Cargando…

1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity

BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is not well defined. The aim of this study was to determine whether nonertapenem antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is associated with increased rates of surgical site infections (SSI), defined by both deep an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: LaDow, Tiffany, Brust, Karen B, Zolfaghari, Kiumars, Midturi, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810998/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.966
_version_ 1783462372068818944
author LaDow, Tiffany
Brust, Karen B
Zolfaghari, Kiumars
Midturi, John
author_facet LaDow, Tiffany
Brust, Karen B
Zolfaghari, Kiumars
Midturi, John
author_sort LaDow, Tiffany
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is not well defined. The aim of this study was to determine whether nonertapenem antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is associated with increased rates of surgical site infections (SSI), defined by both deep and incisional infections, compared with ertapenem prophylaxis. Secondary aims were to identify differences in C. difficile infection rates at 60 days between the two groups. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study from November 2016 to December 2018 at a 600-bed teaching hospital equipped with a Level I Trauma Center in Central Texas. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria for colorectal surgical site infection (SSI) were used to identify eligible patients. Patients under 18 years or lacking pre-operative antibiotic documentation were excluded. SSI and C. difficile rates between the two prophylactic strategies were compared using Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 761 patients were included in the analysis. There were 87 patients in the ertapenem group and 674 patients in the nonertapenem group. Antibiotics included in the nonertapenem group were cefazolin (32%), ceftriaxone (22%), or ciprofloxacin (15%) plus metronidazole, and other antibiotics (31%). Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), and number of surgical procedures were similar for both groups. The overall SSI rate was 4.7% and the 60-day C. difficile rate was 3.9%. No significant differences were found between ertapenem and nonertapenem groups in SSI rates (5.8% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.6) or 60-day incidence of C. difficile (6.9% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Our study, with a large sample size and a low overall incidence of SSI, did not find a significant difference in either SSI rates or 60-day C. difficile rates between ertapenem and nonertapenem prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Given the rise of Gram-negative resistance, this study highlights an important opportunity for carbapenem stewardship. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6810998
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68109982019-10-28 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity LaDow, Tiffany Brust, Karen B Zolfaghari, Kiumars Midturi, John Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is not well defined. The aim of this study was to determine whether nonertapenem antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal surgery is associated with increased rates of surgical site infections (SSI), defined by both deep and incisional infections, compared with ertapenem prophylaxis. Secondary aims were to identify differences in C. difficile infection rates at 60 days between the two groups. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study from November 2016 to December 2018 at a 600-bed teaching hospital equipped with a Level I Trauma Center in Central Texas. National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria for colorectal surgical site infection (SSI) were used to identify eligible patients. Patients under 18 years or lacking pre-operative antibiotic documentation were excluded. SSI and C. difficile rates between the two prophylactic strategies were compared using Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 761 patients were included in the analysis. There were 87 patients in the ertapenem group and 674 patients in the nonertapenem group. Antibiotics included in the nonertapenem group were cefazolin (32%), ceftriaxone (22%), or ciprofloxacin (15%) plus metronidazole, and other antibiotics (31%). Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), and number of surgical procedures were similar for both groups. The overall SSI rate was 4.7% and the 60-day C. difficile rate was 3.9%. No significant differences were found between ertapenem and nonertapenem groups in SSI rates (5.8% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.6) or 60-day incidence of C. difficile (6.9% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Our study, with a large sample size and a low overall incidence of SSI, did not find a significant difference in either SSI rates or 60-day C. difficile rates between ertapenem and nonertapenem prophylaxis in colorectal surgery. Given the rise of Gram-negative resistance, this study highlights an important opportunity for carbapenem stewardship. DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures. Oxford University Press 2019-10-23 /pmc/articles/PMC6810998/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.966 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
LaDow, Tiffany
Brust, Karen B
Zolfaghari, Kiumars
Midturi, John
1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title_full 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title_fullStr 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title_full_unstemmed 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title_short 1102. Ertapenem vs. Nonertapenem Antibiotics in Colorectal Surgery: A Stewardship Opportunity
title_sort 1102. ertapenem vs. nonertapenem antibiotics in colorectal surgery: a stewardship opportunity
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6810998/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz360.966
work_keys_str_mv AT ladowtiffany 1102ertapenemvsnonertapenemantibioticsincolorectalsurgeryastewardshipopportunity
AT brustkarenb 1102ertapenemvsnonertapenemantibioticsincolorectalsurgeryastewardshipopportunity
AT zolfagharikiumars 1102ertapenemvsnonertapenemantibioticsincolorectalsurgeryastewardshipopportunity
AT midturijohn 1102ertapenemvsnonertapenemantibioticsincolorectalsurgeryastewardshipopportunity