Antibiotics vs. Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Adults: Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

Abstract

Background: Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the United States, with a lifetime risk of 7%-8%. The treatment paradigm for complicated appendicitis has evolved over the past decade, and many cases now are managed by broad-spectrum antibiotics. We determined the role of non-operative and operative management in adult patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods: Several meta-analyses have attempted to clarify the debate. Arguably the most influential is the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) Trial.

Results: According to the non-inferiority analysis and a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -24%, the APPAC did not demonstrate non-inferiority of antibiotics vs. appendectomy. Significantly, however, the operations were nearly always open, whereas the majority of appendectomies in the United States are done laparoscopically; and laparoscopic and open appendectomies are not equivalent operations. Treatment with antibiotics is efficacious more than 70% of the time. However, a switch to an antimicrobial-only approach may result in a greater probability of antimicrobial-associated collateral damage, both to the host patient and to antibiotic susceptibility patterns. A surgery-only approach would result in a reduction in antibiotic exposure, a consideration in these days of focus on antimicrobial stewardship.

Conclusion: Future studies should focus on isolating the characteristics of appendicitis most susceptible to antibiotics, using laparoscopic operations as controls and identifying long-term side effects such as antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile colitis.

Prevention of Infection at the Surgical Site

Introduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

Abstract

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of health-care–associated infection (HAI) and adds considerably to the individual, social, and economic costs of surgical treatment. This document serves to introduce the updated Guideline for the Prevention of SSI from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). The Core section of the guideline addresses issues relevant to multiple surgical specialties and procedures. The second procedure-specific section focuses on a high-volume, high-burden procedure: Prosthetic joint arthroplasty. While many elements of the 1999 guideline remain current, others warrant updating to incorporate new knowledge and changes in the patient population, operative techniques, emerging pathogens, and guideline development methodology.

Introduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: Prosthetic Joint Arthroplasty Section

Abstract

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication of total joint arthroplasty that appears to be increasing as more of these procedures are performed. Numerous risk factors for incisional (superficial and deep) and organ/space (e.g., PJI) surgical site infections (SSIs) have been identified. A better understanding and reversal of modifiable risk factors may lead to a reduction in the incidence of incisional SSI and PJI. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recently updated the national Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. The updated guideline applies evidence-based methodology, presents recommendations for potential strategies to reduce the risk of SSI, and includes an arthroplasty-specific section. This article serves to introduce the guideline development process and to complement the Prosthetic Joint Arthroplasty section with background information on PJI-specific economic burden, epidemiology, pathogenesis and microbiology, and risk factor information.

Surgical Site Infection Research Opportunities

Abstract

Much has been done to identify measures and modify risk factors to decrease the rate of surgical site infection (SSI). Development of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Core recommendations for the prevention of SSI revealed evidence gaps in six areas: Parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis, glycemic control, normothermia, oxygenation, antiseptic prophylaxis, and non-parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis. Using a modified Delphi process, seven SSI content experts identified nutritional status, smoking, obesity, surgical technique, and anemia as additional areas for SSI prevention research. Post-modified Delphi process Staphylococcus aureus colonization and SSI definition and surveillance were also deemed important topic areas for inclusion. For each topic, research questions were developed, and 10 were selected as the final SSI research questions.

Executive Summary of the American College of Surgeons/Surgical Infection Society Surgical Site Infection Guidelines—2016 Update

Abstract

Guidelines regarding the prevention, detection, and management of surgical site infections (SSIs) have been published previously by a variety of organizations. The American College of Surgeons (ACS)/Surgical Infection Society (SIS) Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Guidelines 2016 Update is intended to update these guidelines based on the current literature and to provide a concise summary of relevant topics.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

Abstract

Background: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

Methods: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

Results: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

Summary: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

Abstract

Background: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

Methods: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

Results: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

Summary: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Call to Action for Surgeons

Abstract

Despite current antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) being advocated by infectious disease specialists and discussed by national and international policy makers, ASPs coverage remains limited to only certain hospitals as well as specific service lines within hospitals. The ASPs incorporate a variety of strategies to optimize antimicrobial agent use in the hospital, yet the exact set of interventions essential to ASP success remains unknown. Promotion of ASPs across clinical practice is crucial to their success to ensure standardization of antimicrobial agent use within an institution. To effectively accomplish this standardization, providers who actively engage in antimicrobial agent prescribing should participate in the establishment and support of these programs. Hence, surgeons need to play a major role in these collaborations. Surgeons must be aware that judicious antibiotic utilization is an integral part of any stewardship program and necessary to maximize clinical cure and minimize emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The battle against antibiotic resistance should be fought by all healthcare professionals. If surgeons around the world participate in this global fight and demonstrate awareness of the major problem of antimicrobial resistance, they will be pivotal leaders. If surgeons fail to actively engage and use antibiotics judiciously, they will find themselves deprived of the autonomy to treat their patients.