Long-term use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract does not increase antibiotic resistance: a 5-year prospective cohort study

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: concept and application

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a prophylactic strategy aimed at preventing or eradicating bacterial overgrowth in the intestinal flora that precedes the development of most infections in the Intensive Care Unit. SDD prevents serious infections, reduces mortality, is cost-effective, has no adverse effects, and its short- or long-term use is not associated with any significant increase in antimicrobial resistance. SDD is one of the most widely evaluated interventions in critically ill patients, yet its use is not widespread. The present article offers a narrative review of the most relevant evidence and an update of the pathophysiological concepts of infection control supporting the use of SDD.

Eradication of Resistant and Susceptible Aerobic Gram-Negative Bacteria From the Digestive Tract in Critically Ill Patients; an Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Selective Decontamination of the Digestive tract (SDD) aims to prevent nosocomial infections, by eradication of potentially pathogenic micro-organisms from the digestive tract.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the rate of and the time to eradication of resistant vs. susceptible facultative aerobic gram-negative bacteria (AGNB) in patients treated with SDD.

METHODS

This observational and retrospective study included patients admitted to the ICU between January 2001 and August 2017. Patients were included when treated with SDD (tobramycin, polymyxin B, and amphotericin B) and colonized in the upper or lower gastro-intestinal (GI) tract with at least one AGNB present on admission. Decontamination was determined after the first negative set of cultures (rectal and throat). An additional analysis was performed of two consecutive negative cultures.

RESULTS

Of the 281 susceptible AGNB in the throat and 1,087 in the rectum on admission, 97.9 and 93.7%, respectively, of these microorganisms were successfully eradicated. In the upper GI-tract no differences in eradication rates were found between susceptible and resistant microorganisms. However, the median duration until eradication was significantly longer for aminoglycosides resistant vs. susceptible microorganisms (5 vs. 4 days, p < 0.01). In the lower GI-tract, differences in eradication rates between susceptible and resistant microorganisms were found for cephalosporins (90.0 vs. 95.6%), aminoglycosides (84.4 vs. 95.5%) and ciprofloxacin (90.0 vs. 95.2%). Differences in median duration until eradication between susceptible and resistant microorganisms were found for aminoglycosides and ciprofloxacin (both 5 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.001). Decontamination defined as two negative cultures was achieved in a lower rate (77-98% for the upper GI tract and 64-77% for the lower GI tract) and a median of 1 day later.

CONCLUSION

The vast majority of both susceptible and resistant microorganisms are effectively eradicated from the upper and lower GI tract. In the lower GI tract decontamination rates of susceptible microorganisms are significantly higher and achieved in a shorter time period compared to resistant strains.

Modelling and Simulation of the Effect of Targeted Decolonisation on Incidence of Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-Producing Enterobacterales Bloodstream Infections in Haematological Patients

Introduction

Haematological patients are at higher risk of bloodstream infections (BSI) after chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to develop a simulation model assessing the impact of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) of haematological patients colonised with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) on the incidence of ESBL-E BSI after chemotherapy.

Methods

A patient population was created by a stochastic simulation model mimicking the patients’ states of colonisation with ESBL-E during hospitalisation. A systematic literature search was performed to inform the model. All ESBL-E carriers were randomised (1:1) to either the intervention (targeted SDD) or the control group (placebo). ESBL-E BSI incidence was the outcome of the model. Sensitivity analyses were performed by prevalence of ESBL-E carriage at hospital admission (low: < 10%, medium: 10–25%, high: > 25%), duration of neutropenia after receiving chemotherapy, administration of antibiotic prophylaxis with quinolones, and time interval between SDD and chemotherapy.

Results

The model estimated that the administration of targeted SDD before chemotherapy reduces the incidence of ESBL-E BSI in the hospitalised haematological population up to 27%. The greatest benefit was estimated in high-prevalence settings, regardless of the duration of neutropenia, the time interval before chemotherapy, and the administration of antibiotic prophylaxis with quinolones (p < 0.05). In medium-prevalence settings, SDD was effective in patients receiving quinolone prophylaxis, with either 1-day time interval before chemotherapy and a neutropenia duration > 6 days (p < 0.05) or 7-day time interval before chemotherapy and a neutropenia duration > 9 days (p < 0.05). No benefit was observed in low-prevalence settings.

Conclusions

Our model suggests that targeted SDD could decrease the rate of ESBL-E BSI in haematological carriers before chemotherapy in the setting of high ESBL-E prevalence at hospital admission. These estimates require confirmation by well-designed multicentre RCTs, including the assessment of the impact on resistance/disruption patterns of gut microbiome.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00550-3.

Rescuing the Last-Line Polymyxins: Achievements and Challenges

Antibiotic resistance is a major global health challenge and, worryingly, several key Gram negative pathogens can become resistant to most currently available antibiotics. Polymyxins have been revived as a last-line therapeutic option for the treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Gram negative bacteria, in particular Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterobacterales. Polymyxins were first discovered in the late 1940s but were abandoned soon after their approval in the late 1950s as a result of toxicities (e.g., nephrotoxicity) and the availability of "safer" antibiotics approved at that time. Therefore, knowledge on polymyxins had been scarce until recently, when enormous efforts have been made by several research teams around the world to elucidate the chemical, microbiological, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic, and toxicological properties of polymyxins. One of the major achievements is the development of the first scientifically based dosage regimens for colistin that are crucial to ensure its safe and effective use in patients. Although the guideline has not been developed for polymyxin B, a large clinical trial is currently being conducted to optimize its clinical use. Importantly, several novel, safer polymyxin-like lipopeptides are developed to overcome the nephrotoxicity, poor efficacy against pulmonary infections, and narrow therapeutic windows of the currently used polymyxin B and colistin. This review discusses the latest achievements on polymyxins and highlights the major challenges ahead in optimizing their clinical use and discovering new-generation polymyxins. To save lives from the deadly infections caused by Gram negative "superbugs," every effort must be made to improve the clinical utility of the last-line polymyxins. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Antimicrobial resistance poses a significant threat to global health. The increasing prevalence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections has been highlighted by leading global health organizations and authorities. Polymyxins are a last-line defense against difficult-to-treat MDR Gram negative pathogens. Unfortunately, the pharmacological information on polymyxins was very limited until recently. This review provides a comprehensive overview on the major achievements and challenges in polymyxin pharmacology and clinical use and how the recent findings have been employed to improve clinical practice worldwide.

Selective digestive decontamination solution used as "lock therapy" prevents and eradicates bacterial biofilm in an in vitro bench-top model

Background

Most preventing measures for reducing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are based mainly on the decolonization of the internal surface of the endotracheal tubes (ETTs). However, it has been demonstrated that bacterial biofilm can also be formed on the external surface of ETTs. Our objective was to test in vitro the efficacy of selective digestive decontamination solution (SDDs) onto ETT to prevent biofilm formation and eradicate preformed biofilms of three different microorganisms of VAP.

Methods

We used an in vitro model in which we applied, at the subglottic space of ETT, biofilms of either P. aeruginosa ATCC 15442, or E. coli ATCC 25922, or S. aureus ATCC 29213, and the SDDs at the same time (prophylaxis) or after 72 h of biofilm forming (treatment). ETT were incubated during 5 days with a regimen of 2 h-locks. ETT fragments were analyzed by sonication and confocal laser scanning microscopy to calculate the percentage reduction of cfu and viable cells, respectively.

Results

Median (IQR) percentage reduction of live cells and cfu/ml counts after treatment were, respectively, 53.2% (39.4%—64.1%) and 100% (100%–100.0%) for P. aeruginosa, and 67.9% (46.7%–78.7%) and 100% (100%–100.0%) for E. coli. S. aureus presented a complete eradication by both methods. After prophylaxis, there were absence of live cells and cfu/ml counts for all microorganisms.

Conclusions

SDDs used as “lock therapy” in the subglottic space is a promising prophylactic approach that could be used in combination with the oro-digestive decontamination procedure in the prevention of VAP.

The ecological effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) on antimicrobial resistance: a 21-year longitudinal single-centre study

Background

The long-term ecological effects on the emergence of antimicrobial resistance at the ICU level during selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) are unknown. We determined the incidence of newly acquired antimicrobial resistance of aerobic gram-negative potentially pathogenic bacteria (AGNB) during SDD.

Methods

In a single-centre observational cohort study over a 21-year period, all consecutive patients, treated with or without SDD, admitted to the ICU were included. The antibiotic regime was unchanged over the study period. Incidence rates for ICU-acquired AGNB’s resistance for third-generation cephalosporins, colistin/polymyxin B, tobramycin/gentamicin or ciprofloxacin were calculated per year. Changes over time were tested by negative binomial regression in a generalized linear model.

Results

Eighty-six percent of 14,015 patients were treated with SDD. Most cultures were taken from the digestive tract (41.9%) and sputum (21.1%). A total of 20,593 isolates of AGNB were identified. The two most often found bacteria were Escherichia coli (N = 6409) and Pseudomonas (N = 5269). The incidence rate per 1000 patient-day for ICU-acquired resistance to cephalosporins was 2.03, for polymyxin B/colistin 0.51, for tobramycin 2.59 and for ciprofloxacin 2.2. The incidence rates for ICU-acquired resistant microbes per year ranged from 0 to 4.94 per 1000 patient-days, and no significant time-trend in incidence rates were found for any of the antimicrobials. The background prevalence rates of resistant strains measured on admission for cephalosporins, polymyxin B/colistin and ciprofloxacin rose over time with 7.9%, 3.5% and 8.0% respectively.

Conclusions

During more than 21-year SDD, the incidence rates of resistant microbes at the ICU level did not significantly increase over time but the background resistance rates increased. An overall ecological effect of prolonged application of SDD by counting resistant microorganisms in the ICU was not shown in a country with relatively low rates of resistant microorganisms.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2480-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term use of selective digestive decontamination in an ICU highly endemic for bacterial resistance

BACKGROUND

We examined whether long-term use of selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) was effective in reducing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection and antibiotic consumption while decreasing colistin-, tobramycin-, and most of the antibiotic-resistant colonization rates in a mixed ICU with a high endemic level of multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB).

METHODS

In this cohort study, which was conducted in a 30-bed medical-surgical ICU, clinical outcomes before (1 year, non-SDD group) and after (4 years) implementation of SDD were compared. ICU patients who were expected to require tracheal intubation for > 48 hours were given a standard prophylactic SDD regimen. Oropharyngeal and rectal swabs were obtained on admission and once weekly thereafter.

RESULTS

ICU-acquired infections occurred in 110 patients in the non-SDD group and in 258 in the SDD group. A significant (P <  0.001) reduction of infections caused by MDRB (risk ratio [RR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23-0.41) was found after SDD and was associated with low rates of colistin- and tobramycin-resistant colonization. Colistin- and tobramycin-acquired increasing rate of ICU colonization resistance by 1000 days, adjusted by the rate of resistances at admission, was nonsignificant (0.82; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.95; 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70, respectively). SDD was also a protective factor for ICU-acquired infections caused by MDR gram-negative pathogens and Acinetobacter baumannii in the multivariate analysis. In addition, a significant (P <  0.001) reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.59) and secondary bloodstream infection (BSI) (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.52) was found. A decrease in antibiotic consumption was also observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with SDD during 4 years was effective in an ICU setting with a high level of resistance, with clinically relevant reductions of infections caused by MDRB, and with low rates of colistin- and tobramycin-resistant colonization with nonsignificant increasing rate of ICU colonization resistance by 1000 days, adjusted by the rate of resistances at ICU admission. In addition, VAP and secondary BSI rates were significantly lower after SDD. Notably, a decrease in antimicrobial consumption was also observed.

Digestive decontamination in burn patients: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effect of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) or non-absorbable enteral antibiotics (EA) on mortality, the incidence of infection and its adverse effects in burn patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) or observational studies enrolling burn patients, and comparing SDD or EA prophylaxis with placebo or no treatment. The search includes Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, WOS, Cochrane Library (1970-2015). Bibliographic references were also reviewed, as well as communications presented at conferences (2012-2015), without language restrictions. Two reviewers inspected each reference identified by the search independently; the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration method for RCT and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies.

RESULTS

Five RCT and 5 observational studies were identified enrolling a total of 1680 patients. The overall methodological quality of the studies was poor. The pooled effect of RCT using EA was OR: 0.62 (95% CI: 0.20-1.94). The only RCT using SDD reported OR 0.20 (95% CI: 0.09-0.81). The incidence of Enterobacteriaceae bloodstream was lower in cases treated with SDD or EA. The incidence of pneumonia was only reduced in the studies using SDD. None of the studies reported an increase in antibiotic resistance but in one RCT SDD was associated to an increase in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections, that was controlled with enteral vancomycin.

CONCLUSIONS

SDD and EA have shown a beneficial effect in burn patients. Both practices are safe. Higher quality RCTs should be conducted to properly assess the efficacy and safety of SDD in this population.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx: after 30 years of debate is the definitive answer in sight?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination has been being used as a means to prevent infections and death in intensive care patients for the past 30 years. It remains controversial and its use is limited. In this review, we summarize the recently published data on efficacy of selective decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistances.

RECENT FINDINGS

The most recent meta-analysis shows a reduced mortality when selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination are compared with either standard care or oropharyngeal chlorhexidine. Selective decontamination is associated with reduced bacteraemia, and although this effect is greater with selective digestive decontamination compared with selective oropharyngeal decontamination, there is not a mortality difference between these two interventions. Reanalysis of infection data suggests, however, that selective decontamination may also have effects on concurrent control groups. Current evidence generally shows that antibiotic resistance is decreased although much of these data come from the Netherlands (an area with low endemic antibiotic resistance rates). There are currently two huge cluster randomized clinical trials, one in early recruitment, one in development, which will hopefully provide definitive answers in the years to come.

SUMMARY

Current evidence suggests that selective decontamination reduces mortality without increasing antibiotic resistances; this will be tested again in two huge international trials.

Fighting antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit using antibiotics

Antibiotic resistance is a global and increasing problem that is not counterbalanced by the development of new therapeutic agents. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance is especially high in intensive care units with frequently reported outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms. In addition to classical infection prevention protocols and surveillance programs, counterintuitive interventions, such as selective decontamination with antibiotics and antibiotic rotation have been applied and investigated to control the emergence of antibiotic resistance. This review provides an overview of selective oropharyngeal and digestive tract decontamination, decolonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and antibiotic rotation as strategies to modulate antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit.

Selective decontamination and antibiotic resistance in ICUs

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) have been associated with reduced mortality and lower ICU-acquired bacteremia and ventilator-associated pneumonia rates in areas with low levels of antibiotic resistance. However, the effect of selective decontamination (SDD/SOD) in areas where multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are endemic is less clear. It will be important to determine whether SDD/SOD improves patient outcome in such settings and how these measures affect the epidemiology of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. Here we review the current evidence on the effects of SDD/SOD on antibiotic resistance development in individual ICU patients as well as the effect on ICU ecology, the latter including both ICU-level antibiotic resistance and antibiotic resistance development during long-term use of SDD/SOD.

Colistin and tobramycin resistance during long- term use of selective decontamination strategies in the intensive care unit: a post hoc analysis

Introduction

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) have been shown to improve intensive care unit (ICU) patients’ outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of long-term use of SDD and SOD on colistin and tobramycin resistance among gram-negative bacteria.

Methods

We performed a post hoc analysis of two consecutive multicentre cluster-randomised trials with crossover of interventions. SDD and SOD were alternately but continuously used during 7 years in five Dutch ICUs participating in two consecutive cluster-randomised trials. In both trials, to measure colistin and tobramycin resistance among gram-negative bacteria, rectal and respiratory samples were obtained monthly from all patients present in the ICU.

Results

The prevalence of tobramycin resistance in respiratory and rectal samples decreased significantly during long-term use of SOD and SDD. (rectal samples risk ratio (RR) 0.35 (0.23 to 0.53); respiratory samples RR 0.48 (0.32 to 0.73), SDD compared to standard care). Colistin resistance in rectal and respiratory samples did not change (rectal samples RR 0.63 (0.29 to 1.38); respiratory samples RR 1.26 (0.35 to 4.57), SDD compared to standard care).

Conclusions

In this study, in a setting with low antimicrobial resistance rates, the prevalence of resistance against colistin and tobramycin among gram-negative isolates did not increase during a mean of 7 years of SDD or SOD use.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0838-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic review of perioperative selective decontamination of the digestive tract in elective gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Studies on selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in elective gastrointestinal surgery have shown decreased rates of postoperative infection and anastomotic leakage. However, the prophylactic use of perioperative SDD in elective gastrointestinal surgery is not generally accepted.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare the effect of perioperative SDD with systemic antibiotics (SDD group) with systemic antibiotic prophylaxis alone (control group), using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Endpoints included postoperative infection, anastomotic leakage, and in-hospital or 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs published between 1988 and 2011, with a total of 1668 patients (828 in the SDD group and 840 in the control group), were included in the meta-analysis. The total number of patients with infection (reported in 5 trials) was 77 (19.2 per cent) of 401 in the SDD group, compared with 118 (28.2 per cent) of 418 in the control group (odds ratio 0.58, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.42 to 0.82; P = 0.002). The incidence of anastomotic leakage was significantly lower in the SDD group: 19 (3.3 per cent) of 582 patients versus 44 (7.4 per cent) of 595 patients in the control group (odds ratio 0.42, 0.24 to 0.73; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a combination of perioperative SDD and perioperative intravenous antibiotics in elective gastrointestinal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative infection including anastomotic leakage compared with use of intravenous antibiotics alone.

Gut instinct

Barriers to the use of selective digestive decontamination include concerns about emergence of resistant organisms, over-estimation of current performance in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), alternative methods of preventing VAP, and misunderstanding of mechanisms of action. A definitive cluster-randomised trial should be undertaken that incorporates practitioner concerns and effect-size preferences.

Implementing selective digestive tract decontamination in the intensive care unit: A qualitative analysis of nurse-identified considerations

OBJECTIVE

To describe factors senior critical care nurses identify as being important to address when introducing selective digestive tract decontamination (SDD) in the clinical setting.

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients are at risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). SDD is one strategy shown to prevent VAP and possibly improve survival in the critically ill.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of qualitative data obtained from 20 interviews. An inductive thematic analysis approach was applied to data obtained from senior critical care nurses during phase two of a multi-methods study.

RESULTS

There were four primary considerations identified that should be addressed or considered prior to implementation of SDD. These considerations included education of health care professionals, patient comfort, compatibility of SDD with existing practices, and cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a lack of experience with, or knowledge of SDD, nurses were able to articulate factors that may influence its implementation and delivery. Organizations or researchers considering implementation of SDD should include nurses as key members of the implementation team.

Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Some recommendations were ungraded (UG). Recommendations were classified into three groups: 1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; 2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and 3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 hr of recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 hrs of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1C); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients) (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement, as based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of ≤ 100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 hrs) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao2/Fio2 < 150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are > 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤ 180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 hrs after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 hrs of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5 to 10 mins (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock, 2012

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update to the "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," last published in 2008.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development.

METHODS

The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations.

RESULTS

Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7-9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a PaO (2)/FiO (2) ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a PaO (2)/FI O (2) <150 mm Hg (2C); a protocolized approach to blood glucose management commencing insulin dosing when two consecutive blood glucose levels are >180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5-10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven "absolute"' adrenal insufficiency (2C).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Effect of selective decontamination on antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many meta-analyses have shown reductions in infection rates and mortality associated with the use of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) or selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units (ICUs). These interventions have not been widely implemented because of concerns that their use could lead to the development of antimicrobial resistance in pathogens. We aimed to assess the effect of SDD and SOD on antimicrobial resistance rates in patients in ICUs.

METHODS

We did a systematic review of the effect of SDD and SOD on the rates of colonisation or infection with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in patients who were critically ill. We searched for studies using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases, with no limits by language, date of publication, study design, or study quality. We included all studies of selective decontamination that involved prophylactic application of topical non-absorbable antimicrobials to the stomach or oropharynx of patients in ICUs, with or without additional systemic antimicrobials. We excluded studies of interventions that used only antiseptic or biocide agents such as chlorhexidine, unless antimicrobials were also included in the regimen. We used the Mantel-Haenszel model with random effects to calculate pooled odds ratios.

FINDINGS

We analysed 64 unique studies of SDD and SOD in ICUs, of which 47 were randomised controlled trials and 35 included data for the detection of antimicrobial resistance. When comparing data for patients in intervention groups (those who received SDD or SOD) versus data for those in control groups (who received no intervention), we identified no difference in the prevalence of colonisation or infection with Gram-positive antimicrobial-resistant pathogens of interest, including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (odds ratio 1·46, 95% CI 0·90-2·37) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (0·63, 0·39-1·02). Among Gram-negative bacilli, we detected no difference in aminoglycoside-resistance (0·73, 0·51-1·05) or fluoroquinolone-resistance (0·52, 0·16-1·68), but we did detect a reduction in polymyxin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (0·58, 0·46-0·72) and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (0·33, 0·20-0·52) in recipients of selective decontamination compared with those who received no intervention.

INTERPRETATION

We detected no relation between the use of SDD or SOD and the development of antimicrobial-resistance in pathogens in patients in the ICU, suggesting that the perceived risk of long-term harm related to selective decontamination cannot be justified by available data. However, our study indicates that the effect of decontamination on ICU-level antimicrobial resistance rates is understudied. We recommend that future research includes a non-crossover, cluster randomised controlled trial to assess long-term ICU-level changes in resistance rates.

FUNDING

None.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill children: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We examined the impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on morbidity and mortality in critically ill children.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and previous meta-analyses.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing administration of enteral antimicrobials in selective decontamination of the digestive tract with or without a parenteral component with placebo or standard therapy used in the controls.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary end point was the number of acquired pneumonias. Secondary end points were number of infections and overall mortality. Odds ratios were pooled with the random effect model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Four randomized controlled trials including 335 patients were identified. Pneumonia was diagnosed in five of 170 patients (2.9%) for selective decontamination of the digestive tract and 16 of 165 patients (9.7%) for controls (odds ratio 0.31; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.87; p = .027). Overall mortality for selective decontamination of the digestive tract was 13 of 170 (7.6%) vs. control, 11 of 165 (6.7%) (odds ratio 1.18; 95% confidence interval 0.50-2.76; p = .70). In three studies (n = 109), infection occurred in ten of 54 (18.5%) patients on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and 24 of 55 (43.6%) in the controls (odds ratio 0.34; 95% confidence interval 0.05-2.18; p = .25).

CONCLUSIONS

In the four available pediatric randomized controlled trials, selective decontamination of the digestive tract significantly reduced the number of children who developed pneumonia.

The gut is the epicentre of antibiotic resistance

The gut contains very large numbers of bacteria. Changes in the composition of the gut flora, due in particular to antibiotics, can happen silently, leading to the selection of highly resistant bacteria and Candida species. These resistant organisms may remain for months in the gut of the carrier without causing any symptoms or translocate through the gut epithelium, induce healthcare-associated infections, undergo cross-transmission to other individuals, and cause limited outbreaks. Techniques are available to prevent, detect, and treat the carriage of resistant organisms in the gut. However, evidence on these techniques is scant, the only exception being selective digestive decontamination (SDD), which has been extensively studied in neutropenic and ICU patients. After the destruction of resistant colonizing bacteria, which has been successfully obtained in several studies, the gut could be re-colonized with normal faecal flora or probiotics. Studies are warranted to evaluate this concept.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: the mechanism of action is control of gut overgrowth

PURPOSE

Gut overgrowth is the pathophysiological event in the critically ill requiring intensive care. In relation to the risk of developing a clinically important outcome, gut overgrowth is defined as ≥10(5) potential pathogens including 'abnormal' aerobic Gram-negative bacilli (AGNB), 'normal' bacteria and yeasts, per mL of digestive tract secretion. Surveillance samples of throat and gut are the only samples to detect overgrowth. Gut overgrowth is the crucial event which precedes both primary and secondary endogenous infection, and a risk factor for the development of de novo resistance. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is an antimicrobial prophylaxis designed to control overgrowth.

METHODS

There have been 65 randomised controlled trials of SDD in 15,000 patients over 25 years and 11 meta-analyses, which are reviewed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

These trials demonstrate that the full SDD regimen using parenteral and enteral antimicrobials reduces lower airway infection by 72 %, blood stream infection by 37 %, and mortality by 29 %. Resistance is also controlled. Parenteral cefotaxime which reaches high salivary and biliary concentrations eradicates overgrowth of 'normal' bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus in the throat. Enteral polyenes control 'normal' Candida species. Enteral polymyxin and tobramycin, eradicate, or prevent gut overgrowth of 'abnormal' AGNB. Enteral vancomycin controls overgrowth of 'abnormal' methicillin-resistant S. aureus. SDD controls overgrowth by achieving high antimicrobial concentrations effective against 'normal' and 'abnormal' potential pathogens rather than by selectivity.

Enteral vancomycin and probiotic use for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus antibiotic-associated diarrhoea

A geriatric patient status post intraabdominal surgery presented with persistent diarrhoea and heavy intestinal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) growth after multiple courses of antibiotic therapy. Additionally, swab cultures of the anterior nares tested positive for MRSA. In order to impede infection and prevent future complications, the patient received a 10-day course of vancomycin oral solution 250 mg every 6 h, 15-day course of Saccharomyces boulardii 250 mg orally twice daily and a 5-day course of topical mupirocin 2% twice daily intranasally. Diarrhoea ceased during therapy and repeat cultures 11 days after initiating therapy demonstrated negative MRSA growth from the stool and nares. Further repeat cultures 5 months later revealed negative MRSA growth in the stools and minimal MRSA growth in the nares. Overall, enteral vancomycin and probiotics successfully eradicated MRSA infection without intestinal recurrence. Although the results were beneficial treating MRSA diarrhoea for our patient, these agents remain highly controversial.

For whom should we use selective decontamination of the digestive tract?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the relevant studies on selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) published between 2009 and mid-2011.

RECENT FINDINGS

In a multicenter cluster-randomized cross-over study in the Netherlands, SDD and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) were associated with higher survival at day 28, with a lower incidence of ICU-acquired bacteremia and with less acquisition of respiratory tract colonization with antibiotic resistant pathogens, compared to standard care. A post-hoc analysis of this study suggests that SDD might be more effective in surgical patients and SOD in nonsurgical patients. In a randomized study perioperative use of SDD in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery was associated with lower incidences of anastomotic leakages. A Cochrane meta-analysis, not including any of the before mentioned studies, reported a reduction of respiratory tract infections in studies by using topical antibiotics only and higher survival rates when topical antibiotics were combined with parenteral antibiotics.

SUMMARY

Recent studies show that in ICUs with low levels of antibiotic resistance, SDD and SOD improved patient outcome and reduced infections and carriage with antibiotic-resistant pathogens. The effect in settings with higher levels of antibiotic resistance remains to be determined as well as the efficacy of SDD and SOD in specific patient groups.

Selective digestive tract decontamination in critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been proposed to prevent endogenous and exogenous infections and to reduce mortality in critically ill patients. Although the efficacy of SDD has been confirmed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, SDD has been the subject of intense controversy, based mainly on an insufficient evidence of efficacy and on concerns about resistance.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the philosophy, the current evidence on the efficacy of SDD and the issue of emergence of resistance. All SDD RCTs were searched using Embase and Medline, with no restriction of language, gender or age. Personal archives were also explored, including abstracts from major scientific meetings; references in papers and published meta-analyses on SDD were crosschecked. Up-to-date evidence of the impact of SDD on carriage, infections and mortality is presented, and the efficacy of SDD in selected patient groups was investigated, along with the problem of the emergence of resistance.

EXPERT OPINION

SDD significantly reduces the number of infections of the lower respiratory tract and bloodstream, multiple organ failure and mortality. It also controls resistance, particularly when the full protocol of parenteral and enteral antimicrobials is used.