Dataset Information

Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) for the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery: study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Surgical site infections (SSIs) account for 30% of all healthcare-associated infections, with reported rates ranging from 8% and 30% after colorectal surgery and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates, length of hospital stay and costs in healthcare. Administration of systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgery is recommended to reduce the risk of SSI, but the optimal regimen remains unclear. We aim to evaluate whether a combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis could be more effective to reduce the incidence of SSI after colorectal surgery, as compared with the standard practice of intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel, double-blind, multicentre study of 960 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis or intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone, stratified by centre, the surgical procedure (laparoscopic or open surgery) and according to the surgical skin antisepsis (chlorexidine-alcohol or povidione-iodine alcoholic solution). The primary endpoint is the rate of SSI by day 30 following surgery, with SSI defined by the criteria developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle and a per-protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:COMBINE trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee for all study centres. Participant recruitment began in May 2016. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:EudraCT 2015-002559-84; NCT02618720.

SUBMITTER: Vignaud M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5898320 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) for the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery: study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

Vignaud Marie M Paugam-Burtz Catherine C Garot Matthias M Jaber Samir S Slim Karem K Panis Yves Y Lucet Jean-Christophe JC Bourdier Justine J Morand Dominique D Pereira Bruno B Futier Emmanuel E

BMJ open 20180412 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Surgical site infections (SSIs) account for 30% of all healthcare-associated infections, with reported rates ranging from 8% and 30% after colorectal surgery and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates, length of hospital stay and costs in healthcare. Administration of systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgery is recommended to reduce the risk of SSI, but the optimal regimen remains unclear. We aim to evaluate whether a combined oral and intraveno ...[more]

PMID: 29654027

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:Resistant Gram-positive organisms, such as methicillin-resistant staphylococci, account for a significant proportion of infections following joint replacement surgery. Current surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines recommend the use of first-generation or second-generation cephalosporin antibiotics, such as cefazolin. Cefazolin, however, does not prevent infections due to these resistant organisms; therefore, new prevention strategies need to be examined. One proposed strategy is to combine a glycopeptide antibiotic with cefazolin for prophylaxis. The clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of this combination therapy compared with usual therapy, however, have not been established.Methods and analysis:This randomised, double-blind, parallel, superiority, placebo-controlled, phase 4 trial will compare the incidence of all surgical site infections (SSIs) including superficial, deep and organ/space (prosthetic joint) infections, safety and cost-effectiveness of surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin plus vancomycin to that with cefazolin plus placebo. The study will be performed in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. In the microbiological sub-studies, we will examine the incidence of SSIs in participants with preoperative staphylococci colonisation (Sub-Study 1) and incidence of VRE acquisition (Sub-Study 2). The trial will recruit 4450 participants over a 4-year period across 13 orthopaedic centres in Australia. The primary outcome is the incidence of SSI at 90 days post index surgery. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of SSI according to joint and microorganism and other healthcare associated infections. Safety endpoints include the incidence of acute kidney injury, hypersensitivity reactions and all-cause mortality. The primary and secondary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis consisting of all randomised participants who undergo eligible surgery. We will also perform a per-protocol analysis.Ethics and dissemination:The study protocol was reviewed and approved by The Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/102) on 9 July 2018. Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learnt forums.Trial registration number:ACTRN12618000642280.

Project description:Importance:Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) is a common indication for antibiotic use in hospitals and is associated with high rates of inappropriateness. Objective:To describe the SAP prescribing practices and assess hospital, surgical, and patient factors associated with appropriate SAP prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants:Multicenter, national, quality improvement study with retrospective analysis of data collected from Australian hospitals via Surgical National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey audits from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Crude estimates of appropriateness were adjusted for factors included in the model by calculating estimated marginal means and presented as adjusted-appropriateness with 95% confidence intervals. Main Outcomes and Measures:Adjusted appropriateness and factors associated with inappropriate prescriptions. Results:A total of 9351 surgical episodes and 15 395 prescriptions (10 740 procedural and 4655 postprocedural) were analyzed. Crude appropriateness of total prescriptions was 48.7% (7492 prescriptions). The adjusted appropriateness of each surgical procedure group was low for procedural SAP, ranging from 33.7% (95% CI, 26.3%-41.2%) for dentoalveolar surgery to 68.9% (95% CI, 63.2%-74.5%) for neurosurgery. The adjusted appropriateness of postprocedural prescriptions was also low, ranging from 21.5% (95% CI, 13.4%-29.7%) for breast surgery to 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-69.4%) for ophthalmological procedures. The most common reason for inappropriate procedural SAP was incorrect timing (44.9%), while duration greater than 24 hours was the most common reason for inappropriate postprocedural SAP (54.3%). Conclusions and Relevance:High rates of inappropriate procedural and postprocedural antimicrobial use were demonstrated across all surgical specialties. Reasons for inappropriateness, such as timing and duration, varied according to the type of SAP and surgical specialty. These findings highlight the need for improvement in SAP prescribing and suggest potential targeted areas for action.

Project description:BackgroundBody temperature is tightly regulated with hormonal and cellular metabolism for normal functioning; however perioperative hypothermia is common secondary to anesthesia and surgical exposure.Prevention and maintaining body temperature should be started 1-2hrs before induction of anesthesia, to do this both active and passive warming system are effective to prevent complications associated with perioperative hypothermia.MethodsThe aim of this systematic review is to develop a clear clinical practice protocol in prevention and management of perioperative hypothermia for elective adult surgical patients.The study is conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline 2020. After formulating clear criteria for the evidences to be included an appropriate method of searching was conducted by using the Pub Med, Google scholar and Cochrane library using the following MeSH terms: (inadvertent hypothermia AND anesthesia, hypothermia AND perioperative management and thermoregulation AND anesthesia) were used to draw evidences.After a reasonable amount of evidences were collected, appraisal and evaluation of study quality was based on WHO 2011 level of evidence and degree of recommendation. Final conclusions and recommendations are done by balancing the benefits and downsides of alternative management strategies for perioperative management of hypothermia.This systematic review registered with research registry unique identifying number (UIN) of "reviewregistry1253" in addition the overall AMSTAR 2 quality of this systematic review is moderate level.DiscussionPreserving a patient's body temperature during anesthesia and surgery is to minimize heat loss by reducing radiation and convection from the skin, evaporation from exposed surgical areas, and cooling caused by the introduction of cold intravenous fluids.ConclusionHypothermia is least monitored complication during anesthesia and surgery results cardiac abnormalities, impaired wound healing, increased surgical site infections, shivering and delayed postoperative recovery, and coagulopathies.

Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of antimicrobial prophylaxis are limited to the first 24 hours postoperatively. Little is known about the harms associated with continuing antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure.ObjectiveTo characterize the association of type and duration of prophylaxis with surgical site infection (SSI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and Clostridium difficile infection.Design, setting, and participantsIn this multicenter, national retrospective cohort study, all patients within the national Veterans Affairs health care system who underwent cardiac, orthopedic total joint replacement, colorectal, and vascular procedures and who received planned manual review by a trained nurse reviewer for type and duration of surgical prophylaxis and for SSI from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2013, were included. Data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression, with adjustments for covariates determined a priori to be associated with the outcomes of interest. Data were analyzed from December 2016 to December 2018.ExposuresDuration of postoperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (<24 hours, 24-<48 hours, 48-<72 hours, and ≥72 hours).Main outcomes and measuresSurgical site infection, AKI, and C difficile infection.ResultsOf the 79 058 included patients, 76 109 (96.3%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 64.8 (9.4) years. Among 79 058 surgical procedures in the cohort, all had SSI and C difficile outcome data available; 71 344 (90.2%) had AKI outcome data. After stratification by type of surgery and adjustment for age, sex, race, diabetes, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists score greater than 2, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization, mupirocin, type of prophylaxis, and facility factors, SSI was not associated with duration of prophylaxis. Adjusted odds of AKI increased with each additional day of prophylaxis (cardiac procedure: 24-<48 hours: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95-1.12; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39; ≥72 hours: aOR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.54-2.16; noncardiac procedure: 24-<48 hours: aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.42; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.47-2.01; ≥72 hours: aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.27-2.53). The risk of postoperative C difficile infection demonstrated a similar duration-dependent association (24-<48 hours: aOR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.31; 48-<72 hours: aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.80-3.27; ≥72 hours: aOR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.40-5.53). The unadjusted numbers needed to harm for AKI after 24 to less than 48 hours, 48 to less than 72 hours, and 72 hours or more of postoperative prophylaxis were 9, 6, and 4, respectively; and 2000, 90, and 50 for C difficile infection, respectively. Vancomycin receipt was also a significant risk factor for AKI (cardiac procedure: aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.25; noncardiac procedure: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.13-1.30).Conclusions and relevanceIncreasing duration of antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with higher odds of AKI and C difficile infection in a duration-dependent fashion; extended duration did not lead to additional SSI reduction. These findings highlight the notion that every day matters and suggest that stewardship efforts to limit duration of prophylaxis have the potential to reduce adverse events without increasing SSI.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the extensive research that has been conducted to date, practice often differs from established guidelines and will vary between individuals and organisations. It has been noted that the global uptake of local and international surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (SAP) guidelines is poor with limited research investigating factors that affect guideline adherence. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the reported barriers and enablers to the adherence of SAP guidelines.MethodsA search of the literature was performed using four electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed and SCOPUS) for articles published in the English language from January 1998 to December 2018. Articles were included if they were solely related to SAP and discussed the barriers or enablers to SAP guideline adherence. Articles that assessed the adherence to a range of infection control measures or discussed adherence to antibiotic treatment guidelines rather than SAP guidelines were excluded from this review. Barriers and enablers were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsA total of 1489 papers were originally retrieved, with 48 papers meeting the eligibility criteria. Barriers and enablers were mapped to 11 out of 14 TDF domains: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, reinforcement, memory, attention and decision processes, environmental context and resources, social influences, emotion and behavioural regulation. Barriers were further categorised into personal or organisational barriers, while enablers were arranged under commonly trialled interventions.ConclusionsThere are numerous factors that can determine the uptake of SAP guidelines. An identification and understanding of these factors at a local level is required to develop tailored interventions to enhance guideline adherence. Interventions, when used in combination, can be considered as a means of improving guideline use.

Project description:BackgroundProgesterone administration has been shown to reduce the risk of preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women at high risk, but there is uncertainty about longer term effects on the child.MethodsWe did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of vaginal progesterone, 200 mg daily taken from 22-24 to 34 weeks of gestation, on pregnancy and infant outcomes in women at risk of preterm birth (because of previous spontaneous birth at ≤34 weeks and 0 days of gestation, or a cervical length ≤25 mm, or because of a positive fetal fibronectin test combined with other clinical risk factors for preterm birth [any one of a history in a previous pregnancy of preterm birth, second trimester loss, preterm premature fetal membrane rupture, or a history of a cervical procedure to treat abnormal smears]). The objective of the study was to determine whether vaginal progesterone prophylaxis given to reduce the risk of preterm birth affects neonatal and childhood outcomes. We defined three primary outcomes: fetal death or birth before 34 weeks and 0 days gestation (obstetric), a composite of death, brain injury, or bronchopulmonary dysplasia (neonatal), and a standardised cognitive score at 2 years of age (childhood), imputing values for deaths. Randomisation was done through a web portal, with participants, investigators, and others involved in giving the intervention, assessing outcomes, or analysing data masked to treatment allocation until the end of the study. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14568373.FindingsBetween Feb 2, 2009, and April 12, 2013, we randomly assigned 1228 women to the placebo group (n=610) and the progesterone group (n=618). In the placebo group, data from 597, 587, and 439 women or babies were available for analysis of obstetric, neonatal, and childhood outcomes, respectively; in the progesterone group the corresponding numbers were 600, 589, and 430. After correction for multiple outcomes, progesterone had no significant effect on the primary obstetric outcome (odds ratio adjusted for multiple comparisons [OR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·61-1·22) or neonatal outcome (OR 0·62, 0·38-1·03), nor on the childhood outcome (cognitive score, progesterone group vs placebo group, 97·3 [SD 17·9] vs 97·7 [17·5]; difference in means -0·48, 95% CI -2·77 to 1·81). Maternal or child serious adverse events were reported in 70 (11%) of 610 patients in the placebo group and 59 (10%) of 616 patients in the progesterone group (p=0·27).InterpretationVaginal progesterone was not associated with reduced risk of preterm birth or composite neonatal adverse outcomes, and had no long-term benefit or harm on outcomes in children at 2 years of age.FundingEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The EME Programme is funded by the MRC and NIHR, with contributions from the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland and National Institute for Social Care and Research in Wales.

Dataset Information

Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) for the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery: study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

Publications

Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) for the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery: study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets