1
|
Cavalcanti AB, Lisboa T, Gales AC. Is Selective Digestive Decontamination Useful for Critically Ill Patients? Shock 2018; 47:52-57. [PMID: 27488086 DOI: 10.1097/shk.0000000000000711] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
In this study we review the rationale for using selective digestive decontamination (SDD) in critically ill patients, and its effects on clinical outcomes and rates of infection with antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms. SDD consists of the application of nonabsorbable antibiotics to the oropharynx and through a nasogastric or nasoenteral tube, in association with a 4-day course of an intravenous third-generation cephalosporin. The enteral component aims at preventing oral and rectal colonization with potentially pathogenic nosocomial aerobic gram-negative bacilli and yeasts while preserving normal protective anaerobic enteral flora. The short-course systemic component aims at eradicating oral endogenous gram-positive bacteria. SDD decreases the risk of nosocomial infections, and reduces by one-quarter the mortality of patients on mechanical ventilation in settings with low prevalence of antibiotic resistance. Evidence from randomized trials suggests that SDD does not increase rates of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms, and may reduce resistance rates to some antibiotics. However, several limitations decrease our confidence on these data, particularly for settings with high baseline rates of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms. Although SDD has a clear potential to improve clinical outcomes of critically patients, its long-term ecologic effects on rates of antimicrobial resistant require appropriate assessment by large multinational cluster randomized trials. Before these results are available, the use of SDD cannot be recommended in most parts of the world, except in settings with very low baseline prevalence of antibiotic resistance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti
- *Research Institute HCor, Hospital do Coração, São Paulo, Brazil †Institutional Network for Research and Inovation in Intensive care (RIPIMI), Complexo Hospitalar Santa Casa, Porto Alegre/Critical Care Department and Infection Control Committee, Clinics Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil ‡Infectious Disease Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina/ São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, Brazil
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Moodley P, Whitelaw A. The pros, cons, and unknowns of search and destroy for carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2015; 17:483. [PMID: 25916995 DOI: 10.1007/s11908-015-0483-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
Antibiotic drug discovery has not kept pace with the development of microbial resistance to these agents. There are ever increasing reports where the causative agents of serious infections are multi-drug resistant and in some cases resistant to all known antibiotics. The emergence and spread of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae has heightened awareness regarding antibiotic stewardship programs and infection prevention and control measures. There has been much controversy regarding the utility of the "search and destroy" strategy to prevent the spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. These controversies center on screening and management of carriers, including decontamination and isolation. It is however clear that a functional infection prevention and control program is fundamental to any strategy that serves to address the spread of microbes within a healthcare facility.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prashini Moodley
- Infection Prevention and Control, Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal and KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, Durban, South Africa,
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Marshall AP, Weisbrodt L, Rose L, Duncan E, Prior M, Todd L, Wells E, Seppelt I, Cuthbertson B, Francis J. Implementing selective digestive tract decontamination in the intensive care unit: A qualitative analysis of nurse-identified considerations. Heart Lung 2013; 43:13-8. [PMID: 24239299 DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2013.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2013] [Revised: 09/05/2013] [Accepted: 09/05/2013] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea P Marshall
- Centre for Health Practice Innovation, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Parklands Drive, Southport, Queensland 4222, Australia; The Gold Coast University Hospital, 1 Hospital Blvd, Southport, Queensland 4215, Australia.
| | - Leonie Weisbrodt
- Intensive Care Unit, Nepean Hospital, Derby Street, Penrith, NSW 2750, Australia
| | - Louise Rose
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, 155 College St, Suite 276, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1P8, Canada
| | - Eilidh Duncan
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK
| | - Maria Prior
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK
| | - Laura Todd
- Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Avenue, 5th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Canada
| | - Elisabeth Wells
- Centre for the Study of Social and Legal Responses to Violence, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
| | - Ian Seppelt
- Intensive Care Unit, Nepean Hospital, Derby Street, Penrith, NSW 2750, Australia; Sydney Medical School (Nepean), University of Sydney, Australia; Critical Care and Trauma Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Australia
| | - Brian Cuthbertson
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Room D128, Toronto, Canada; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Jill Francis
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Health Sciences Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK; School of Health Sciences, City University London, Room C332, Tait Building, Northampton Square, London EC1V0HG, UK
| |
Collapse
|