Molecular characteristics of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in the Netherlands; results of the 2014–2018 national laboratory surveillance

Objectives: Carbapenem resistance mediated by mobile genetic elements has emerged worldwide and has become a major public health threat. To gain insight into the molecular epidemiology of carbapenem resistance in The Netherlands, Dutch medical microbiology laboratories are requested to submit suspected carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) to the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment as part of a national surveillance system. Methods: Meropenem MICs and species identification were confirmed by E-test and MALDI-TOF and carbapenemase production was assessed by the Carbapenem Inactivation Method. Of all submitted CPE, one species/carbapenemase gene combination per person per year was subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS). Results: In total, 1838 unique isolates were received between 2014 and 2018, of which 892 were unique CPE isolates with NGS data available. The predominant CPE species were Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 388, 43%), Escherichia coli (n = 264, 30%) and Enterobacter cloacae complex (n = 116, 13%). Various carbapenemase alleles of the same carbapenemase gene resulted in different susceptibilities to meropenem and this effect varied between species. Analyses of NGS data showed variation of prevalence of carbapenemase alleles over time with blaOXA-48 being predominant (38%, 336/892), followed by blaNDM-1 (16%, 145/892). For the first time in the Netherlands, blaOXA-181, blaOXA-232 and blaVIM-4 were detected. The genetic background of K. pneumoniae and E. coli isolates was highly diverse. Conclusions: The CPE population in the Netherlands is diverse, suggesting multiple introductions. The predominant carbapenemase alleles are blaOXA-48 and blaNDM-1. There was a clear association between species, carbapenemase allele and susceptibility to meropenem

Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site infections: a systematic review, GRADE assessment, and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554. FINDINGS: Overall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I(2)=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups. INTERPRETATION: For adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed. FUNDING: Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical care in the Netherlands

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a 13.6 per cent reduction in the number of surgical procedures performed was observed in 2020. Despite great pressure on healthcare, the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause an increase in adverse surgical outcomes, and oncological surgery-related duration of hospital and ICU stay were significantly shorter.Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018-2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018-2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.Lay Summary COVID-19 has had a significant impact on healthcare worldwide. Hospital visits were reduced, operating facilities were used for COVID-19 care, and cancer screening programmes were cancelled. This study describes the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dutch surgical healthcare in 2020. Patterns of care in terms of changed or delayed treatment are described for patients who had surgery in 2020, compared with those who had surgery in 2018-2019. The study found that mainly non-cancer surgical treatments were cancelled during months with high COVID-19 rates. Outcomes for patients undergoing surgery were similar but with fewer ICU admissions and shorter hospital stay. These data provide no insight into the burden endured by patients who had postponed or cancelled operations.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Histologic Factors Associated With Need for Surgery in Patients With Pedunculated T1 Colorectal Carcinomas

Background & Aims: Most patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors referred for surgery are not found to have lymph node metastases, and were therefore unnecessarily placed at risk for surgery-associated complications. We aimed to identify histologic factors associated with need for surgery in patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors. Methods: We performed a cohort-nested matched case–control study of 708 patients diagnosed with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors at 13 hospitals in The Netherlands, from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014, followed for a median of 44 months (interquartile range, 20–80 months). We identified 37 patients (5.2%) who required surgery (due to lymph node, intramural, or distant metastases). These patients were matched with patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal tumors without a need for surgery (no metastases, controls, n = 111). Blinded pathologists analyzed specimens from each tumor, stained with H&E. We evaluated associations between histologic factors and patient need for surgery using univariable conditional logistic regression analysis. We used multivariable least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO; an online version of the LASSO model is available at: http://t1crc.com/calculator/) regression to develop models for identification of patients with tumors requiring surgery, and tested the accuracy of our model by projecting our case–control data toward the entire cohort (708 patients). We compared our model with previously developed strategies to identify high-risk tumors: conventional model 1 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, or Haggitt level 4) and conventional model 2 (based on poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4, or tumor budding). Results: We identified 5 histologic factors that differentiated cases from controls: lymphovascular invasion, Haggitt level 4 invasion, muscularis mucosae type B (incompletely or completely disrupted), poorly differentiated clusters and tumor budding, which identified patients who required surgery with an area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.90). When we used a clinically plausible predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, 67.5% (478 of 708) of patients were predicted to not need surgery. This threshold identified patients who required surgery with 83.8% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 68.0%–93.8%) and 70.3% specificity (95% confidence interval, 60.9%–78.6%). Conventional models 1 and 2 identified patients who required surgery with lower AUC values (AUC, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.60–0.74; P =.002 and AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58–0.70; P <.001, respectively) than our LASSO model. When we applied our LASSO model with a predicted probability threshold of ≥4.0%, the percentage of missed cases (tumors mistakenly assigned as low risk) was comparable (6 of 478 [1.3%]) to that of conventional model 1 (4 of 307 [1.3%]) and conventional model 2 (3 of 244 [1.2%]). However, the percentage of patients referred for surgery based on our LASSO model was much lower (32.5%, n = 230) than that for conventional model 1 (56.6%, n = 401) or conventional model 2 (65.5%, n = 464). Conclusions: In a cohort-nested matched case–control study of 708 patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal carcinomas, we developed a model based on histologic features of tumors that identifies patients who require surgery (due to high risk of metastasis) with greater accuracy than previous models. Our model might be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from adjuvant surgery

Increased versus conventional adalimumab dose interval for patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission (LADI): a pragmatic, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite its effectiveness in treating Crohn's disease, adalimumab is associated with an increased risk of infections and high health-care costs. We aimed to assess clinical outcomes of increased adalimumab dose intervals versus conventional dosing in patients with Crohn's disease in stable remission. METHODS: The LADI study was a pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial, done in six academic hospitals and 14 general hospitals in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with luminal Crohn's disease (with or without concomitant perianal disease) were eligible when in steroid-free clinical and biochemical remission (defined as Harvey-Bradshaw Index [HBI] score <5, faecal calprotectin <150 μg/g, and C-reactive protein <10 mg/L) for at least 9 months on a stable dose of 40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab every 2 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the intervention group or control group by the coordinating investigator using a secure web-based system with variable block randomisation (block sizes of 6, 9, and 12). Randomisation was stratified on concomitant use of thiopurines and methotrexate. Patients and health-care providers were not masked to group assignment. Patients allocated to the intervention group increased adalimumab dose intervals to 40 mg every 3 weeks at baseline and further to every 4 weeks if they remained in clinical and biochemical remission at week 24. Patients in the control group continued their 2-weekly dose interval. The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of persistent flares at week 48 defined as the presence of at least two of the following criteria: HBI score of 5 or more, C-reactive protein 10 mg/L or more, and faecal calprotectin more than 250 μg/g for more than 8 weeks and a concurrent decrease in the adalimumab dose interval or start of escape medication. The non-inferiority margin was 15% on a risk difference scale. All analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03172377, and is not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between May 3, 2017, and July 6, 2020, 174 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=113) or the control group (n=61). Four patients from the intervention group and one patient from the control group were excluded from the analysis for not meeting inclusion criteria. 85 (50%) of 169 participants were female and 84 (50%) were male. At week 48, the cumulative incidence of persistent flares in the intervention group (three [3%] of 109) was non-inferior compared with the control group (zero; pooled adjusted risk difference 1·86% [90% CI -0·35 to 4·07). Seven serious adverse events occurred, all in the intervention group, of which two (both patients with intestinal obstruction) were possibly related to the intervention. Per 100 person-years, 168·35 total adverse events, 59·99 infection-related adverse events, and 42·57 gastrointestinal adverse events occurred in the intervention group versus 134·67, 75·03, and 5·77 in the control group, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The individual benefit of increasing adalimumab dose intervals versus the risk of disease recurrence is a trade-off that should take patient preferences regarding medication and the risk of a flare into account. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development

Associations of non-pedunculated T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma outcome with consensus molecular subtypes, immunoscore, and microsatellite status: a multicenter case-cohort study

Advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) or CRC with a low immunoscore is associated with shorter survival times. Non-metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with a lower risk of recurrence. We evaluated outcome (lymph node metastases [LNM] or cancer recurrence) in these tumor subtypes in patients with surgically-removed non-pedunculated T1 CRC by performing a multicenter case-cohort study. We included all patients in 13 hospitals in the Netherlands from 2000–2014 (n = 651). We randomly selected a subgroup of patients (n = 223) and all patients with LNM or recurrence (n = 63), and median follow-up of 44 months. We centrally reviewed tumor-slides, and constructed and immunostained tissue microarrays determining MSI, CMS (MSI/CMS1, CMS2/3, or CMS4), and immunoscore (I-low/I-high). We used weighted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the association of MSI, CMS, and immunoscore with LNM or recurrence, adjusting for conventional histologic risk factors. In the randomly selected subgroup of patients, 7.1% of tumors were MSI/CMS1, 91.0% CMS2/3, 1.8% CMS4, and 25% I-low. In the case-cohort, patients with CMS4 tumors had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence compared with patients with tumors of other CMSs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% CI, 1.12–14.06; P = 0.03). Albeit not significant, tumors with MSI had a lower risk for LNM or recurrence than other tumor subtypes (adjusted HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.12–2.30; P = 0.39), whereas tumors with a low immunoscore had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence (adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.68–2.48; P = 0.43). In conclusion, in a case-cohort study of patients with non-pedunculated T1 CRC, MSI, and immunoscore were not significantly associated with adverse outcome after surgery. CMS4 substantially increased the risk of adverse outcome. However, CMS4 is rare in T1 CRCs, limiting its value for determining the risk in patients

Global outbreak of severe Mycobacterium chimaera disease after cardiac surgery: a molecular epidemiological study

BACKGROUND: Since 2013, over 100 cases of Mycobacterium chimaera prosthetic valve endocarditis and disseminated disease were notified in Europe and the USA, linked to contaminated heater-cooler units (HCUs) used during cardiac surgery. We did a molecular epidemiological investigation to establish the source of these patients' disease. METHODS: We included 24 M chimaera isolates from 21 cardiac surgery-related patients in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK, 218 M chimaera isolates from various types of HCUs in hospitals, from LivaNova (formerly Sorin; London, UK) and Maquet (Rastatt, Germany) brand HCU production sites, and unrelated environmental sources and patients, as well as eight Mycobacterium intracellulare isolates. Isolates were analysed by next-generation whole-genome sequencing using Illumina and Pacific Biosciences technologies, and compared with published M chimaera genomes. FINDINGS: Phylogenetic analysis based on whole-genome sequencing of 250 isolates revealed two major M chimaera groups. Cardiac surgery-related patient isolates were all classified into group 1, in which all, except one, formed a distinct subgroup. This subgroup also comprised isolates from 11 cardiac surgery-related patients reported from the USA, most isolates from LivaNova HCUs, and one from their production site. Isolates from other HCUs and unrelated patients were more widely distributed in the phylogenetic tree. INTERPRETATION: HCU contamination with M chimaera at the LivaNova factory seems a likely source for cardiothoracic surgery-related severe M chimaera infections diagnosed in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, the USA, and Australia. Protective measures and heightened clinician awareness are essential to guarantee patient safety. FUNDING: Partly funded by the EU Horizon 2020 programme, its FP7 programme, the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, and National Institute of Health Research Oxford Health Protection Research Units on Healthcare Associated Infection and Antimicrobial Resistance