Dataset Information

Mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics versus mechanical bowel preparation only prior rectal surgery (MOBILE2): a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial-study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) prior to rectal surgery is widely used. Based on retrospective data many guidelines recommend mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation (MOABP) to reduce postoperative complications and specifically surgical site infections (SSIs). The primary aim of this study is to examine whether MOABP reduces complications of rectal surgery.

Methods and analysis

The MOBILE2 (Mechanical Bowel Preparation and Oral Antibiotics vs Mechanical Bowel Preparation Only Prior Rectal Surgery) trial is a multicentre, double-blinded, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial comparing MOABP to MBP among patients scheduled for rectal surgery with colorectal or coloanal anastomosis. The patients randomised to the MOABP group receive 1 g neomycin and 1 g metronidazole two times on a day prior to surgery and patients randomised to the MBP group receive identical placebo. Based on power calculations, 604 patients will be enrolled in the study. The primary outcome is Comprehensive Complication Index within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are SSIs within 30 days after surgery, the number and classification of anastomosis dehiscences, the length of hospital stay, mortality within 90 days after surgery and the number of patients who received adjuvant treatment if needed. Tertiary outcomes are overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival and difference in quality-of-life before and 1 year after surgery. In addition, the microbiota differences in colon mucosa are analysed.

Ethics and dissemination

The Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital approved the study. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed academic journals.

Trial registration number

NCT04281667.

SUBMITTER: Koskenvuo L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273484 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSurgical site infections (SSIs)-especially anastomotic dehiscence-are major contributors to morbidity and mortality after rectal resection. The role of mechanical and oral antibiotics bowel preparation (MOABP) in preventing complications of rectal resection is currently disputed.ObjectiveTo assess whether MOABP reduces overall complications and SSIs after elective rectal resection compared with mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus placebo.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 university hospitals in Finland between March 18, 2020, and October 10, 2022. Patients aged 18 years and older undergoing elective resection with primary anastomosis of a rectal tumor 15 cm or less from the anal verge on magnetic resonance imaging were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes were analyzed using a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who were randomly allocated to and underwent elective rectal resection with an anastomosis.InterventionsPatients were stratified according to tumor distance from the anal verge and neoadjuvant treatment given and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MOABP with an oral regimen of neomycin and metronidazole (n = 277) or MBP plus matching placebo tablets (n = 288). All study medications were taken the day before surgery, and all patients received intravenous antibiotics approximately 30 minutes before surgery.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was overall cumulative postoperative complications measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index. Key secondary outcomes were SSI and anastomotic dehiscence within 30 days after surgery.ResultsIn all, 565 patients were included in the analysis, with 288 in the MBP plus placebo group (median [IQR] age, 69 [62-74] years; 190 males [66.0%]) and 277 in the MOABP group (median [IQR] age, 70 [62-75] years; 158 males [57.0%]). Patients in the MOABP group experienced fewer overall postoperative complications (median [IQR] Comprehensive Complication Index, 0 [0-8.66] vs 8.66 [0-20.92]; Wilcoxon effect size, 0.146; P < .001), fewer SSIs (23 patients [8.3%] vs 48 patients [16.7%]; odds ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.77]), and fewer anastomotic dehiscences (16 patients [5.8%] vs 39 patients [13.5%]; odds ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.21-0.72]) compared with patients in the MBP plus placebo group.Conclusions and relevanceFindings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that MOABP reduced overall postoperative complications as well as rates of SSIs and anastomotic dehiscences in patients undergoing elective rectal resection compared with MBP plus placebo. Based on these findings, MOABP should be considered as standard treatment in patients undergoing elective rectal resection.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04281667.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of intravenous antibiotics at anaesthetic induction in colorectal surgery is the standard of care. However, the role of mechanical bowel preparation, enemas, and oral antibiotics in surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and other perioperative outcomes remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal preoperative bowel preparation strategy in elective colorectal surgery.MethodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs was performed with searches from PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2022. Primary outcomes included surgical site infection and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality rate, ileus, length of stay, return to theatre, other infections, and side effects of antibiotic therapy or bowel preparation.ResultsSixty RCTs involving 16 314 patients were included in the final analysis: 3465 (21.2 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics alone, 5268 (32.3 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 1710 (10.5 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, 4183 (25.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation, 262 (1.6 per cent) had intravenous antibiotics + enemas, and 1426 (8.7 per cent) had oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation. With intravenous antibiotics as a baseline comparator, network meta-analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in total surgical site infection risk with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.47 (95 per cent c.i. 0.32 to 0.68)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.55 (95 per cent c.i. 0.40 to 0.76)), whereas oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation resulted in a higher surgical site infection rate compared with intravenous antibiotics alone (OR 1.84 (95 per cent c.i. 1.20 to 2.81)). Anastomotic leak rates were lower with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics (OR 0.63 (95 per cent c.i. 0.44 to 0.90)) and intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics + mechanical bowel preparation (OR 0.62 (95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 0.94)) compared with intravenous antibiotics alone. There was no significant difference in outcomes with mechanical bowel preparation in the absence of intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics in the main analysis.ConclusionA bowel preparation strategy with intravenous antibiotics + oral antibiotics, with or without mechanical bowel preparation, should represent the standard of care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Project description:IntroductionA novel coronavirus, designated SARS-CoV-2, caused an international outbreak of a respiratory illness, termed COVID-19 in December 2019. There is a lack of specific therapeutic agents based on evidence for this novel coronavirus infection; however, several medications have been evaluated as a potential therapy. Therapy is required to treat symptomatic patients and decrease the virus carriage duration to limit the communitytransmission.Methods and analysisWe hypothesise that patients with mild COVID-19 treated with favipiravir will have a shorter duration of time to virus clearance than the control group. The primary outcome is to evaluate the effect of favipiravir on the timing of the PCR test conversion from positive to negative within 15 days after starting the medicine.Adults (>18 years, men or nonpregnant women, diagnosed with mild COVID-19 within 5 days of disease onset) are being recruited by physicians participating from the Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs and the Ministry of Health ethics committee approved primary healthcare centres. This double-blind, randomised trial comprises three significant parts: screening, treatment and a follow-up period. The treating physician and patients are blinded. Eligible participants are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the therapy group (favipiravir) or a control group (placebo) with 1800 mg by mouth two times per day for the first day, followed by 800 mg two times per day for 4-7 days. Serial nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab samples are obtained on day 1 (5 days before therapy). On day5±1 day, 10±1 day, 15±2 days, extra nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal PCR COVID-19 samples are requested.The primary analysis population for evaluating both the efficacy and safety outcomes will be a modified intention to treat population. Anticipating a 10% dropout rate, we expect to recruit 288 subjects per arm. The results assume that the hazard ratio is constant throughout the study and that the Cox proportional hazard regression is used to analyse the data.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Centre Institutional Review Board (28 April 2020) and the Ministry of Health Institutional Review Board (1 July 2020). Protocol details and any amendments will be reported to https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04464408. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNational Clinical Trial Registry (NCT04464408).