Oral vs intravenous antibiotics for patients with klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess: A randomized, controlled noninferiority study

Background Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess (KLA) is emerging worldwide due to hypermucoviscous strains with a propensity for metastatic infection. Treatment includes drainage and prolonged intravenous antibiotics. We aimed to determine whether oral antibiotics were noninferior to continued intravenous antibiotics for KLA. Methods This noninferiority, parallel group, randomized, clinical trial recruited hospitalized adults with liver abscess and K. pneumoniae isolated from blood or abscess fluid who had received ≤7 days of effective antibiotics at 3 sites in Singapore. Patients were randomized 1:1 to oral (ciprofloxacin) or intravenous (ceftriaxone) antibiotics for 28 days. If day 28 clinical response criteria were not met, further oral antibiotics were prescribed until clinical response was met. The primary endpoint was clinical cure assessed at week 12 and included a composite of absence of fever in the preceding week, C-reactive protein <20 mg/L, and reduction in abscess size. A noninferiority margin of 12% was used. Results Between November 2013 and October 2017, 152 patients (mean age, 58.7 years; 25.7% women) were recruited, following a median 5 days of effective intravenous antibiotics. A total of 106 (69.7%) underwent abscess drainage; 71/74 (95.9%) randomized to oral antibiotics met the primary endpoint compared with 72/78 (92.3%) randomized to intravenous antibiotics (risk difference, 3.6%; 2-sided 95% confidence interval, −4.9% to 12.8%). Effects were consistent in the per-protocol population. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 12/72 (16.7%) in the oral group and 13/77 (16.9%) in the intravenous group. Conclusions Oral antibiotics were noninferior to intravenous antibiotics for the early treatment of KLA

Evaluation of prognostic risk models for postoperative pulmonary complications in adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and international external validation cohort study

Background Stratifying risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery allows clinicians to modify risk through targeted interventions and enhanced monitoring. In this study, we aimed to identify and validate prognostic models against a new consensus definition of postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a systematic review and international external validation cohort study. The systematic review was done in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on March 1, 2020, for articles published in English that reported on risk prediction models for postoperative pulmonary complications following abdominal surgery. External validation of existing models was done within a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing major abdominal surgery. Data were collected between Jan 1, 2019, and April 30, 2019, in the UK, Ireland, and Australia. Discriminative ability and prognostic accuracy summary statistics were compared between models for the 30-day postoperative pulmonary complication rate as defined by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine Core Outcome Measures in Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (StEP-COMPAC). Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC). Findings In total, we identified 2903 records from our literature search; of which, 2514 (86·6%) unique records were screened, 121 (4·8%) of 2514 full texts were assessed for eligibility, and 29 unique prognostic models were identified. Nine (31·0%) of 29 models had score development reported only, 19 (65·5%) had undergone internal validation, and only four (13·8%) had been externally validated. Data to validate six eligible models were collected in the international external validation cohort study. Data from 11 591 patients were available, with an overall postoperative pulmonary complication rate of 7·8% (n=903). None of the six models showed good discrimination (defined as AUROCC ≥0·70) for identifying postoperative pulmonary complications, with the Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia score showing the best discrimination (AUROCC 0·700 [95% CI 0·683–0·717]). Interpretation In the pre-COVID-19 pandemic data, variability in the risk of pulmonary complications (StEP-COMPAC definition) following major abdominal surgery was poorly described by existing prognostication tools. To improve surgical safety during the COVID-19 pandemic recovery and beyond, novel risk stratification tools are required. Funding British Journal of Surgery Society