Empiric antimicrobial therapy in critical illness: results of a surgical infection society survey

/in ,

Abstract

Background: Antibiotics are prescribed commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Often, therapy is initiated empirically; practice patterns are not well characterized. We documented approaches to empiric antibiotic therapy among members of the Surgical Infection Society (SIS).

Methods: We sent a scenario-based questionnaire to all SIS members. The hypothetical cases addressed empiric broad-spectrum therapy for a patient with pyrexia and leukocytosis and the use of vancomycin for central venous catheter infection.

Results: The 113 respondents were primarily surgeons (96%) with a university-based practice (92%). Most attended in the ICU (72%), and they had practiced for 14 +/- 8 years. Whereas 63% of the respondents identified overuse of antibiotics as a problem in their ICU, only 19% said inadequate treatment of infection was a concern. For a febrile patient with negative cultures who was receiving antibiotics, estimates of the likelihood of infection increased across the three scenarios as the degree of organ failure increased (p < 0.0001; chi-square test). Deteriorating organ function was associated with a decision to broaden empiric therapy (58% vs. 33%; p < 0.0001) and to initiate anti-fungal therapy (27% vs. 9%; p < 0.0001) rather than to stop antibiotics and re-culture (15% vs. 51%; p < 0.0001). There was considerable variability in management strategy across the scenarios: Even in the face of organ dysfunction, 58% of physicians would add or change empiric therapy, whereas 30% would not. For each scenario, 23 to 25 antibiotic regimens were designated as optimal therapy. Only 45% of the respondents would initiate empiric vancomycin for suspected central line infection. Variability in approach was not explained by critical care practice, academic position, or country.

Conclusions: Clinical deterioration is a strong determinant of a decision to initiate or broaden empiric antibiotic therapy during critical illness. The substantial variability in approach suggests a state of clinical equipoise that calls for more rigorous evaluation through a randomized controlled trial.

Read More

Surgical Infection Society guideline: prophylactic antibiotic use in open fractures: an evidence-based guideline

/in ,

Abstract

Abstract

Background: Prolonged courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics are often cited as the standard of care for prevention of infective complications of open fractures. The origins of these recommendations are obscure, however, and multi-drug-resistant systemic infections attributable to antibiotic overuse are common life-threatening problems in current intensive care unit practice.

Objective: To review systematically the effects of prophylactic antibiotic administration on the incidence of infections complicating open fractures.

Data sources: Computerized bibliographic search of published research and citation review of relevant articles.

Study selection: All published clinical trials claiming to evaluate, or cited elsewhere as being authoritative regarding, the role of antibiotics in open fracture management were identified and then evaluated according to published guidelines for evidence-based medicine. Only small studies (<20 patients), practice surveys, pharmacokinetic studies, and reviews or duplicative publications presenting primary data already considered were excluded from analysis.

Data extraction: Information on demographics, study dates, fracture grade, antibiotic type, duration and route of administration, surgical interventions, infection-related outcomes, and the methodologic quality of the studies was extracted by the authors. The primary results were submitted to the Therapeutic Agents Committee of the Surgical Infection Society for review prior to creation of the final consensus document.

Data synthesis: Current antibiotic management of open fractures is based on a small number of studies that generally are more than 30 years old and do not reflect current management priorities in trauma and critical care. With a few noteworthy exceptions, these primary studies suffer from a variety of methodologic problems, including co-mingling of prospective and retrospective data sets, absence of or inappropriate statistical analysis, lack of blinding, or failure of randomization.

Conclusions: The data support the conclusion that a short course of first-generation cephalosporins, begun as soon as possible after injury, significantly lowers the risk of infection when used in combination with prompt, modern orthopedic fracture wound management. There is insufficient evidence to support other common management practices, such as prolonged courses or repeated short courses of antibiotics, the use of antibiotic coverage extending to gram-negative bacilli or clostridial species, or the use of local antibiotic therapies such as beads. Large, randomized, blinded trials are needed to prove or disprove the value of these traditional approaches. Such trials should be performed in patients with high-grade fractures who (1) are well-stratified according to the degree of local injury and (2) undergo standardized fracture and wound management. Trials also must be powered to study the effects of extended antibiotic coverage on nosocomial infections. Antibiotic regimens confirmed to improve local fracture outcomes in such studies could then be used rationally, balancing the risks of local fracture-related infections and of multi-drug-resistant systemic infections to achieve optimal global outcomes.

Read More

Surgical infection society guidelines for vaccination after traumatic injury

/in ,

Abstract

Background: Recommendations for vaccination of injured patients against infection are evolving. Newly-recognized infections, safety considerations, changing epidemiology, and redefinition of patient groups at risk are factors that may influence vaccine development priorities and recommendations for immunization. However, recommendations must often be formulated based on incomplete data, forcing reliance on expert opinion to address some crucial questions. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the prevention or treatment of infectious morbidity and mortality after traumatic injury, such as soft tissue wounds, human or animal bites, or after splenectomy.

Methods: A panel of experts conducted a thorough review of published literature, as well as information posted on the internet at the websites of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others. MEDLINE was searched for the period 1966-2004 using relevant terms including “anthrax,” “rabies,” “tetanus,” “tetanus toxoid,” and ” splenectomy,” in combination with “vaccine” and “immunization.” The Cochrane database was searched also. Reference lists were cross-referenced for additional relevant citations. All published reports were analyzed for quality and graded, with the strength of the recommendation proportionate to the quality of the supporting evidence.

Results: Recommendations are provided for pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis of rabies and anthrax. For tetanus prophylaxis, recommendations are provided for prophylaxis of acute wounds stratified y age and prior immunization status, and for immunization of persons at high risk. After splenectomy, it is recommended that all persons ages 2-64 years receive 23- valent pneumococcal vaccine and meningococcal vaccine, with Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine administered to high-risk patients as well (all are Grade D recommendations). Vaccination should be given two weeks before elective splenectomy (Grade C), or two weeks after emergency splenectomy (Grade D). A booster dose of pneumococcal vaccine is recommended after five years (Grade D); no re- vaccination recommendation is made for meningococcal or Haemophilus influenzae type B vaccine. Recommendations for prophylaxis of splenectomized children under the age of five years are also provided.

Conclusion: There are limited data on the use of vaccines after injury. This document brings together a disparate literature of variable quality into a discussion of the infectious risks after injury relevant to vaccine administration, a summary of safety and adverse effects of vaccines, and evidence-based recommendations for vaccination.

Read More

The Surgical Infection Society guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections: an executive summary

/in ,

Abstract

The Surgical Infection Society last published guidelines on antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections in 1992 (Bohnen JMA, et al., Arch Surg 1992;127:83-89). Since then, an appreciable body of literature has been published on this subject. Therefore, the Therapeutics Agents Committee of the Society undertook an effort to update the previous guidelines, primarily using data published over the past decade. An additional goal of the Committee was to characterize its recommendations according to contemporary principles of evidence-based medicine. To develop these guidelines, the Committee carried out a systematic search for all English language articles published between 1990 and 2000 related to antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections. This literature was reviewed individually and collectively by the Committee, and categorized according to the type of study and its quality. Additional articles published prior to 1990 were also utilized when necessary. By a process of iterative consensus, the Committee developed provisional guidelines for antimicrobial therapy for intra-abdominal infections based on this evidence. Following extensive review by members of the Society, these guidelines were approved for publication in final form by the Council of the Surgical Infection Society. This executive summary delineates the Society’s current recommendations for antimicrobial therapy of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Topics discussed include the selection of patients needing therapeutic antimicrobials, duration of antimicrobial therapy, acceptable antimicrobial regimens, and identification and treatment of higher-risk patients. Guidelines for patient selection and specific antimicrobial regimens were based on relatively good evidence, but those regarding optimal duration of therapy and treatment of higher-risk patients relied mostly on expert opinion, since there was a paucity of high-quality studies on those issues. Relevant areas for future investigation include the safety, convenience, and cost-effectiveness of available antimicrobial regimens for lower-risk patients, and better means for identifying and treating higher-risk patients with intra-abdominal infections.

Read More