Metronidazole and cefazolin vs cefazolin alone for surgical site infection prophylaxis in gynecologic surgery at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection is one of the most common complications of gynecologic cancer surgery. Current guidelines recommend the administration of cefazolin preoperatively to reduce surgical site infection rates for patients undergoing clean-contaminated surgeries such as hysterectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project adding metronidazole to cefazolin for antibiotic prophylaxis on surgical site infection rate for women undergoing gynecologic surgery at a comprehensive cancer center. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective, single-center cohort study included patients who underwent surgery in the gynecologic oncology department from May 2017 to June 2023. Patients with penicillin allergies and those undergoing concomitant bowel resections and/or joint cases were excluded. The preintervention group patients had surgery from May 2017 to April 2022, and the postintervention group patients had surgery from April 2022 to June 2023. The primary outcome was a 30-day surgical site infection rate. Sensitivity analyses were performed to compare surgical site infection rates on the basis of actual antibiotics received and for those who had a hysterectomy. Factors independently associated with surgical site infection were identified using a multivariable logistic regression model adjusting for confounding variables. RESULTS: Of 3343 patients, 2572 (76.9%) and 771 (23.1%) were in the pre-post intervention groups, respectively. Most patients (74.7%) had a hysterectomy performed. Thirty-four percent of cases were for nononcologic (benign) indications. Preintervention patients were more likely to receive appropriate preoperative antibiotics (95.6% vs 90.7%; P<.001). The overall surgical site infection rate before the intervention was 4.7% compared with 2.6% after (P=.010). The surgical site infection rate for all patients who underwent hysterectomy was 4.9% (preintervention) vs 2.8% (postintervention) (P=.036); a similar trend was seen for benign cases (4.4% vs 2.4%; P=.159). On multivariable analysis, the odds ratio for surgical site infection was 0.49 (95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.63) for the postintervention compared with the preintervention group (P<.001). In a sensitivity analysis (n=3087), the surgical site infection rate was 4.5% for those who received cefazolin alone compared with 2.3% for those who received cefazolin plus metronidazole, with significantly decreased odds of surgical site infection for the cefazolin plus metronidazole group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.53]; P<.001). Among only those who had a hysterectomy performed, the odds of surgical site infection were significantly reduced for those in the postintervention group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.86]; P=.003). CONCLUSION: The addition of metronidazole to cefazolin before gynecologic surgery decreased the surgical site infection rate by half, even after accounting for other known predictors of surgical site infection and differences in practice patterns over time. Providers should consider this combination regimen in women undergoing gynecologic surgery, especially for cases involving hysterectomy.

Efficacy, safety, and feasibility of Apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate safety, efficacy, and feasibility of apixaban for postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following open gynecologic cancer surgery at a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: This retrospective, cohort study included patients with gynecologic cancer who underwent open surgery between 3/2021 and 3/2023 and received 28-day postoperative VTE prophylaxis. Patients on therapeutic anticoagulation preoperatively were excluded. Predictors of 90- and 30-day VTE and 30-day bleeding events were determined using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for known confounders. RESULTS: 452 patients were included in the cohort: 348 received apixaban and 104 received enoxaparin. Those who received enoxaparin were more likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologists class III/IV (compared to I/II) (p = 0.033), current or former smokers (p = 0.012) and have a higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidity Index (p = 0.005), and age (p = 0.046). 30-day VTE rate was significantly lower in the apixaban group (0.6%) compared to the enoxaparin group (6.2%) (adjusted OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.56; p = 0.006). 90-day VTE rate was 2.7% and 6.2% in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38-1.92; p = 0.704). Major bleeding complications (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and minor bleeding complications (0.9% vs. 3.0%) were similar in the apixaban and enoxaparin groups, respectively, on multivariate analyses. The median patient out of pocket cost was $10 (IQR 0.0-40.0) for apixaban and $20 (IQR 3.7-67.7) for enoxaparin (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings along with previously published data suggest that apixaban should be considered the standard of care for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing open surgery for gynecologic malignancies.

Choosing Wisely: Decreasing the incidence of perioperative blood transfusions in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and economic impact of a transfusion reduction initiative for patients undergoing gynecologic surgery. METHODS: We conducted a prospective healthcare improvement study to align transfusion practices with the American Society of Hematology's Choosing Wisely® campaign. Baseline transfusion rates were determined retrospectively for all major gynecologic surgical cases from 3/1/14 to 6/30/14. Data for the post-intervention period from 5/15/15 to 5/16/16 were captured prospectively. The primary outcome was transfusion within 72 h of surgery. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity, mortality, number of units ordered per transfusion episode and cost. RESULTS: We identified 1281 surgical cases, 334 in the baseline and 947 in the post-implementation cohort. The baseline cohort was noted to have a higher median estimated blood loss (100 v. 75 mL, P < 0.01). Otherwise, there were no differences in clinical or perioperative characteristics between the two cohorts. The perioperative transfusion rate decreased from 24% to 11% (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45; P < 0.001). The perioperative laparotomy transfusion rate decreased from 48% to 23% (adjusted OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12, 0.37; P < 0.001). The number of occurrences in which more than one unit of blood was ordered at a time decreased from 65% to 23%, P < 0.001. The incidence of surgical site infections declined in the post-intervention group, otherwise there were no differences in 30-day mortality, cardiac, venous thromboembolism or readmission rates between the groups. The projected cost savings was $161,112 over the 12-month intervention period. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an educational based transfusion reduction program was associated with substantial reductions in perioperative transfusions and cost without significant changes in morbidity or mortality.

The DISINFECT Initiative: Decreasing the Incidence of Surgical INFECTions in Gynecologic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) lead to increased patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Our objective was to decrease the SSI rate following gynecologic surgery. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery for gynecologic malignancy or benign disease received the following: patient education; preoperative antibacterial soap; appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis; change of gloves and use of clean instruments at surgical closure; surgical dressing for 48 h; and a post-discharge phone call. The baseline SSI rate was determined retrospectively (1 April 2014-30 June 2014), while the post-intervention SSI rate was determined prospectively (16 February 2015-15 October 2015). The main outcome was the overall SSI rate with secondary outcomes, including the rate of superficial, deep, incisional and organ space infection, as well as the cost effectiveness of the bundle. RESULTS: A total of 232 baseline and 555 post-intervention patients were included in the study. No differences were observed between the baseline and post-intervention groups with regard to median body mass index (BMI), surgical approach, receipt of preoperative chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, and cases including bowel surgery. Overall, the SSI rate decreased significantly from baseline [12.5 %] to post-intervention [7.4 %] (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 90 % confidence interval [CI] 0.37-0.85; p = 0.01). A 40 % decrease was noted in the rate of superficial and deep infections (9.5 vs. 5.9 %; OR 0.60, 90 % CI 0.38-0.97; p = 0.04) and SSIs after open surgery (21.4 vs. 13.2 %; OR 0.56, 90 % CI 0.34-0.92; p = 0.03). The estimated cost of the intervention was $19.26/case and the net total amount saved during the post-intervention period was $65,625 month. CONCLUSIONS: This bundled intervention led to a significant decrease in the overall SSI rate and was cost effective. The largest decreases in SSIs were in incisional infections and following open surgery.

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.

Update of Targeted Therapy-Induced Hypertension: Basics for Non-Oncology Providers.

Over the past several years, cancer treatments have expanded from usual chemotherapy standards with introduction of newer targeted therapies. As with chemotherapy, the targeted therapies also have unique side effects affecting various organ systems producing toxicities, such as cardiac and renal. This manuscript focuses on hypertension induced by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Hypertension due to these cancer therapies is important because these agents are now frequently used in common cancers. In addition, patients with cancer may not be treated in a comprehensive cancer center with experts available to manage the cancer and other side effects either from the malignancy or treatment of the malignancy. Especially in rural areas, patients are often managed or co-managed by a primary care provider with input from an oncologist that may not be nearby. Our aim is to provide an overview of the latest Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved VEGF inhibitors and TKI's causing hypertension so that others managing patients on these treatments may easily recognize hypertension attributable to these agents and feel comfortable and confident in providing appropriate management and treatment of this side effect. This update includes characteristics, such as mechanism of action, metabolism and route of administration, and management and treatment of hypertension with aspects such as the timing, duration and monitoring of these agents. In addition, an algorithm for monitoring and treating hypertension before, during and after treatment with these therapies is included. It is imperative for patients to have hypertension promptly treated to prevent complications so they may continue with these agents with the least interruption or discontinuation of treatment, ensuring the best benefit available in their cancer trajectory.