Carriage of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria after discontinuation of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) or selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD)

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.

The role of bacterial translocation in sepsis: a new target for therapy

Sepsis is a leading cause of death in critically ill patients, primarily due to multiple organ failures. It is associated with a systemic inflammatory response that plays a role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Intestinal barrier dysfunction and bacterial translocation (BT) play pivotal roles in the pathogenesis of sepsis and associated organ failure. In this review, we describe recent advances in understanding the mechanisms by which the gut microbiome and BT contribute to the pathogenesis of sepsis. We also discuss several potential treatment modalities that target the microbiome as therapeutic tools for patients with sepsis.

Selective Intestinal Decontamination as a Method for Preventing Infectious Complications (Review)

Infectious complications are the most common cause of death in patients with severe burns. To date, there is no generally accepted method for preventing such complications in burn injury. One of the possible prevention options is selective intestinal decontamination (SID). This method is based on the enteral administration of non-absorbable antimicrobial agents. The preventive effect of SID involves inhibition of intestinal microflora translocation through the mucous membranes, inasmuch as studies demonstrate that endogenous opportunistic microorganisms are a common cause of infectious complications in various critical conditions.

The SID method was originally developed in the Netherlands for patients suffering from mechanical injury. Antimicrobial drugs were selected based on their high activity in relation to the main endogenous opportunistic pathogens and minimal activity against normal intestinal microflora components. The combination of polymyxin (B or E), tobramycin, and amphotericin B with intravenous cefotaxime was chosen as the first SID regimen. Other regimens were proposed afterwards, and the application field of the method was expanded. In particular, it became the method of choice for prevention of infectious complications in patients with severe burn injury.

Clinical studies demonstrate efficacy of some SID regimens for preventing infectious complications in patients with thermal injury. Concomitant administration of SID and systemic preventive antibiotics and addition of oropharyngeal decontamination increases the method efficacy. SID is generally well-tolerated, but some studies show an increased risk of diarrhea with this preventive option. In addition, SID increases the risk of developing antibiotic resistance like any other antibiotic regimens.

Selective digestive decontamination, a seemingly effective regimen with individual benefit or a flawed concept with population harm?

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) regimens, variously constituted with topical antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) and protocolized parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis (PPAP), appear highly effective for preventing ICU-acquired infections but only within randomized concurrent control trials (RCCT's). Confusingly, SDD is also a concept which, if true, implies population benefit. The SDD concept can finally be reified  in humans using the broad accumulated evidence base, including studies of TAP and PPAP that used non-concurrent controls (NCC), as a natural experiment. However, this test implicates overall population harm with higher event rates associated with SDD use within the ICU context.

Anti-infectious decontamination strategies in Dutch intensive care units: A survey study on contemporary practice and heterogeneity

PURPOSE

Despite increasing evidence and updated national guidelines, practice of anti-infectious strategies appears to vary in the Netherlands. This study aimed to determine the variation of current practices of anti-infectious strategies in Dutch ICUs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2018 and 2019 an online survey of all Dutch ICUs was conducted with detailed questions on their anti-infectious strategies.

RESULTS

89% (63 of 71) of the Dutch ICUs responded to the online survey. The remaining ICUs were contacted by telephone. 47 (66%) of the Dutch ICUs used SDD, 14 (20%) used SOD and 10 (14%) used neither SDD nor SOD. Within these strategies considerable heterogeneity was observed in the start criteria of SDD/SOD, the regimen adjustments based on microbiological surveillance and the monitoring of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of Dutch ICUs applying SDD or SOD increased over time. Considerable heterogeneity in the regimens was reported. The impact of the observed differences within SDD and SOD practices on clinical outcome remains to be explored.

Topical antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Patients treated with mechanical ventilation in intensive care units (ICUs) have a high risk of developing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has been estimated to affect 5% to 40% of patients treated with mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. The attributable mortality rate of VAP has been estimated at about 9%. Selective digestive decontamination (SDD), which consists of the topical application of non-absorbable antimicrobial agents to the oropharynx and gastroenteric tract during the whole period of mechanical ventilation, is often used to reduce the risk of VAP. A related treatment is selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD), in which topical antibiotics are applied to the oropharynx only. This is an update of a review first published in 1997 and updated in 2002, 2004, and 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of topical antibiotic regimens (SDD and SOD), given alone or in combination with systemic antibiotics, to prevent mortality and respiratory infections in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours in ICUs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, PubMed, and Embase on 5 February 2020. We also searched the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing and unpublished studies on 5 February 2020. All searches included non-English language literature. We handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of topical prophylactic antibiotic regimens in adults receiving intensive care and mechanical ventilation. The included studies compared topical plus systemic antibiotics versus placebo or no treatment; topical antibiotics versus no treatment; and topical plus systemic antibiotics versus systemic antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 41 trials involving 11,004 participants (five new studies were added in this update). The minimum duration of mechanical ventilation ranged from 2 (19 studies) to 6 days (one study). Thirteen studies reported the mean length of ICU stay, ranging from 11 to 33 days. The percentage of immunocompromised patients ranged from 0% (10 studies) to 22% (1 study). The reporting quality of the majority of included studies was very poor, so we judged more than 40% of the studies as at unclear risk of selection bias. We judged all studies to be at low risk of performance bias, though 47.6% were open-label, because hospitals usually have standardised infection control programmes, and possible subjective decisions on who should be tested for the presence or absence of RTIs are unlikely in an ICU setting. Regarding detection bias, we judged all included studies as at low risk for the outcome mortality. For the outcome RTIs, we judged all double-blind studies as at low risk of detection bias. We judged five open-label studies as at high risk of detection bias, as the diagnosis of RTI was not based on microbiological exams; we judged the remaining open-label studies as at low risk of detection bias, as a standardised set of diagnostic criteria, including results of microbiological exams, were used. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis reduces overall mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.96; 18 studies; 5290 participants; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 303 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 48 (95% CI 15 to 79) fewer deaths with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces RTIs (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.53; 17 studies; 2951 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 417 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 238 (95% CI 196 to 271) fewer RTIs with topical plus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis probably reduces overall mortality compared with no topical antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 22 studies, 4213 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 290 deaths in 1000 people this equates to 19 (95% CI 37 fewer to 15 more) fewer deaths with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Topical antibiotic prophylaxis may reduce RTIs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.74; 19 studies, 2698 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 318 RTIs in 1000 people this equates to 137 (95% CI 83 to 178) fewer RTIs with topical antibiotic prophylaxis. Sixteen studies reported adverse events and dropouts due to adverse events, which were poorly reported with sparse data. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treatments based on topical prophylaxis probably reduce respiratory infections, but not mortality, in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours, whereas a combination of topical and systemic prophylactic antibiotics reduces both overall mortality and RTIs. However, we cannot rule out that the systemic component of the combined treatment provides a relevant contribution in the observed reduction of mortality. No conclusion can be drawn about adverse events as they were poorly reported with sparse data.

The gut microbiome's role in the development, maintenance, and outcomes of sepsis

The gut microbiome regulates a number of homeostatic mechanisms in the healthy host including immune function and gut barrier protection. Loss of normal gut microbial structure and function has been associated with diseases as diverse as Clostridioides difficile infection, asthma, and epilepsy. Recent evidence has also demonstrated a link between the gut microbiome and sepsis. In this review, we focus on three key areas of the interaction between the gut microbiome and sepsis. First, prior to sepsis onset, gut microbiome alteration increases sepsis susceptibility through several mechanisms, including (a) allowing for expansion of pathogenic intestinal bacteria, (b) priming the immune system for a robust pro-inflammatory response, and (c) decreasing production of beneficial microbial products such as short-chain fatty acids. Second, once sepsis is established, gut microbiome disruption worsens and increases susceptibility to end-organ dysfunction. Third, there is limited evidence that microbiome-based therapeutics, including probiotics and selective digestive decontamination, may decrease sepsis risk and improve sepsis outcomes in select patient populations, but concerns about safety have limited uptake. Case reports of a different microbiome-based therapy, fecal microbiota transplantation, have shown correlation with gut microbial structure restoration and decreased inflammatory response, but these results require further validation. While much of the evidence linking the gut microbiome and sepsis has been established in pre-clinical studies, clinical evidence is lacking in many areas. To address this, we outline a potential research agenda for further investigating the interaction between the gut microbiome and sepsis.

Altering Routine Intensive Care Unit Practices to Support Commensalism

The gastrointestinal (GI) tract consists of trillions of organisms that support multiple functions in the body, from immunity, digestion, and absorption to drug metabolism. These microbes form an overall collection of microorganisms that form the body's microbiome. In critical illness, many of these functions are aberrant, and the microbiome is altered, leading to untoward effects. Some of the most common medications received by patients include antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors, which affect particular changes in the microbiome. In addition, patients receiving prolonged enteral and parenteral nutrition experience changes in the microbiological composition and diversity of their GI tracts. Research is ongoing to characterize the crosstalk between the microbiome and immune function as targets for drug and nutrition therapy.

Antibacterial and Antifungal Therapy for Patients with Acute Pancreatitis at High Risk of Pancreatogenic Sepsis (Review)

Controlling infection is crucial in treating patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The infectious process in AP often predisposes to subsequent sepsis by damaging not only the pancreas, but retroperitoneal tissues as well. Among other AP-associated factors, are the rapidly developing immune imbalance, the poor penetration of antimicrobial agents into necrotic tissue, and the impossibility of a single surgical debridement. Antibacterial and antifungal therapy for patients with infected necrosis and AP-associated extra-pancreatic infections remains a complex and largely unresolved problem, partially due to the high occurrence of multiresistant pathogens. The preventive use of antimicrobial agents has been discussed in the literature; however, the lack of consistent results makes it difficult to develop a unified strategy and clinical guidelines on this specific issue. Recent meta-analyses provide no conclusive evidence that antibacterial prophylaxis reduces the infection rate, mortality, or the need for surgical treatment in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. We found only two studies indicating the benefits of using carbapenems for prophylactic purposes and one meta-analysis indicating a reduction in mortality under antibiotic treatment started no later than 72 h after the onset of the attack. Selective bowel decontamination is considered as one of the preventive anti-infection measures, although the available data may not be fully reliable. The main indications for antibacterial therapy in patients with AP are confirmed infected necrosis or extra-pancreatic infection, as well as clinical symptoms of suspected infection. Intra-arterial administration or local treatment with antibiotics can increase the efficacy of antibacterial therapy. No randomized studies on antifungal prophylaxis in AP are available; some reports though recommend using such therapy among patients at high risk of invasive candidiasis.

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in critically ill patients: a narrative review

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is an infection prevention measure for intensive care unit (ICU) patients that was proposed more than 30 years ago, and that is currently considered standard of care in the Netherlands, but only used sporadically in ICUs in other countries. In this narrative review, we first describe the rationale of the individual components of SDD and then review the evidence base for patient-centered outcomes, where we distinguish ICUs with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance from ICUs with moderate–high prevalence of resistance. In settings with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance, SDD has been associated with improved patient outcome in three cluster-randomized studies. These benefits were not confirmed in a large international cluster-randomized study in settings with moderate-to-high prevalence of antibiotic resistance. There is no evidence that SDD increases antibiotic resistance. We end with future directions for research.

Cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) versus selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units with low levels of antimicrobial resistance: an individual patient data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) as compared to selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care units (ICUs) with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.

DESIGN

Post-hoc analysis of a previously performed individual patient data meta-analysis of two cluster-randomised cross-over trials.

SETTING

24 ICUs in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

12 952 ICU patients who were treated with ≥1 dose of SDD (n=6720) or SOD (n=6232).

INTERVENTIONS

SDD versus SOD.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; ie, costs to prevent one in-hospital death) was calculated by comparing differences in direct healthcare costs and in-hospital mortality of patients treated with SDD versus SOD. A willingness-to-pay curve was plotted to reflect the probability of cost-effectiveness of SDD for a range of different values of maximum costs per prevented in-hospital death.

RESULTS

The ICER resulting from the fixed-effect meta-analysis, adjusted for clustering and differences in baseline characteristics, showed that SDD significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (adjusted absolute risk reduction 0.0195, 95% CI 0.0050 to 0.0338) with no difference in costs (adjusted cost difference €62 in favour of SDD, 95% CI -€1079 to €935). Thus, SDD yielded significantly lower in-hospital mortality and comparable costs as compared with SOD. At a willingness-to-pay value of €33 633 per one prevented in-hospital death, SDD had a probability of 90.0% to be cost-effective as compared with SOD.

CONCLUSION

In Dutch ICUs, SDD has a very high probability of cost-effectiveness as compared to SOD. These data support the implementation of SDD in settings with low levels of antimicrobial resistance.