Category Archives: Infection Control

ISPD peritonitis guideline recommendations: 2022 update on prevention & treatment

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Risk of postoperative wound infections in neck dissections

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week focused on complications after neck dissections.

Reference: Man LX, Beswick DM, Johnson JT. Antibiotic prophylaxis in uncontaminated neck dissection. Laryngoscope. 2011 Jul;121(7):1473-1477. doi:10.1002/lary.21815.

Summary: Man et al (2011) performed a retrospective chart review of 273 uncontaminated neck dissections in order to identify risk factors for postoperative wound infections and to describe the outcomes of antibiotic prophylaxis use. Only 15%

Wound infection was not associated with age, sex, tobacco and alcohol use, history of head/neck surgery, history of radiation/chemotherapy, or number of drains placed during surgery.

Wound infection was independently associated with longer operative time, local/pedicled flap closure and radical or extended neck dissection (p.1474).

Their results for risk of wound infection by type of dissection are below. All 9 wound infections occurred in those receiving intraoperative antibiotics only (4) or intra- and postoperative antiobiotics (5).

neck dissection type

Additionally, this study found that antibiotics are prescribed more frequently to older patients, possibly because they are perceived as less healthy (p.1475). Patients requiring more extensive operations are at a higher risk of postoperative infection, as are those who undergo an operation involving the re-positioning of the patient’s head thus exposing the surgical field (p.1476). The under-reporting of postoperative complications in outpatient settings may also contribute to an underestimate of wound infection.

This review was not able to confirm or support the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in uncontaminated neck dissection significantly lowers the risk of infection. Still, the authors recommend its use “for more extensive lymphadenectomy procedures including radical neck dissection, extended neck dissection, or those requiring longer operative time” (p.1477).