What Is the Real Rate of Surgical Site Infection?

PURPOSE: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are associated with patient morbidity and increased health care costs. Although several national organizations including the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC), the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) monitor SSI, there is no standard reporting methodology. METHODS: We queried the UHC, NSQIP, and NHSN databases from July 2012 to June 2014 for SSI after gynecologic surgery at our institution. Each organization uses different definitions and inclusion and exclusion criteria for SSI. The rate of SSI was also obtained from chart review from April 1 to June 30, 2014. SSI was classified as superficial, deep, or organ space infection. The rates reported by the agencies were compared with the rates obtained by chart review using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Overall SSI rates for the databases were as follows: UHC, 1.5%; NSQIP, 8.8%; and NHSN, 2.8% (P < .001). The individual databases had wide variation in the rate of deep infection (UHC, 0.7%; NSQIP, 4.7%; NHSN, 1.3%; P < .001) and organ space infection (UHC, 0.4%; NSQIP, 4.4%; NHSN, 1.4%; P < .001). In agreement with the variation in reporting methodology, only 19 cases (24.4%) were included in more than one database and only one case was included in all three databases (1.3%). CONCLUSION: There is discordance among national reporting agencies tracking SSI. Adopting standardized metrics across agencies could improve consistency and accuracy in assessing SSI rates.

Timing of infectious complications following breast-conserving therapy with catheter-based accelerated partial breast irradiation.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) has been used as an alternative to whole-breast irradiation as part of breast-conserving therapy. Indications and outcomes are topics of ongoing investigation. Previous publications have focused on early postoperative infections and reported low rates of delayed infection. We investigated the pattern of infection after catheter-based APBI at our institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent single-entry catheter-based APBI were identified from an institutional prospective registry including data regarding comorbidities and outcomes. Time of infection was calculated from the date of definitive catheter insertion and classified as early (≤30 days) or delayed. RESULTS: A total of 91 breast cancer patients were treated with APBI and enrolled in the registry from 2009 to 2011. The median follow-up was 484 days. Breast infection occurred in 13 (14.3 %), with 3 (3.3 %) occurring within 30 days of catheter placement and 10 (11.0 %) in a delayed fashion. Four patients required hospital admission, five underwent percutaneous aspiration, and one underwent incision and drainage. Eight were treated as outpatients with oral antibiotics alone. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other reports, we found an overall infection rate of 14.3 % with single-entry catheter-based APBI. There were substantially fewer infections in the early postoperative period than reported elsewhere, but there were more delayed infections. The intensive follow-up in our study likely identified late infections that may not have otherwise been recognized. Vigilance for infectious complications must continue beyond the immediate treatment period in patients undergoing catheter-based APBI. These infections can range in severity but typically can be managed in an outpatient setting.

Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis for intra-abdominal surgery in patients with cancer: a retrospective study comparing ertapenem and nonertapenem antibiotics.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the role of ertapenem versus other standard antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cancer undergoing intra-abdominal surgery. METHODS: Our study was a retrospective cohort study consisting 615 patients who underwent intra-abdominal surgery at our institution between January 2007 and December 2010. The groups were divided among patients who received ertapenem as perioperative prophylaxis (ertapenem group) and patients who received other antibiotics (nonertapenem group). Groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and type of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients underwent colorectal and 300 noncolorectal surgeries. In a multivariate logistic regression model, the main factors associated with risk of surgical site infections (SSI) were as follows: antibiotics within 3 months of surgery (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.54; p = 0.05), prior hospitalization within 1 year (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02-1.43; p = 0.05), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-3.4; p = 0.04), and perioperative prophylaxis other than ertapenem (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.3; p = 0.04). Notably, patients who underwent colorectal surgery and received ertapenem had a lower rate of SSI (4% ertapenem vs. 13% nonertapenem, p = 0.01), whereas the frequency of infections was not different in patients who underwent other intra-abdominal surgery whether they received ertapenem or not. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ertapenem for perioperative prophylaxis in patients with colorectal surgery was associated with lower rates of SSI, while there was no difference in rates of infection in other intra-abdominal surgery.