A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials Assessing the Prophylactic Use of Ceftriaxone. A Study of Wound, Chest, and Urinary Infections

An analytical method using salting-out assisted liquid-liquid extraction to quantify ceftriaxone from micro volumes of human serum

Ceftriaxone (CTRX) is a commonly used cephalosporin antibiotic. It is suggested that monitoring plasma/serum concentrations is helpful for its safe use. This study aimed to develop and validate an analytical method for measuring CTRX concentrations in human serum according to International Conference on Harmonization guideline M10. Ten microliters of serum sample was purified using a salting-out assisted liquid-liquid extraction procedure with magnesium sulfate. The upper layer was then diluted threefold and analyzed using a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based method with a total run time of 12 min. The linear calibration curve was obtained over the concentration range 5-500 μg/ml. The within-run accuracy varied from 0.2 to 6.5%, and the precision was ≤8.0%. The between-run accuracy and precision ranged from 0.7% to 5.6% and ≤6.4%, respectively. Significant carryover was resolved by injecting four blanks after high-concentration CTRX samples. The recovery rates from spiked serum at low and high concentrations were 44.4 and 43.4%, respectively. Other factors, including selectivity, matrix effects, stability, dilution integrity and reinjection reproducibility also met the acceptance criteria. Serum concentrations in 14 samples obtained from two participants receiving 2 g/day of CTRX were successfully determined using this method.

Cefazolin Might Be Adequate for Perioperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Intra-Abdominal Infections without Sepsis: A Quality Improvement Study

Background: The adequate choice of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) could influence the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in general surgery. A new local PAP guideline was implemented in May 2017 and set the first-generation cefazolin (CFZ) instead the second-generation cefuroxime (CXM) as the new standard prophylactic antibiotic. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of SSIs after this implementation in intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) without sepsis. Methods: We performed a single center-quality improvement study at a 1500 bed sized university hospital in Germany analyzing patients after emergency surgery during 2016 to 2019 (n = 985), of which patients receiving CXM or CFZ were selected (n = 587). Propensity score matching was performed to ensure a comparable risk of SSIs in both groups. None-inferiority margin for SSIs was defined as 8% vs. 4%. Results: Two matched cohorts with respectively 196 patients were compared. The rate of SSIs was higher in the CFZ group (7.1% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.117) below the non-inferiority margin. The rate of other postoperative infections was significantly higher in the CFZ group (2.0% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.004). No other differences including postoperative morbidity, mortality or length-of-stay were observed. Conclusion: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis might be safely maintained by CFZ even in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections.

Documented β-Lactam Allergy and Risk for Cesarean Surgical Site Infection

Objective

To examine the relationship between documented β-lactam allergy and cesarean delivery (CD) surgical site infection (SSI). Study Design. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of women who underwent CD at Ben Taub Hospital and Texas Children's Pavilion for Women (Houston, TX) from August 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019. The primary exposure was a documented β-lactam allergy, and the second exposure of interest was the type of perioperative antibiotic received. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI. Maternal characteristics were stratified by the presence or absence of a documented β-lactam allergy, and significance was evaluated using Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables and t-test for continuous variables. A logistic regression model estimated odds of SSI after adjusting for possible confounders.

Results

Of the 12,954 women included, 929 (7.2%) had a documented β-lactam allergy while 12,025 (92.8%) did not. Among the 929 women with a β-lactam allergy, 495 (53.3%) received non-β-lactam perioperative prophylaxis. SSI occurred in 38 (4.1%) of women who had a β-lactam allergy versus 238 (2.0%) who did not (p ≤ 0.001). β-Lactam allergy was associated with higher odds of SSI compared to no allergy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.97; 95%confidence interval (CI) = 1.24-3.14; p = 0.004) after controlling for age, race, ethnicity, insurance status, delivery body mass index (BMI), tobacco use, intra-amniotic infection in labor, duration of membrane rupture, preterm delivery, delivery indication, diabetes, hypertension, group B Streptococcus colonization, and type of perioperative antibiotic received.

Conclusion

The presence of a β-lactam allergy is associated with increased odds of developing a CD SSI after controlling for possible confounders, including the type of perioperative antibiotic received.

Colo-Pro: a pilot randomised controlled trial to compare standard bolus-dosed cefuroxime prophylaxis to bolus-continuous infusion-dosed cefuroxime prophylaxis for the prevention of infections after colorectal surgery

Standard bolus-dosed antibiotic prophylaxis may not inhibit growth of antibiotic resistant colonic bacteria, a cause of SSIs after colorectal surgery. An alternative strategy is continuous administration of antibiotic throughout surgery, maintaining concentrations of antibiotics that inhibit growth of resistant bacteria. This study is a pilot comparing bolus-continuous infusion with bolus-dosed cefuroxime prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. This is a pilot randomised controlled trial in which participants received cefuroxime bolus-infusion (intervention arm) targeting free serum cefuroxime concentrations of 64 mg/L, or 1.5 g cefuroxime as a bolus dose four-hourly (standard arm). Patients in both arms received metronidazole (500 mg intravenously). Eligible participants were adults undergoing colorectal surgery expected to last for over 2 h. Results were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The study was successfully piloted, with 46% (90/196) of eligible patients recruited and 89% (80/90) of participants completing all components of the protocol. A trialled bolus-continuous dosing regimen was successful in maintaining free serum cefuroxime concentrations of 64 mg/L. No serious adverse reactions were identified. Rates of SSIs (superficial and deep SSIs) were lower in the intervention arm than the standard treatment arm (24% (10/42) vs. 30% (13/43)), as were infection within 30 days of operation (41% (17/43) vs 51% (22/43)) and urinary tract infections (2% (1/42) vs. 9% (4/43)). These infection rates can be used to power future clinical trials. This study demonstrates the feasibility of cefuroxime bolus-continuous infusion of antibiotic prophylaxis trials, and provides safety data for infusions targeting free serum cefuroxime concentrations of 64 mg/L. Trial registration: NCT02445859 .

The challenge of urinary tract infections in renal transplant recipients

Urinary tract infections (UTI) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in renal transplant patients. These infections are quite common, and the goal of care is to identify and reduce risk factors while providing effective prophylaxis and treatment. Better understanding of long-term outcomes from these infections has led to the distinctions among UTI, recurrent UTI, and asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB), and that each requires a different therapeutic approach. Specifically, new research has supported the perspective that asymptomatic bacteriuria should not be treated. Symptomatic UTI, on the other hand, requires intervention and remains an ongoing challenge for infectious disease clinicians. Many bacteria species are responsible for UTI in renal transplant patients, and in recent years there has been a global rise in infection caused by bacteria with newly acquired antibacterial resistance genes. Many renal transplant patients who experience UTI will also have multiple recurring episodes, which likely has a distinct pathophysiological mechanism leading to chronic colonization of the urinary tract. In these cases, long-term management includes bacterial suppression, which aims to reduce rather than eliminate bacteria to levels below the threshold for symptomatic infection. This review will address the current understanding of UTI epidemiology, pathogenesis, and risk factors in the renal transplant community, and also focus on current prevention and treatment strategies for patients who face an environment of increasingly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Surgical site and early urinary tract infections in 1000 kidney transplants with antimicrobial perioperative prophylaxis

Surgical site infections (SSIs) and early urinary tract infections (UTIs) are well recognized postoperative kidney transplant complications. These complications seldom lead to graft loss, although they may result in significant morbidity with prolonged hospitalization. Thus, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (PAP) has traditionally been used in this setting. Between April 1988 and December 2012, we identified 1000 kidney transplant recipients (33 from living donors) who underwent prophylaxis with ceftriaxone before the surgical procedure. A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate both the incidence rate and outcome of SSIs and UTIs. Recipients who developed SSIs were also assessed to identify risk factors and potential correlations with different immunosuppressive regimens. A total of 20 SSIs (2%) and 93 UTIs (9.3%) were observed. The most significant risk factor for SSIs was urine leak (15.38%; odds ratio [OR], 12.3; P < .0001) followed by sirolimus-based maintenance immunosuppression therapy (5%; OR, 2.97; P = .04) and induction therapy with either antithymocyte globulin or basiliximab (3.18%; OR, 3.45; P = .01). Sex was identified as the only risk factor for UTI (female vs male, 17.1% vs 4.6%; P < .0001). We believe universal ceftriaxone-based prophylaxis is useful for preventing SSIs and UTIs, considering its effectiveness and safety profile.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Research shows that administration of prophylactic antibiotics before colorectal surgery prevents postoperative surgical wound infection. The best antibiotic choice, timing of administration and route of administration remain undetermined.

OBJECTIVES

To establish the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical wound infection in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Specifically to determine:1. whether antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the risk of surgical wound infection;2. the target spectrum of bacteria (aerobic or anaerobic bacteria, or both);3. the best timing and duration of antibiotic administration;4. the most effective route of antibiotic administration (intravenous, oral or both);5. whether any antibiotic is clearly more effective than the currently recommended gold standard specified in published guidelines;6. whether antibiotics should be given before or after surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review published in 2009 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE (Ovid). For the update of this review we rewrote the search strategies and extended the search to cover from 1954 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE up to 7 January 2013. We searched CENTRAL on the same date (Issue 12, 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of prophylactic antibiotic use in elective and emergency colorectal surgery, with surgical wound infection as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were abstracted and reviewed by one review author and checked by another only for the single, dichotomous outcome of surgical wound infection. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 260 trials and 68 different antibiotics, including 24 cephalosporins and 43,451 participants. Many studies had multiple variables that separated the two study groups; these could not be compared to other studies that tested one antibiotic and had a single variable separating the two groups. We did not consider the risk of bias arising from attrition and lack of blinding of outcome assessors to affect the results for surgical wound infection.Meta-analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference in postoperative surgical wound infection when prophylactic antibiotics were compared to placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.41, high quality evidence). This translates to a reduction in risk from 39% to 13% with prophylactic antibiotics. The slightly higher risk of wound infection with short-term compared with long-term duration antibiotic did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.30). Similarly risk of would infection was slightly higher with single-dose antibiotics when compared with multiple dose antibiotics, but the results are compatible with benefit and harm (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.10). Additional aerobic coverage and additional anaerobic coverage both showed statistically significant improvements in surgical wound infection rates (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.68 and RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71, respectively), as did combined oral and intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis when compared to intravenous alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.74), or oral alone (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.76). Comparison of an antibiotic with anaerobic specificity to one with aerobic specificity showed no significant advantage for either one (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.36). Two small studies compared giving antibiotics before or after surgery and no significant difference in this timing was found (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.15). Established gold-standard regimens recommended in major guidelines were no less effective than any other antibiotic choice.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has found high quality evidence that antibiotics covering aerobic and anaerobic bacteria delivered orally or intravenously (or both) prior to elective colorectal surgery reduce the risk of surgical wound infection. Our review shows that antibiotics delivered within this framework can reduce the risk of postoperative surgical wound infection by as much as 75%. It is not known whether oral antibiotics would still have these effects when the colon is not empty. This aspect of antibiotic dosing has not been tested. Further research is required to establish the optimal timing and duration of dosing, and the frequency of longer-term adverse effects such as Clostridium difficile pseudomembranous colitis.

Continuous versus interrupted skin sutures for non-obstetric surgery

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin, allowing the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure; this review focuses on these closed wounds. There are many ways to close the surgical incision, for example, using sutures (stitches), staples, tissue adhesives or tapes. Skin sutures can be continuous or interrupted. In general, continuous sutures are usually subcuticular and can be absorbable or non-absorbable, while interrupted sutures are usually non-absorbable and involve the full thickness of the skin - although some surgeons do use absorbable interrupted sutures.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of continuous compared with interrupted skin closure techniques in participants undergoing non-obstetric surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase; and EBSCO CINAHL.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared skin closure using continuous sutures with skin closure using interrupted sutures, irrespective of whether there were differences in the nature of the suture materials used in the two groups. We included all relevant RCTs in the analysis, irrespective of language of publication, publication status, publication year or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary outcomes between the groups, and calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for comparing continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with a total of 827 participants. Outcomes were available for 730 participants (384 participants randomised to continuous sutures and 346 participants to interrupted sutures). All the trials were of unclear or high risk of bias. The participants underwent abdominal or groin operations. The only outcomes reported in the trials were superficial surgical site infection, superficial wound dehiscence (breakdown) and length of hospital stay. Other important outcomes such as quality of life, long-term patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources were not reported in these trials.Overall, 6.5% (39/602 participants, four trials) developed superficial surgical site infections. There was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial surgical site infections (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.33). A total of 23 participants (23/625 (3.7%), four trials) developed superficial wound dehiscence. Twenty-two of the 23 participants belonged to the interrupted suture group.The proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence was statistically significantly lower in the continuous suture group compared to the interrupted suture group (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Most of these wound dehiscences were reported in two recent trials in which the continuous skin suture groups received absorbable subcuticular sutures while the interrupted skin suture groups received non-absorbable transcutaneous sutures. The non-absorbable sutures were removed seven to nine days after surgery in the interrupted sutures groups whilst sutures in the comparator groups were not removed, being absorbable. The continuous suture technique with absorbable suture does not require suture removal and provides support for the wound for a longer period of time. This may have contributed to the difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence. There was no significant difference in the length of the hospital stay between the two groups (MD -1.40 days; 95% CI -7.14 to 4.34).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Superficial wound dehiscence may be reduced by using continuous subcuticular sutures. However, there is uncertainty about this because of the quality of the evidence. Besides, the nature of the suture material used may have led to this observation, as the continuous suturing technique used suture material that did not need to be removed, whereas the comparator used interrupted (non-absorbable) sutures that did need to be removed. Differences in the methods of skin closure have the potential to affect patient outcomes and use of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary to determine which type of suturing is better.

Subcutaneous closure versus no subcutaneous closure after non-caesarean surgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Most surgical procedures involve a cut in the skin that allows the surgeon to gain access to the surgical site. Most surgical wounds are closed fully at the end of the procedure, and this review focuses on these. The human body has multiple layers of tissues, and the skin is the outermost of these layers. The loose connective tissue just beneath the skin is called subcutaneous tissue, and this generally contains fat. There is uncertainty about closure of subcutaneous tissue after surgery: some surgeons advocate closure of subcutaneous tissue, as they consider this closes dead space and leads to a decrease in wound complications; others consider closure of subcutaneous tissue to be an unnecessary step that increases operating time and involves the use of additional suture material without offering any benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits (such as decreased wound-related complications) and consequences (such as increased operating time) of subcutaneous closure compared with no subcutaneous closure in participants undergoing non-caesarean surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

In August 2013 we searched the following databases: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 29 August, 2013); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to August Week 3 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 28, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 2013 Week 34); and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 23 August 2013). We did not restrict studies with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing subcutaneous closure with no subcutaneous closure irrespective of the nature of the suture material(s) or whether continuous or interrupted sutures were used. We included all RCTs in the analysis, regardless of language, publication status, publication year, or sample size.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials and extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for comparing binary (dichotomous) outcomes between the groups and calculated the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We performed meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model and random-effects model. We performed intention-to-treat analysis whenever possible.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Six of the trials provided data for this review and all of these were at high risk of bias. Six trials randomised a total of 815 participants to subcutaneous closure (410 participants) or no subcutaneous closure (405 participants). Overall, 7.7% of participants (63/815 of participants) developed superficial surgical site infections and there was no clear evidence of a difference between the two intervention groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33; very low quality evidence). Only two trials reported superficial wound dehiscence, with 7.9% (17/215) of participants developing the problem. It is not clear whether the lack of reporting of this outcome in other trials was because it did not occur, or was not measured. There was no clear evidence of a between-group difference in the proportion of participants who developed superficial wound dehiscence in the trials that reported this outcome (RR 0.56; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.41; very low quality evidence). Only one trial reported deep wound dehiscence, which occurred in 8.3% (5/60) of participants. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants who developed deep wound dehiscence between the two groups (RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11; very low quality evidence). Three trials reported the length of hospital stay and found no significant difference between groups (MD 0.10 days; 95% CI -0.45 to 0.64; very low quality evidence). We do not know whether this review reveals a lack of effect or lack of evidence of effect. The confidence intervals for these outcomes were wide, and significant benefits or harms from subcutaneous closure cannot be ruled out. In addition, none of the trials assessed the impact of subcutaneous closure on quality of life, long-term patient outcomes (the follow-up period in the trials varied between one week and two months after surgery) or financial implications to the healthcare provider.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently evidence of very low quality which is insufficient to support or refute subcutaneous closure after non-caesarean operations. The use of subcutaneous closure has the potential to affect patient outcomes and utilisation of healthcare resources. Further well-designed trials at low risk of bias are necessary.