ISPD peritonitis guideline recommendations: 2022 update on prevention & treatment

Li PK, et al. ISPD peritonitis guideline recommendations: 2022 update on prevention and treatment. Perit Dial Int. 2022 Mar;42(2):110-153. Free full-text.

Abstract: The ISPD 2022 updated recommendations have revised and clarified definitions for refractory peritonitis, relapsing peritonitis, peritonitis-associated catheter removal, PD-associated haemodialysis transfer, peritonitis-associated death and peritonitis-associated hospitalisation. New peritonitis categories and outcomes including pre-PD peritonitis, enteric peritonitis, catheter-related peritonitis and medical cure are defined. The new targets recommended for overall peritonitis rate should be no more than 0.40 episodes per year at risk and the percentage of patients free of peritonitis per unit time should be targeted at >80% per year.

Continue reading

Does antiseptic irrigation reduce the risk of surgical site infections?

de Jonge SW, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Prophylactic Intra-Operative Wound Irrigation for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2017 May/Jun;18(4):508-519. Full-text for Emory users.

“Although recommendations from existing guidelines are conflicting [9,10] and recent well-designed RCTs are lacking, as many as 97% of surgeons irrigate wounds in an effort to reduce the risk of SSI [6,7]. The most commonly used irrigation solution is saline followed by aqueous PVP-I or antibiotic solutions [6,42,43]. The efficacy and clinical safety of irrigation with these solutions has been the subject of debate [11, 44]. Various concentrations of PVP-I are effective rapidly against a broad spectrum of pathogens, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) included [45,46]. However, some in vitro studies [47-49] have reported a negative effect of PVP-I on tissue regeneration, and older case studies describe serum iodine toxicity as a result of irrigation [50-52]. However, these adverse effects could not be substantiated in clinical trials [29-35;41].” (p. 515)

Continue reading

World Health Organization: In the presence of drains, does prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis prevent SSI?

World Health Organization. Summary of a systematic review on antimicrobial prophylaxis in the presence of a drain and wound drain removal. WHO Surgical Site Infection Prevention Guidelines, Web Appendix 27 (30p.).

Summary: In the WHO SSI prevention guidelines, one of the PICO questions addressed is:

In the presence of drains, does prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis prevent SSI?

  • Population: inpatients and outpatients of any age undergoing a surgical
    operation (any type of procedure) with the presence of postoperative drainage
  • Intervention: prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis postoperatively
  • Comparator: single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis (or repeated intraoperatively
    according to the duration of the operation)
  • Outcomes: SSI, SSI-attributable mortality

Their findings are quoted below:

Seven RCTs were identified with an SSI outcome comparing prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis in the presence of a wound drain vs. single-dose perioperative prophylaxis, possibly repeated intraoperatively according to the duration of the procedure. The number of days for antibiotic prophylaxis prolongation in the postoperative period varied among studies. Three studies prolonged antibiotic administration until the wound drain was removed. In the remaining trials, patients continued intravenous administration for 3 or 5 days. Included patients were adults undergoing several types of surgical procedures (general surgery, kidney transplantation, and pilonidal sinus surgery). One trial evaluated whether prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the risk of infectious complications for patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery with tube thoracostomy. The antibiotic was continued for 48 hours after the procedure or until all thoracostomy tubes were removed, whichever came first.

Continue reading

Antifungal prophylaxis for esophageal perforation: what’s the evidence?

Elsayed H, et al. The impact of systemic fungal infection in patients with perforated oesophagus. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012 Nov;94(8):579-84.

“Some authors have concluded that antifungal prophylaxis could reduce mortality by 25% in non-neutropaenic critically ill patients and should be given prophylactically to patients at increased risk of invasive fungal infections.24 Patients with oesophageal perforation, the majority of whom are managed initially on critical care units, have several factors that increase their risk of secondary candidal infection including prolonged antibiotic use, surgery and being on total parental nutrition as well as a possible higher rate of candidal colonisation. As a result, this makes them ideal candidates for empirical antifungal therapy from diagnosis. This is the routine practice in our hospital now.

Until a randomised study comparing administration of antifungal versus no antifungal therapy proves empirically that there is no benefit of adding this medication, antifungal prophylaxis should be standard in patients with a ruptured oesophagus once diagnosed. We appreciate the limitation of this study in terms of the number of patients (27) but as a ruptured oesophagus is a rare presentation, it would be difficult to have a randomised study with a large number of patients.” (p. 583)

Continue reading

Intra-Cavity Lavage and Wound Irrigation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection

1: Ambe PC, Rombey T, Rembe JD, Dörner J, Zirngibl H, Pieper D. The role of saline irrigation prior to wound closure in the reduction of surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Saf Surg. 2020 Dec 22;14(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s13037-020-00274-2. PMID: 33353558; PMCID: PMC7756962.

2: Strobel RM, Leonhardt M, Krochmann A, Neumann K, Speichinger F, Hartmann L,
Lee LD, Beyer K, Daum S, Kreis ME, Lauscher JC. Reduction of Postoperative Wound Infections by Antiseptica (RECIPE)?: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg.
2020 Jul;272(1):55-64. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003645. PMID: 31599810.

3: Thom H, Norman G, Welton NJ, Crosbie EJ, Blazeby J, Dumville JC. Intra-Cavity Lavage and Wound Irrigation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021 Mar;22(2):144-167. doi: 10.1089/sur.2019.318. Epub 2020 Apr 29. PMID: 32352895.

4: Maatman TK, Weber DJ, Timsina LR, Qureshi B, Ceppa EP, Nakeeb A, Schmidt CM,
Zyromski NJ, Koniaris LG, House MG. Antibiotic irrigation during pancreatoduodenectomy to prevent infection and pancreatic fistula: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Surgery. 2019 Oct;166(4):469-475. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2019.05.053. Epub 2019 Aug 2. PMID: 31383465.

Continue reading

Article of interest: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Crit Care Med. 2017 Mar;45(3):486-552.

Full-text for Emory users.

Methods: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable.

Continue reading

Infection rates of different CVC insertion sites

Arvaniti K, et al. Cumulative Evidence of Randomized Controlled and Observational Studies onCatheter-Related Infection Risk of Central Venous Catheter Insertion Site in ICU Patients: A Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis. Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr;45(4):e437-e448.

Full-text for Emory users.

Data Synthesis: Twenty studies were included; 11 were observational, seven were randomized controlled trials for other outcomes, and two were randomized controlled trials for sites. We evaluated 18,554 central venous catheters: 9,331 from observational studies, 5,482 from randomized controlled trials for other outcomes, and 3,741 from randomized controlled trials for sites. Colonization risk was higher for internal jugular (relative risk, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.84-2.75]; I2 = 0%) and femoral (relative risk, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.11-4.04]; I2 = 24%), compared with subclavian. Catheter-related bloodstream infection risk was comparable for internal jugular and subclavian, higher for femoral than subclavian (relative risk, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.25-4.75]; I2 = 61%), and lower for internal jugular than femoral (relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.89]; I2 = 61%). When observational studies that did not control for baseline characteristics were excluded, catheter-related bloodstream infection risk was comparable between the sites.

Conclusions: In ICU patients, internal jugular and subclavian may, similarly, decrease catheter-related bloodstream infection risk, when compared with femoral. Subclavian could be suggested as the most appropriate site, whenever colonization risk is considered and not, otherwise, contraindicated. Current evidence on catheter-related bloodstream infection femoral risk, compared with the other sites, is inconclusive.

Continue reading