Lin M. Riccio

Aggressive versus conservative initiation of antimicrobial treatment in critically ill surgical patients with suspected intensive-care-unit-acquired infection: a quasi-experimental, before and after observational cohort study

BACKGROUND Antimicrobial treatment in critically ill patients can either be started as soon as infection is suspected or after objective data confirm an infection. We postulated that delaying antimicrobial treatment of patients with suspected infections in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) until objective evidence of infection had been obtained would not worsen patient mortality. METHODS We did a 2-year, quasi-experimental, before and after observational cohort study of patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to the SICU of the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, VA, USA). From Sept 1, 2008, to Aug 31, 2009, aggressive treatment was used: patients suspected of having an infection on the basis of clinical grounds had blood cultures sent and antimicrobial treatment started. From Sept 1, 2009, to Aug 31, 2010, a conservative strategy was used, with antimicrobial treatment started only after objective findings confirmed an infection. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS Admissions to the SICU for the first and second years were 762 and 721, respectively, with 101 patients with SICU-acquired infections during the aggressive year and 100 patients during the conservative year. Compared with the aggressive approach, the conservative approach was associated with lower all-cause mortality (13/100 [13%] vs 27/101 [27%]; p=0·015), more initially appropriate therapy (158/214 [74%] vs 144/231 [62%]; p=0·0095), and a shorter mean duration of therapy (12·5 days [SD 10·7] vs 17·7 [28·1]; p=0·0080). After adjusting for age, sex, trauma involvement, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, and site of infection, the odds ratio for the risk of mortality in the aggressive therapy group compared with the conservative therapy group was 2·5 (95% CI 1·5-4·0). INTERPRETATION Waiting for objective data to diagnose infection before treatment with antimicrobial drugs for suspected SICU-acquired infections does not worsen mortality and might be associated with better outcomes and use of antimicrobial drugs. FUNDING National Institutes of Health.

Hypocaloric compared with eucaloric nutritional support and its effect on infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Proper caloric intake goals in critically ill surgical patients are unclear. It is possible that overnutrition can lead to hyperglycemia and an increased risk of infection. OBJECTIVE This study was conducted to determine whether surgical infection outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) could be improved with the use of hypocaloric nutritional support. DESIGN Eighty-three critically ill patients were randomly allocated to receive either the standard calculated daily caloric requirement of 25-30 kcal · kg(-1) · d(-1) (eucaloric) or 50% of that value (hypocaloric) via enteral tube feeds or parenteral nutrition, with an equal protein allocation in each group (1.5 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)). RESULTS There were 82 infections in the hypocaloric group and 66 in the eucaloric group, with no significant difference in the mean (± SE) number of infections per patient (2.0 ± 0.6 and 1.6 ± 0.2, respectively; P = 0.50), percentage of patients acquiring infection [70.7% (29 of 41) and 76.2% (32 of 42), respectively; P = 0.57], mean ICU length of stay (16.7 ± 2.7 and 13.5 ± 1.1 d, respectively; P = 0.28), mean hospital length of stay (35.2 ± 4.9 and 31.0 ± 2.5 d, respectively; P = 0.45), mean 0600 glucose concentration (132 ± 2.9 and 135 ± 3.1 mg/dL, respectively; P = 0.63), or number of mortalities [3 (7.3%) and 4 (9.5%), respectively; P = 0.72]. Further analyses revealed no differences when analyzed by sex, admission diagnosis, site of infection, or causative organism. CONCLUSIONS Among critically ill surgical patients, caloric provision across a wide acceptable range does not appear to be associated with major outcomes, including infectious complications. The optimum target for caloric provision remains elusive.

De-Escalation of Antibiotics Does Not Increase Mortality in Critically Ill Surgical Patients

BACKGROUND Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics results in microbial resistance and financially is a healthcare burden. Antibiotic de-escalation refers to starting treatment of a presumed infection with broad-spectrum antibiotics and narrowing drug spectrum based on culture sensitivities. A study was designed to evaluate antibiotic de-escalation at a tertiary care center. We hypothesized that antibiotic de-escalation would not be associated with increased patient mortality rates or worsening of the primary infection. METHODS All infections treated in a single, tertiary care Surgical ICU between August 2009 and December 2011 were reviewed. Antibiotic treatment was classified by skilled reviewers as being either de-escalated or not. Outcomes were evaluated. Univariate statistics were performed (Fisher exact test, Chi-square for categorical data; student t-test for continuous variables). Multivariable logistic regression was completed. RESULTS A total of 2,658 infections were identified. De-escalation was identified for 995 infections and non-deescalation occurred in 1,663. Patients were similar in age (de-escalated 55 ± 16 y vs. 56 ± 16, p = 0.1) and gender (de-escalated 60% males vs. 58%, p = 0.4). There were substantially greater APACHE II scores in non-deescalated patients (15 ± 8 vs. 14 ± 8, p = 0.03). A greater mortality rate among patients with infections treated without de-escalation was observed compared with those treated with de-escalation (9% vs. 6%, p = 0.002). Total antibiotic duration was substantially longer in the de-escalated group (15 ± 13 d vs. 13 ± 13, p = 0.0001). Multivariable analysis found that de-escalation decreased mortality rates (OR = 0.69; 95%CI, 0.49-0.97; p = 0.04) and high APACHE II score independently increased mortality rates (OR = 1.2; 95%CI, 1.1-1.2; p = 0.0001). Other parameters included were age and infection site. CONCLUSIONS Antibiotic de-escalation was not associated with increased mortality rates, but the duration of antibiotic use was longer in this group. Greater mortality rates were observed in the non-deescalated group, but this likely owes at least in part to their relatively greater severity of disease classification (APACHE II). Further investigation will help evaluate whether antibiotic de-escalation will improve the quality of patient care.

Options for Closure of the Infected Abdomen

BACKGROUND The infected abdomen poses substantial challenges to surgeons, and often, both temporary and definitive closure techniques are required. We reviewed the options available to close the abdominal wall defect encountered frequently during and after the management of complicated intra-abdominal infections. METHODS A comprehensive review was performed of the techniques and literature on abdominal closure in the setting of intra-abdominal infection. RESULTS Temporary abdominal closure options include the Wittmann Patch, Bogota bag, vacuum-assisted closure (VAC), the AbThera™ device, and synthetic or biologic mesh. Definitive reconstruction has been described with mesh, components separation, and autologous tissue transfer. CONCLUSION Reconstructing the infected abdomen, both temporarily and definitively, can be accomplished with various techniques, each of which is associated with unique advantages and disadvantages. Appropriate judgment is required to optimize surgical outcomes in these complex cases.

Quarantine, isolation, and cohorting: from cholera to Klebsiella.

BACKGROUND Isolation is defined as the separation of persons with communicable diseases from those who are healthy. This public health practice, along with quarantine, is used to limit the transmission of infectious diseases and provides the foundation of current-day cohorting. METHODS Review of the pertinent English-language literature. RESULTS Mass isolation developed during the medieval Black Death outbreaks in order to protect ports from the transmission of epidemics. In the mid-1800s, infectious disease hospitals were opened. It now is clear that isolation and cohorting of patients and staff interrupts the transmission of disease. Over the next century, with the discovery of penicillin and vaccines against many infectious agents, the contagious disease hospitals began to close. Today, we find smaller outbreaks of microorganisms that have acquired substantial resistance to antimicrobial agents. In the resource-limited hospital, a dedicated area or region of a unit may suffice to separate affected from unaffected patients. CONCLUSION Quarantine, or cohorting when patients are infected with the same pathogen, interrupts the spread of infections, just as the contagious disease hospitals did during the epidemics of the 18th and 19th centuries.