Reduction of Surgical Site Infection After Trauma Laparotomy Through Use of a Specific Protocol for Antibiotic Prophylaxis.

Background: Emergency laparotomy for abdominal trauma is associated with high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). A protocol for antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) for trauma laparotomy was implemented to determine whether SSI could be reduced by adhering to established principles of AMP. Patients and Methods: A protocol utilizing ertapenem administered immediately before initiation of trauma laparotomy was adopted. Compliance with measures of adequate AMP were determined before and after protocol implementation, as were rates of SSI and other infections related to abdominal trauma. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine risk factors for development of infection related to trauma laparotomy. Results: Over a four-year period, 320 patient operations were reviewed. Ertapenem use for prophylaxis increased to 54% in the post-intervention cohort. Compliance with individual measures of appropriate AMP improved modestly. Overall, infections related to trauma laparotomy decreased by 46% (absolute decrease of 13%) in the post-intervention cohort. Multivariable analysis confirmed that treatment during the post-intervention phase was associated with this decrease, with a separate analysis suggesting that ertapenem use was an important factor in this decrease. Conclusions: Development of a standardized protocol for AMP in trauma laparotomy led to decreases in infectious complications after that procedure.

It is time to define an organizational model for the prevention and management of infections along the surgical pathway: a worldwide cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the study were to investigate the organizational characteristics of acute care facilities worldwide in preventing and managing infections in surgery; assess participants' perception regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) measures, antibiotic prescribing practices, and source control; describe awareness about the global burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and IPC measures; and determine the role of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic on said awareness. METHODS: A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted contacting 1432 health care workers (HCWs) belonging to a mailing list provided by the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery. The self-administered questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team. The survey was open from May 22, 2021, and June 22, 2021. Three reminders were sent, after 7, 14, and 21 days. RESULTS: Three hundred four respondents from 72 countries returned a questionnaire, with an overall response rate of 21.2%. Respectively, 90.4% and 68.8% of participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary IPC team or a multidisciplinary antimicrobial stewardship team. Local protocols for antimicrobial therapy of surgical infections and protocols for surgical antibiotic prophylaxis were present in 76.6% and 90.8% of hospitals, respectively. In 23.4% and 24.0% of hospitals no surveillance systems for surgical site infections and no monitoring systems of used antimicrobials were implemented. Patient and family involvement in IPC management was considered to be slightly or not important in their hospital by the majority of respondents (65.1%). Awareness of the global burden of AMR among HCWs was considered very important or important by 54.6% of participants. The COVID-19 pandemic was considered by 80.3% of respondents as a very important or important factor in raising HCWs awareness of the IPC programs in their hospital. Based on the survey results, the authors developed 15 statements for several questions regarding the prevention and management of infections in surgery. The statements may be the starting point for designing future evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSION: Adequacy of prevention and management of infections in acute care facilities depends on HCWs behaviours and on the organizational characteristics of acute health care facilities to support best practices and promote behavioural change. Patient involvement in the implementation of IPC is still little considered. A debate on how operationalising a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the HCWs responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCWs and patients, should be opened.

Clinical and Microbiological Outcomes of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Treatment in Adults with Gram-Negative Bacteremia: A Subset Analysis from the Phase 3 Clinical Trial Program.

INTRODUCTION: This exploratory analysis assessed efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia treated with ceftazidime-avibactam or comparator across five phase 3, randomized, controlled, multi-center trials in adults with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI)/pyelonephritis, hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: In each trial, RECLAIM and RECLAIM 3 (cIAI; NCT01499290/NCT01726023), REPRISE (cIAI/cUTI; NCT01644643), RECAPTURE (cUTI; NCT01595438/NCT01599806), and REPROVE (HAP/VAP; NCT01808092), patients were randomized 1:1 to intravenous ceftazidime-avibactam (plus metronidazole for those with cIAI) or comparators (carbapenems in > 97% patients) for 5-21 days. Efficacy assessments included clinical and microbiological responses at the test-of-cure visit in the pooled Gram-negative extended microbiologically evaluable (GNeME) population (bacteremia subset). Safety outcomes were summarized for patients with positive bacterial blood culture(s) at baseline who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment. RESULTS: The overall safety population included 4050 patients (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 2024; comparator, n = 2026). The GNeME population (bacteremia subset) comprised 101 patients (ceftazidime-avibactam, n = 54; comparator, n = 47). Clinical cure rates (all indications combined) were 47/54 (87.0%) for ceftazidime-avibactam and 39/47 (83.0%) for comparators; favorable microbiological response rates were 43/54 (79.6%) and 32/47 (68.1%), respectively. Clinical and microbiological responses in the bacteremia subset were generally similar to those in the overall set. The pattern of adverse events in patients with bacteremia was similar between treatment groups and was consistent with the known safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides supportive evidence of the efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam in patients with Gram-negative bacteremia associated with cIAI, cUTI/pyelonephritis, or HAP/VAP.

2020 update of the WSES guidelines for the management of acute colonic diverticulitis in the emergency setting.

Acute colonic diverticulitis is one of the most common clinical conditions encountered by surgeons in the acute setting. An international multidisciplinary panel of experts from the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) updated its guidelines for management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis (ALCD) according to the most recent available literature. The update includes recent changes introduced in the management of ALCD. The new update has been further integrated with advances in acute right-sided colonic diverticulitis (ARCD) that is more common than ALCD in select regions of the world.

Inadequate Antibiotic Therapy Results in Higher Recurrence Rate after Drainage of Complicated Peri-Rectal Abscess.

Background: Recommended treatment for complicated peri-rectal abscess is incision and drainage (I&D) in conjunction with antibiotics. However, there is no standard antibiotic regimen for post-operative therapy described in the published literature. Our hypothesis was that appropriate post-operative antibiotic therapy after emergency I&D of complicated peri-rectal abscess will improve patient outcomes. Methods: Data from 58 patients with complicated peri-rectal abscess who underwent emergency I&D were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic, microbiologic, and antibiotic data were abstracted. Adequateness of antibiotics was judged by susceptibility data when available or by comparing the antibiotic spectrum with the type of organisms grown in culture when susceptibility data were not available. The Student t-test and χ2 test were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for confounding variables influencing recurrence rates. Results: Of the 58 patients reviewed, 12 were excluded because there was no culture information available or the culture showed no growth. Of the remaining 46 patients, 33 (72%) were male and 29 (63%) were African American. The mean age was 39.4 ± 16.4 years and the Body Mass Index was 28.4 ± 6.6 kg/m2. Culture data revealed mixed aerobic/anaerobic organisms in 17 (37%), mixed aerobic organisms in 15 (32.6%), gram-positive organisms in 9 (19.6%), gram-negative organisms in 2 (4.4%), and other organisms in 3 (6.6%). Twenty-five patients (54.4%) received adequate antibiotic coverage with the remainder inadequately covered. The inadequate antibiotic therapy cohort had a higher re-admission rate for abscess recurrence (n = 6 [28.6%] versus n = 1 [4%]; p = 0.021). More than half were readmitted 30 days or more after the index procedure. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, or Charlson Comorbidity Index between the groups. Conclusion: Inadequate antibiotic coverage after I&D of complicated peri-rectal abscess resulted in a six-fold increase in the re-admission rate. A standard oral protocol combining antibiotics covering typical gram-positive, gram-negative, and anaerobic organisms should provide adequate coverage after surgical drainage. Additional prospective studies are needed to elucidate the optimal antibiotic regimen for these patients.

Pre-Operative Anti-Fungal Therapy Does Not Improve Outcomes in Perforated Peptic Ulcers.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy, hospital admissions for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have declined significantly since the 1990s. Despite this, operative treatment of PUD still is common. Although previous papers suggest that Candida in peritoneal fluid cultures may be associated with worse outcomes in patients with perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs), post-operative anti-fungal therapy has not been effective. We hypothesized that pre-operative anti-fungal drugs improve outcomes in patients with PPUs undergoing operative management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospectively maintained Acute and Critical Care Surgery (ACCS) database spanning 2008-2015 and including more than 7,000 patients was queried for patients with PPUs. Demographics and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Pre-operative anti-fungal use, intra-operative peritoneal fluid cultures, and infectious outcomes were abstracted manually. We compared outcomes and the presence of fungal infections in patients receiving peri-operative anti-fungal drugs in the entire cohort and in patients with intra-operative peritoneal fluid cultures. Frequencies were compared by the Fisher exact or χ2 test as appropriate. The Student's t-test was used for continuous variables. RESULTS: There were 107 patients with PPUs who received operative management; 27 (25.2%) received pre-operative anti-fungal therapy; 33 (30.8%) received peritoneal fluid culture, and 17 cultures (51.5%) were positive for fungus. The presence of fungus in the cultures did not affect the outcomes. There were no differences in length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, 30-day re-admission rates, or rates of intra-abdominal abscess formation or fungemia in patients who received pre-operative anti-fungal drugs regardless of the presence of fungi in the peritoneal fluid. CONCLUSION: Candida has been recovered in 29%-57% of peritoneal fluid cultures in patients with PPUs. However, no studies have evaluated pre-operative anti-fungal therapy in PPUs. Our data suggest that pre-operative anti-fungal drugs are unnecessary in patients undergoing operative management for PPU.

Femoral Osteomyelitis Caused by Cladophialophora in a Patient without Known Immunocompromise.

BACKGROUND: Chronic osteomyelitis associated with a stage IV decubitus ulcer is a challenging condition to manage, characterized by frequent relapses and need for long-term anti-microbial therapy. Although gram-positive cocci are the most common causes, fungal infections have been reported, usually in immunocompromised hosts. We present a case of Cladophialophora osteomyelitis in a patient without known immunocompromised that was managed with a Girdlestone pseudoarthroplasty. CASE REPORT: A 70-year-old male presented to our emergency room with fever, right hip pain, and purulent drainage from a right greater trochanter stage IV decubitus ulcer. His medical history was significant for T10 paraplegia secondary to spinal ependymomas and multiple spinal procedures, as well as significant recent weight loss. Past operations included multiple spinal procedures and repair of a right intertrochanteric femoral fracture with a plate and lateral compression screws. This led to post-operative decubitus ulcer formation over the right greater trochanter, requiring a gracilis flap. The flap remained intact for three years, then re-ulcerated. He subsequently developed femoral head osteomyelitis. To facilitate the treatment, the hardware was removed three weeks prior to presentation. With evidence of worsening osteomyelitis and a new soft-tissue infection, a Girdlestone procedure was performed. Intra-operatively, he was noted to have a pathological intertrochanteric fracture. Soft-tissue cultures yielded Pseudomonas aeruginosa; bone cultures grew Streptococcus dysgalactiae and Cladophialophora spp. Post-operatively, his wound was managed with negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell (NPWTi-d). Delayed primary closure over a drain and topical negative pressure was done four days later. His course was uneventful, and he was discharged six days later. At his four-month follow-up, the wound was completely healed. CONCLUSION: Invasive fungal infections are rare in immunocompetent individuals. Cladophialophora osteomyelitis has been found in immunocompromised individuals with concomitant cerebral abscesses. To our knowledge, this is the first case of osteomyelitis without previously known immunocompromise.

Drain Failure in Intra-Abdominal Abscesses Associated with Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that percutaneous drainage and interval appendectomy is an effective treatment for appendicitis with associated abscess. Few studies to date have analyzed risk factors for failed drain management. We hypothesized that older patients with more co-morbidities would be at higher risk for failing conservative treatment. METHODS: The 2010-2014 editions of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were queried for patients with diagnoses of peri-appendiceal abscesses. Minors and elective admissions were excluded. We identified patients who underwent percutaneous drainage and defined drain failure as undergoing a surgical operation after drainage but during the same inpatient visit to assess for factors associated with failure of drainage alone as a treatment. After univariable analysis, binomial logistic regression was used to assess for independent risk factors. Frequencies were analyzed by χ2 and continuous variables by Student's t-test. RESULTS: A total of 2,209 patients with appendiceal abscesses received drains; 561 patients (25.4%) failed conservative management and underwent operative intervention. On univariable analysis, patients who failed conservative management were younger, more likely to be Hispanic, have more inpatient diagnoses, and to have undergone drainage earlier in the hospital course. Multivariable regression demonstrated that the number of diagnoses, female sex, and Hispanic race were predictive of failure of drainage alone. Older age, West and Midwest census regions, and later drain placement were predictive of successful treatment with drainage alone. Failure was associated with more charges and longer hospital stay but not with a higher mortality rate. CONCLUSION: Approximately a quarter of patients will fail management of appendiceal abscess with percutaneous drain placement alone. Risk factors for failure are patient complexity, female sex, earlier drainage, and Hispanic race. Failure of drainage is associated with higher total charges and longer hospital stay; however, no change in the mortality rate was noted.

Empiric Antibiotics for Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Early recognition and treatment are the cornerstones of management. METHODS: Review of the English-language literature. RESULTS: For both sepsis and septic shock "antimicrobials [should be] be initiated as soon as possible and within one hour" (Surviving Sepsis Campaign). The risk of progression from severe sepsis to septic shock increases 8% for each hour before antibiotics are started. Selection of antimicrobial agents is based on a combination of patient factors, predicted infecting organism(s), and local microbial resistance patterns. The initial drugs should have activity against typical gram-positive and gram-negative causative micro-organisms. Anaerobic coverage should be provided for intra-abdominal infections or others where anaerobes are significant pathogens. Empiric antifungal or antiviral therapy may be warranted. For patients with healthcare-associated infections, resistant micro-organisms will further complicate the choice of empiric antimicrobials. Recommendations are given for specific infections. CONCLUSION: Early administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs is one of the most important, if not the most important, treatment for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Drugs should be initiated as soon as possible, and the choice of should take into account patient factors, common local pathogens, hospital antibiograms and resistance patterns, and the suspected source of infection. Antimicrobial agent therapy should be de-escalated as soon as possible.

Antibiotic-Impregnated Central Venous Catheters Do Not Change Antibiotic Resistance Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) decrease the incidence of infection in high-risk patients. However, use of these catheters carries the hypothetical risk of inducing antibiotic resistance. We hypothesized that routine use of minocycline and rifampin-impregnated catheters (MR-CVC) in a single intensive care unit (ICU) would change the resistance profile for Staphylococcus aureus. METHODS: We reviewed antibiotic susceptibilities of S. aureus isolates obtained from blood cultures in a large urban teaching hospital from 2002-2015. Resistance patterns were compared before and after implementation of MR-CVC use in the surgical ICU (SICU) in August 2006. We also compared resistance patterns of S. aureus obtained in other ICUs and in non-ICU patients, in whom MR-CVCs were not used. RESULTS: Data for rifampin, oxacillin, and clindamycin were available for 9,703 cultures; tetracycline resistance data were available for 4,627 cultures. After implementation of MR-CVC use in the SICU, rifampin resistance remained unchanged, with rates the same as in other ICU and non-ICU populations (3%). After six years of use of MR-CVCs in the SICU, the rate of tetracycline resistance was unchanged in all facilities (1%-3%). The use of MR-CVCs was not associated with any change in S. aureus oxacillin-resistance rates in the SICU (66% vs. 60%). However, there was a significant decrease in S. aureus clindamycin resistance (59% vs. 34%; p < 0.05) in SICU patients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of rifampin-minocycline-impregnated CVCs in the SICU was not associated with increased resistance of S. aureus isolates to rifampin or tetracyclines.

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper.

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

Longer-Duration Antimicrobial Therapy Does Not Prevent Treatment Failure in High-Risk Patients with Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested the length of treatment of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) can be shortened without detrimental effects on patient outcomes. However, data from high-risk patient populations are lacking. We hypothesized that patients at high risk for treatment failure will benefit from a longer course of antimicrobial therapy. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Study to Optimize Peritoneal Infection Therapy (STOP-IT) trial were evaluated retrospectively to identify risk factors associated with treatment failure, which was defined as the composite outcome of recurrent IAI, surgical site infection, or death. Variables were considered risk factors if there was a positive statistical association with treatment failure. Patients were then stratified according to the presence and number of these risk factors. Univariable analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis, χ2, and Fisher exact tests. Logistic regression controlling for risk factors and original randomization group, either a fixed four-day antimicrobial regimen (experimental) or a longer course based on clinical response (control), also was performed. RESULTS: We identified corticosteroid use, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥5, hospital-acquired infection, or a colonic source of IAI as risk factors associated with treatment failure. Of the 517 patients enrolled, 263 (50.9%) had one or two risk factors and 16 (3.1%) had three or four risk factors. The rate of treatment failure rose as the number of risk factors increased. When controlling for randomization group, the presence and number of risk factors were independently associated with treatment failure, but the duration of antimicrobial therapy was not. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure in the STOP-IT trial. Such patients did not benefit from a longer course of antibiotic administration. Further study is needed to determine the optimum duration of antimicrobial therapy in high-risk patients.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017.

IMPORTANCE: The human and financial costs of treating surgical site infections (SSIs) are increasing. The number of surgical procedures performed in the United States continues to rise, and surgical patients are initially seen with increasingly complex comorbidities. It is estimated that approximately half of SSIs are deemed preventable using evidence-based strategies. OBJECTIVE: To provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A targeted systematic review of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1998 through April 2014. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of the resulting recommendation and to provide explicit links between them. Of 5759 titles and abstracts screened, 896 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers. After exclusions, 170 studies were extracted into evidence tables, appraised, and synthesized. FINDINGS: Before surgery, patients should shower or bathe (full body) with soap (antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial) or an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operative day. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered only when indicated based on published clinical practice guidelines and timed such that a bactericidal concentration of the agents is established in the serum and tissues when the incision is made. In cesarean section procedures, antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered before skin incision. Skin preparation in the operating room should be performed using an alcohol-based agent unless contraindicated. For clean and clean-contaminated procedures, additional prophylactic antimicrobial agent doses should not be administered after the surgical incision is closed in the operating room, even in the presence of a drain. Topical antimicrobial agents should not be applied to the surgical incision. During surgery, glycemic control should be implemented using blood glucose target levels less than 200 mg/dL, and normothermia should be maintained in all patients. Increased fraction of inspired oxygen should be administered during surgery and after extubation in the immediate postoperative period for patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Transfusion of blood products should not be withheld from surgical patients as a means to prevent SSI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This guideline is intended to provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI and should be incorporated into comprehensive surgical quality improvement programs to improve patient safety.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations. METHODS: Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council. RESULTS: This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included. SUMMARY: The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Antimicrobial Stewardship: A Call to Action for Surgeons.

Despite current antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) being advocated by infectious disease specialists and discussed by national and international policy makers, ASPs coverage remains limited to only certain hospitals as well as specific service lines within hospitals. The ASPs incorporate a variety of strategies to optimize antimicrobial agent use in the hospital, yet the exact set of interventions essential to ASP success remains unknown. Promotion of ASPs across clinical practice is crucial to their success to ensure standardization of antimicrobial agent use within an institution. To effectively accomplish this standardization, providers who actively engage in antimicrobial agent prescribing should participate in the establishment and support of these programs. Hence, surgeons need to play a major role in these collaborations. Surgeons must be aware that judicious antibiotic utilization is an integral part of any stewardship program and necessary to maximize clinical cure and minimize emergence of antimicrobial resistance. The battle against antibiotic resistance should be fought by all healthcare professionals. If surgeons around the world participate in this global fight and demonstrate awareness of the major problem of antimicrobial resistance, they will be pivotal leaders. If surgeons fail to actively engage and use antibiotics judiciously, they will find themselves deprived of the autonomy to treat their patients.