1
|
Sartelli M, Coccolini F, Labricciosa FM, Al Omari AH, Bains L, Baraket O, Catarci M, Cui Y, Ferreres AR, Gkiokas G, Gomes CA, Hodonou AM, Isik A, Litvin A, Lohsiriwat V, Kotecha V, Khokha V, Kryvoruchko IA, Machain GM, O’Connor DB, Olaoye I, Al-Omari JAK, Pasculli A, Petrone P, Rickard J, Sall I, Sawyer RG, Téllez-Almenares O, Catena F, Siquini W. Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis: A Proposal for a Global Evidence-Based Bundle. Antibiotics (Basel) 2024; 13:100. [PMID: 38275329 PMCID: PMC10812782 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics13010100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2023] [Revised: 01/03/2024] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 01/27/2024] Open
Abstract
In the multimodal strategy context, to implement healthcare-associated infection prevention, bundles are one of the most commonly used methods to adapt guidelines in the local context and transfer best practices into routine clinical care. One of the most important measures to prevent surgical site infections is surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP). This narrative review aims to present a bundle for the correct SAP administration and evaluate the evidence supporting it. Surgical site infection (SSI) prevention guidelines published by the WHO, CDC, NICE, and SHEA/IDSA/APIC/AHA, and the clinical practice guidelines for SAP by ASHP/IDSA/SIS/SHEA, were reviewed. Subsequently, comprehensive searches were also conducted using the PubMed®/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, in order to identify further supporting evidence-based documentation. The bundle includes five different measures that may affect proper SAP administration. The measures included may be easily implemented in all hospitals worldwide and are based on minimal drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics knowledge, which all surgeons should know. Antibiotics for SAP should be prescribed for surgical procedures at high risk for SSIs, such as clean-contaminated and contaminated surgical procedures or for clean surgical procedures where SSIs, even if unlikely, may have devastating consequences, such as in procedures with prosthetic implants. SAP should generally be administered within 60 min before the surgical incision for most antibiotics (including cefazolin). SAP redosing is indicated for surgical procedures exceeding two antibiotic half-lives or for procedures significantly associated with blood loss. In principle, SAP should be discontinued after the surgical procedure. Hospital-based antimicrobial stewardship programmes can optimise the treatment of infections and reduce adverse events associated with antibiotics. In the context of a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach, it is essential to encourage an institutional safety culture in which surgeons are persuaded, rather than compelled, to respect antibiotic prescribing practices. In that context, the proposed bundle contains a set of evidence-based interventions for SAP administration. It is easy to apply, promotes collaboration, and includes measures that can be adequately followed and evaluated in all hospitals worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Massimo Sartelli
- Department of Surgery, Macerata Hospital, 62100 Macerata, Italy;
| | - Federico Coccolini
- General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Unit, Pisa University Hospital, 56124 Pisa, Italy;
| | | | - AbdelKarim. H. Al Omari
- Department of General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan;
| | - Lovenish Bains
- Department of General Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi 110002, India;
| | - Oussama Baraket
- Department of General Surgery, Bizerte Hospital, Bizerte 7000, Tunisia;
| | - Marco Catarci
- General Surgery Unit, Sandro Pertini Hospital, 00157 Rome, Italy;
| | - Yunfeng Cui
- Department of Surgery, Tianjin Nankai Hospital, Nankai Clinical School of Medicine, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300052, China;
| | - Alberto R. Ferreres
- Department of Surgery, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires 1428, Argentina;
| | - George Gkiokas
- Department of Surgery, Medical School, “Aretaieio” Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11528 Athens, Greece;
| | - Carlos Augusto Gomes
- Department of Surgery, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas e da Saúde de Juiz de Fora, Hospital Universitário Terezinha de Jesus, Juiz de Fora 25520, Brazil;
| | - Adrien M. Hodonou
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Parakou, Parakou 03 BP 10, Benin;
| | - Arda Isik
- Department of Surgery, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul 34000, Turkey;
| | - Andrey Litvin
- Department of Surgical Diseases No. 3, Gomel State Medical University, 246000 Gomel, Belarus;
| | - Varut Lohsiriwat
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand;
| | - Vihar Kotecha
- Department of General Surgery, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Mwanza P.O. Box 1464, Tanzania;
| | - Vladimir Khokha
- General Surgery Unit, Podhalanski Specialized Hospital, 34-400 Nowy Targ, Poland;
| | - Igor A. Kryvoruchko
- Department of Surgery No. 2, Kharkiv National Medical University, 61000 Kharkiv, Ukraine;
| | - Gustavo M. Machain
- Department of Surgery, Universidad Nacional de Asuncion, San Lorenzo 1055, Paraguay;
| | - Donal B. O’Connor
- Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Trinity College, D02 PN40 Dublin, Ireland;
| | - Iyiade Olaoye
- Department of Surgery, University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin 240101, Nigeria;
| | - Jamal A. K. Al-Omari
- Medical College, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Hussein Hospital, Zarqa 13313, Jordan;
| | - Alessandro Pasculli
- Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DiMePre-J), Unit of Academic General Surgery “V. Bonomo”, University of Bari “A. Moro”, 70125 Bari, Italy;
| | - Patrizio Petrone
- Department of Surgery, NYU Grossman Long Island School of Medicine, NYU Langone Hospital—Long Island, Mineola, NY 11501, USA;
| | - Jennifer Rickard
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA;
| | - Ibrahima Sall
- Department of General Surgery, Military Teaching Hospital, Dakar 3006, Senegal;
| | - Robert G. Sawyer
- Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA;
| | - Orlando Téllez-Almenares
- General Surgery Department of Saturnino Lora Provincial Hospital, University of Medical Sciences of Santiago de Cuba,
26P2+J7X, Santiago de Cuba 90100, Cuba;
| | - Fausto Catena
- Department of Surgery, “Bufalini” Hospital, 47521 Cesena, Italy;
| | - Walter Siquini
- Department of Surgery, Macerata Hospital, 62100 Macerata, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Singh A, Kaur M, Swaminathan C, Subramanian A, Singh KK, Sajid MS. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in acute cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 8:37. [PMID: 38021359 PMCID: PMC10643220 DOI: 10.21037/tgh-23-48] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2023] [Accepted: 10/07/2023] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients admitted with acute cholecystitis is considered the preferred, feasible and safe mode of managing gallstone disease. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of single-dose pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing emergency LC for mild to moderate acute cholecystitis. Methods All randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the use of single-dose pre-operative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy were retrieved from the search of standard medical electronic databases and analysis was conducted by using the principles of meta-analysis on the statistical software RevMan version 5. Results Standard medical databases search produced only 3 RCTs on 781 patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy. There were 384 patients in single dose pre-operative antibiotics group whereas 397 patients were recruited in the no-antibiotics group. In the random effects model analysis, the use of single-dose preoperative prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute cholecystectomy for mild to moderate cholecystitis failed to demonstrate any extra advantage of reducing the risk of [risk ratio (RR) =0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-1.03; Z=1.80; P=0.07] infective complications. There was no heterogeneity [Tau2 =0; Chi2 =1.74, df =2 (P=0.42; I2=0%)] among included studies. Conclusions A preoperative single dose of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing acute LC for mild to moderate acute cholecystitis does not offer extra benefits to reduce infective complications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anurag Singh
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Mandeep Kaur
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Christie Swaminathan
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Atreya Subramanian
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Krishna K Singh
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| | - Muhammad S Sajid
- Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Royal Sussex County Hospital Brighton, Brighton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Satheeskaran M, Hussan A, Anto A, de Preux L. Cost-effectiveness analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis for acute cholecystectomy. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2023; 10:e001162. [PMID: 37562856 PMCID: PMC10423775 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001162] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/12/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE For acute cholecystitis, the treatment of choice is laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In mild-to-moderate cases, the use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of postoperative infectious complications (POICs) lacks evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness when compared with no prophylaxis. In the context of rising antimicrobial resistance, there is a clear rationale for a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine the most efficient use of National Health Service resources and antibiotic routine usage. DESIGN 16 of 226 patients (7.1%) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6%) in the non-prophylaxis group developed POICs. A CEA was carried out using health outcome data from thePerioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the treatment of acute cholecystitis (PEANUTS II) multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, clinical trial. Costs were measured in monetary units using pound sterling, and effectiveness expressed as POICs avoided within the first 30 days after cholecystectomy. RESULTS This CEA produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -£792.70. This suggests a modest cost-effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis being marginally less costly and more effective than no prophylaxis. Three sensitivity analyses were executed considering full adherence to the antibiotic, POICs with increased complexity and break-point analysis suggesting caution in the recommendation of systematic use of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of POICs. CONCLUSION The results of this CEA point to greater consensus in UK-based guidelines surrounding the provision of antibiotic prophylaxis for mild-to-moderate cases of acute cholecystitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maya Satheeskaran
- Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Aminah Hussan
- Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Ailin Anto
- Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Laure de Preux
- Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kuzman M, Bhatti KM, Omar I, Khalil H, Yang W, Thambi P, Helmy N, Botros A, Kidd T, McKay S, Awan A, Taylor M, Mahawar K. Solve study: a study to capture global variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:9032-9045. [PMID: 35680667 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09367-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 05/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a lack of published data on variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The purpose of this study was to capture variations in practices on a range of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative aspects of this procedure. METHODS A 45-item electronic survey was designed to capture global variations in practices concerning laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and disseminated through professional surgical and training organisations and social media. RESULTS 638 surgeons from 70 countries completed the survey. Pre-operatively only 5.6% routinely perform an endoscopy to rule out peptic ulcer disease. In the presence of preoperatively diagnosed common bile duct (CBD) stones, 85.4% (n = 545) of the surgeons would recommend an Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) before surgery, while only 10.8% (n = 69) of the surgeons would perform a CBD exploration with cholecystectomy. In patients presenting with gallstone pancreatitis, 61.2% (n = 389) of the surgeons perform cholecystectomy during the same admission once pancreatitis has settled down. Approximately, 57% (n = 363) would always administer prophylactic antibiotics and 70% (n = 444) do not routinely use pharmacological DVT prophylaxis preoperatively. Open juxta umbilical is the preferred method of pneumoperitoneum for most patients used by 64.6% of surgeons (n = 410) but in patients with advanced obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m2, only 42% (n = 268) would use this technique and only 32% (n = 203) would use this technique if the patient has had a previous laparotomy. Most surgeons (57.7%; n = 369) prefer blunt ports. Liga clips and Hem-o-loks® were used by 66% (n = 419) and 30% (n = 186) surgeons respectively for controlling cystic duct and (n = 477) 75% and (n = 125) 20% respectively for controlling cystic artery. Almost all (97.4%) surgeons felt it was important or very important to remove stones from Hartmann's pouch if the surgeon is unable to perform a total cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS This study highlights significant variations in practices concerning various aspects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matta Kuzman
- Health Education England North East, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Islam Omar
- Wirral Hospital NHS Trust: Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Hany Khalil
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust: Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Wah Yang
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Prem Thambi
- Health Education England North East, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | | | | | - Thomas Kidd
- Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Australia
| | | | - Altaf Awan
- University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, UK
| | - Mark Taylor
- Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK
| | - Kamal Mahawar
- South Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Colling KP, Besshoff KE, Forrester JD, Kendrick D, Mercier P, Huston JM. Surgical Infection Society Guidelines for Antibiotic Use in Patients Undergoing Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Disease. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2022; 23:339-350. [PMID: 35363086 DOI: 10.1089/sur.2021.207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/07/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Manifestations of gallbladder disease range from intermittent abdominal pain (symptomatic cholelithiasis) to potentially life-threatening illness (gangrenous cholecystitis). Although surgical intervention to treat acute cholecystitis is well defined, the role of antibiotic administration before or after cholecystectomy to decrease morbidity or mortality is less clear. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee convened to develop guidelines for antibiotic use in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease to prevent surgical site infection, other infection, hospital length of stay, or mortality. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database were searched for relevant studies. Evaluation of the published evidence was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Using a process of iterative consensus, all authors voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: We recommend against routine use of peri-operative antibiotic agents in low-risk patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We recommend use of peri-operative antibiotic agents for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. We recommend against use of post-operative antibiotic agents after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis. We recommend against use of post-operative antibiotic agents in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for mild or moderate acute cholecystitis. We recommend a maximum of four days of antibiotic agents, and perhaps a shorter duration in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for severe (Tokyo Guidelines grade III) cholecystitis. Conclusions: This guideline summarizes the current Surgical Infection Society recommendations for antibiotic use in patients undergoing cholecystectomy for gallbladder disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kovi E Besshoff
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | | | - Daniel Kendrick
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Phillip Mercier
- Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Jared M Huston
- Department of Surgery, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Manhasset, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van Braak WG, Ponten JEH, Loozen CS, Schots JPM, van Geloven AAW, Donkervoort SC, Nieuwenhuijzen GAP, Besselink MG, van Heek TNT, de Reuver PR, Vlaminckx B, Kelder JC, Knibbe CAJ, van Santvoort HC, Boerma D. Antibiotic prophylaxis for acute cholecystectomy: PEANUTS II multicentre randomized non-inferiority clinical trial. Br J Surg 2022; 109:267-273. [PMID: 35020797 DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znab441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2021] [Revised: 11/07/2021] [Accepted: 11/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines recommending antibiotic prophylaxis at emergency cholecystectomy for cholecystitis were based on low-quality evidence. The aim of this trial was to demonstrate that omitting antibiotics is not inferior to their prophylactic use. METHODS This multicentre, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial randomly assigned adults with mild-to-moderate acute calculous cholecystitis (immediate cholecystectomy indicated) to 2 g cefazolin administered before incision or no antibiotic prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was a composite of all postoperative infectious complications in the first 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included all individual components of the primary endpoint, other morbidity, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS Sixteen of 226 patients (7.1 per cent) in the single-dose prophylaxis group and 29 of 231 (12.6 per cent) in the no-prophylaxis group developed postoperative infectious complications (absolute difference 5.5 (95 per cent c.i. -0.4 to 11.3) per cent). With a non-inferiority margin of 10 per cent, non-inferiority of no prophylaxis was not proven. The number of surgical-site infections was significantly higher in the no-prophylaxis group (5.3 versus 12.1 per cent; P = 0.010). No differences were observed in the number of other complications, or duration of hospital stay. CONCLUSION Omitting antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jeroen E H Ponten
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | - Charlotte S Loozen
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Judith P M Schots
- Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Marc G Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Philip R de Reuver
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Bart Vlaminckx
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | - Johannes C Kelder
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| | | | | | - Djamila Boerma
- Department of Surgery, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Reduction of risk of infection during elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy using prophylactic antibiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35:6397-6412. [PMID: 34370122 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08658-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Whether perioperative administration is required in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients with low risk of infection remains controversial. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during elective LC can reduce the incidence of postoperative infection using a meta-analysis. METHODS Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and reference lists were searched up to October 26, 2020, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the perioperative use of antibiotics during LC. A systematic review with meta-analysis, meta-regression, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) of the evidence was conducted. The Cochrane (RoB 2.0) tool was used to assess the risk of bias. RESULT A total of 14 RCTs were ultimately included in the meta-analysis, involving a total of 4360 patients. The incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections was investigated and the relationship with the perioperative use of prophylactic antibiotics during LC analyzed. The results indicated that in low-risk patients undergoing elective LC, prophylactic antibiotics reduce the incidence of surgical site infections (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.98), with a moderate GRADE of evidence, distant infections (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.16-0.73), with a low GRADE of evidence and overall infections (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.80), with a moderate GRADE of evidence. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis demonstrates that the perioperative use of antibiotics in LC is effective in low-risk patients, possibly reducing the incidence of surgical site infections, distant infections, and overall infections. However, in view of the limitations of the study, it is recommended that studies with a more rigorous design (for downgraded factors) and larger sample size should be conducted in the future so that the conclusions above can be further verified through key result indicators.
Collapse
|