compared to matched controls, both VAP and VAC prolonged days to extubation (5.8, 95% CI 4.2-8.0 and 6.0, 95% CI 5.1-7.1 respectively), days to intensive care discharge (5.7, 95% CI 4.2-7.7 and 5.0, 95% CI 4.1-5.9), and days to hospital discharge (4.7, 95% CI 2.6-7.5 and 3.0, 95% CI 2.1-4.0). VAC was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.2) but VAP was not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.4). VAC assessment was faster (mean 1.8 versus 39 minutes per patient). Both VAP and VAC events were predominantly attributable to pneumonia, pulmonary edema, ARDS, and atelectasis.Screening ventilator settings for VAC captures a similar set of complications to traditional VAP surveillance but is faster, more objective, and a superior predictor of outcomes

Red flags for the early detection of spinal infection in back pain patients

© 2019 The Author(s). Background: Red flags are signs and symptoms that are possible indicators of serious spinal pathology. There is limited evidence or guidance on how red flags should be used in practice. Due to the lack of robust evidence for many red flags their use has been questioned. The aim was to conduct a systematic review specifically reporting on studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of red flags for Spinal Infection in patients with low back pain. Methods: Searches were carried out to identify the literature from inception to March 2019. The databases searched were Medline, CINHAL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Pedro, OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report. Two reviewers screened article texts, one reviewer extracted data and details of each study, a second reviewer independently checked a random sample of the data extracted. Results: Forty papers met the eligibility criteria. A total of 2224 cases of spinal infection were identified, of which 1385 (62%) were men and 773 (38%) were women mean age of 55 (± 8) years. In total there were 46 items, 23 determinants and 23 clinical features. Spinal pain (72%) and fever (55%) were the most common clinical features, Diabetes (18%) and IV drug use (9%) were the most occurring determinants. MRI was the most used radiological test and Staphylococcus aureus (27%), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (12%) were the most common microorganisms detected in cases. Conclusion: The current evidence surrounding red flags for spinal infection remains small, it was not possible to assess the diagnostic accuracy of red flags for spinal infection, as such, a descriptive review reporting the characteristics of those presenting with spinal infection was carried out. In our review, spinal infection was common in those who had conditions associated with immunosuppression. Additionally, the most frequently reported clinical feature was the classic triad of spinal pain, fever and neurological dysfunction. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Implementation of a quality improvement project on smoking cessation reduces smoking in a high risk trauma patient population

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the U.S. each year. In 2013 the prevalence of smoking in our institution’s trauma population was 26.7 %, well above the national adult average of 18.1 % according to the CDC website. As a quality improvement project we implemented a multimodality smoking cessation program in a high-risk trauma population. METHODS: All smokers with independent mental capacity admitted to our level I trauma center from 6/1/2014 until 3/31/2015 were counseled by a physician on the benefits of smoking cessation. Those who wished to quit smoking were given further counseling by a pulmonary rehabilitation nurse and offered nicotine replacement therapy (e.g. nicotine patch). A planned 30 day or later follow-up was performed to ascertain the primary endpoint of the total number of patients who quit smoking, with a secondary endpoint of reduction in the frequency of smoking, defined as at least a half pack per day reduction from their pre-intervention state. RESULTS: During the 9 month study period, 1066 trauma patients were admitted with 241 (22.6 %) identified as smokers. A total of 31 patients with a mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 14.2 (range 1–38), mean age of 47.6 (21–71) and mean years of smoking of 27.1 (2–55), wished to stop smoking. Seven of the 31 patients, (22.5 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] of 10–41 %) achieved self-reported smoking cessation at or beyond 30 days post discharge. An additional eight patients (25.8 %, 95 % CI 12–45 %) reported significant reduction in smoking. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients represent a high risk smoking population. The implementation of a smoking cessation program led to a smoking cessation rate of 22.5 % and smoking reduction in 25.8 % of all identified smokers who participated in the program. This is a relatively simple, inexpensive intervention with potentially far reaching and beneficial long-term health implications. A larger, multi-center prospective study appears warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Study, Level V evidence