Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection.

BACKGROUND: The successful treatment of intraabdominal infection requires a combination of anatomical source control and antibiotics. The appropriate duration of antimicrobial therapy remains unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 518 patients with complicated intraabdominal infection and adequate source control to receive antibiotics until 2 days after the resolution of fever, leukocytosis, and ileus, with a maximum of 10 days of therapy (control group), or to receive a fixed course of antibiotics (experimental group) for 4±1 calendar days. The primary outcome was a composite of surgical-site infection, recurrent intraabdominal infection, or death within 30 days after the index source-control procedure, according to treatment group. Secondary outcomes included the duration of therapy and rates of subsequent infections. RESULTS: Surgical-site infection, recurrent intraabdominal infection, or death occurred in 56 of 257 patients in the experimental group (21.8%), as compared with 58 of 260 patients in the control group (22.3%) (absolute difference, -0.5 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.0 to 8.0; P=0.92). The median duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0 to 5.0) in the experimental group, as compared with 8.0 days (interquartile range, 5.0 to 10.0) in the control group (absolute difference, -4.0 days; 95% CI, -4.7 to -3.3; P<0.001). No significant between-group differences were found in the individual rates of the components of the primary outcome or in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intraabdominal infections who had undergone an adequate source-control procedure, the outcomes after fixed-duration antibiotic therapy (approximately 4 days) were similar to those after a longer course of antibiotics (approximately 8 days) that extended until after the resolution of physiological abnormalities. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; STOP-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00657566.).

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection: Results From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Program.

BACKGROUND: When combined with ceftazidime, the novel non-ß-lactam ß-lactamase inhibitor avibactam provides a carbapenem alternative against multidrug-resistant infections. Efficacy and safety of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole were compared with meropenem in 1066 men and women with complicated intra-abdominal infections from 2 identical, randomized, double-blind phase 3 studies (NCT01499290 and NCT01500239). METHODS: The primary end point was clinical cure at test-of-cure visit 28-35 days after randomization, assessed by noninferiority of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole to meropenem in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population (in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance), and the modified intention-to-treat and clinically evaluable populations (European Medicines Agency guidance). Noninferiority was considered met if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for between-group difference was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12.5%. RESULTS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem across all primary analysis populations. Clinical cure rates with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole and meropenem, respectively, were as follows: mMITT population, 81.6% and 85.1% (between-group difference, -3.5%; 95% confidence interval -8.64 to 1.58); modified intention-to-treat, 82.5% and 84.9% (-2.4%; -6.90 to 2.10); and clinically evaluable, 91.7% and 92.5% (-0.8%; -4.61 to 2.89). The clinical cure rate with ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole for ceftazidime-resistant infections was comparable to that with meropenem (mMITT population, 83.0% and 85.9%, respectively) and similar to the regimen's own efficacy against ceftazidime-susceptible infections (82.0%). Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was noninferior to meropenem in the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Efficacy was similar against infections caused by ceftazidime-susceptible and ceftazidime-resistant pathogens. The safety profile of ceftazidime-avibactam plus metronidazole was consistent with that previously observed with ceftazidime alone. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01499290 and NCT01500239.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy With and Without Instillation in Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections.

Background: Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are rare but deadly infections that require early and often extensive surgical debridement. After debridement, patients frequently have substantial morbidity because of large, open wounds. Hypothesis: Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) results in higher wound closure rates compared with traditional negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) or wet to dry dressings (moist wound care dressing). Patients and Methods: A prospectively maintained Acute and Critical Care Surgery database spanning 2008-2018 was queried for patients with a diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier gangrene, or gas gangrene. Data were collected on patient comorbidities, operative management, and clinical outcomes. Patients were stratified by use of moist wound care dressing, traditional NPWT, or NPWTi. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), χ2, and logistic regression. Results: During the 10-year study period, patients were treated for NSTI; 173 were managed with moist wound care dressing, 150 with NPWT, and 48 with NPWTi. Patients were similar in terms of demographics, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, and smoking rates. Overall, complication rates were not substantially different, but mortality was higher in the moist wound care dressing group (16.2% vs. 10.7% NPWT vs. 2.1% NPWTi; p = 0.02). In the moist wound care dressing group, 81.5% of patients had an open wound at discharge compared with 52.7% of the NPWT group and only 14.6% of the NPWTi group (p < 0.001). On multivariable regression, NPWTi was associated with closure rates five times higher than the NPWT group (odds ratio [OR], 5.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.40-11.61; p < 0.001) after controlling for smoking status, intravenous drug use, number of operations, and involvement of the most common region of the body. Conclusions: Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation is associated with higher rates of wound closure without increasing complication rates in patients with NSTI compared with traditional NPWT or moist wound care dressing. Although prospective studies are needed, this indicates the potential to improve patient quality of life through reduced pain and outpatient home health needs.

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.

Guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature and identify important aspects of insulin therapy that facilitate safe and effective infusion therapy for a defined glycemic end point. METHODS: Where available, the literature was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to assess the impact of insulin infusions on outcome for general intensive care unit patients and those in specific subsets of neurologic injury, traumatic injury, and cardiovascular surgery. Elements that contribute to safe and effective insulin infusion therapy were determined through literature review and expert opinion. The majority of the literature supporting the use of insulin infusion therapy for critically ill patients lacks adequate strength to support more than weak recommendations, termed suggestions, such that the difference between desirable and undesirable effect of a given intervention is not always clear. RECOMMENDATIONS: The article is focused on a suggested glycemic control end point such that a blood glucose ≥ 150 mg/dL triggers interventions to maintain blood glucose below that level and absolutely <180 mg/dL. There is a slight reduction in mortality with this treatment end point for general intensive care unit patients and reductions in morbidity for perioperative patients, postoperative cardiac surgery patients, post-traumatic injury patients, and neurologic injury patients. We suggest that the insulin regimen and monitoring system be designed to avoid and detect hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL) and to minimize glycemic variability.Important processes of care for insulin therapy include use of a reliable insulin infusion protocol, frequent blood glucose monitoring, and avoidance of finger-stick glucose testing through the use of arterial or venous glucose samples. The essential components of an insulin infusion system include use of a validated insulin titration program, availability of appropriate staffing resources, accurate monitoring technology, and standardized approaches to infusion preparation, provision of consistent carbohydrate calories and nutritional support, and dextrose replacement for hypoglycemia prevention and treatment. Quality improvement of glycemic management programs should include analysis of hypoglycemia rates, run charts of glucose values <150 and 180 mg/dL. The literature is inadequate to support recommendations regarding glycemic control in pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS: While the benefits of tight glycemic control have not been definitive, there are patients who will receive insulin infusion therapy, and the suggestions in this article provide the structure for safe and effective use of this therapy.

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.

Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Evidence-based guidelines for managing patients with intra-abdominal infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those previously published in 2002 and 2003. The guidelines are intended for treating patients who either have these infections or may be at risk for them. New information, based on publications from the period 2003-2008, is incorporated into this guideline document. The panel has also added recommendations for managing intra-abdominal infection in children, particularly where such management differs from that of adults; for appendicitis in patients of all ages; and for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates.

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.

Hey surgeons! It is time to lead and be a champion in preventing and managing surgical infections!

Appropriate measures of infection prevention and management are integral to optimal clinical practice and standards of care. Among surgeons, these measures are often over-looked. However, surgeons are at the forefront in preventing and managing infections. Surgeons are responsible for many of the processes of healthcare that impact the risk for surgical site infections and play a key role in their prevention. Surgeons are also at the forefront in managing patients with infections, who often need prompt source control and appropriate antibiotic therapy, and are directly responsible for their outcome. In this context, the direct leadership of surgeons in infection prevention and management is of utmost importance. In order to disseminate worldwide this message, the editorial has been translated into 9 different languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, and Turkish).

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.

Implementation of a mandatory checklist of protocols and objectives improves compliance with a wide range of evidence-based intensive care unit practices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine a) if a checklist covering a diverse group of intensive care unit protocols and objectives would improve clinician consideration of these domains and b) if improved consideration would change practice patterns. DESIGN: Pre- and post observational study. SETTING: A 24-bed surgical/burn/trauma intensive care unit in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 1399 patients admitted between June 2006 and May 2007. INTERVENTIONS: The first component of the study evaluated whether mandating verbal review of a checklist covering 14 intensive care unit best practices altered verbal consideration of these domains. Evaluation was performed using real-time bedside audits on morning rounds. The second component evaluated whether the checklist altered implementation of these domains by changing practice patterns. Evaluation was performed by analyzing data from the Project IMPACT database after patients left the intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Verbal consideration of evaluable domains improved from 90.9% (530/583) to 99.7% (669/671, p < .0001) after verbal review of the checklist was mandated. Bedside consideration improved on the use of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (p < .05), stress ulcer prophylaxis (p < .01), oral care for ventilated patients (p < 0.01), electrolyte repletion (p < .01), initiation of physical therapy (p < .05), and documentation of restraint orders (p < .0001). Mandatory verbal review of the checklist resulted in a greater than two-fold increase in transferring patients out of the intensive care unit on telemetry (16% vs. 35%, p < .0001) and initiation of physical therapy (28% vs. 42%, p < .0001) compared with baseline practice. CONCLUSIONS: A mandatory verbal review of a checklist covering a wide range of objectives and goals at each patient's bedside is an effective method to improve both consideration and implementation of intensive care unit best practices. A bedside checklist is a simple, cost-effective method to prevent errors of omission in basic domains of intensive care unit management that might otherwise be forgotten in the setting of more urgent care requirements.

Prevention of surgical site infection.

Surgical site infections are a frequent cause of morbidity following surgical procedures. Gram-positive cocci, particularly staphylococci, cause many of these infections, although gram-negative organisms are also frequently involved. The risk of developing a surgical site infection is associated with a number of factors, including aspects of the operative procedure itself, such as wound classification, and patient-related variables, such as preexisting medical conditions. Both nonpharmacologic measures and antimicrobial prophylaxis for selected procedures are used to prevent development of these infections. Compliance with these generally accepted preventive principles may lead to overall decreases in the incidence of these infections.

Intra-abdominal infections.

Most intra-abdominal infections develop from a source in the gastrointestinal tract. They are usually caused by aerobic and anaerobic enteric bacteria. Management generally involves an invasive procedure to control the source of the infection and antimicrobial therapy directed against the causative microorganisms. In a few highly select patients, these infections may be treated without a definitive source control procedure. Antimicrobial therapy is tailored to the individual patient, with narrower spectrum agents used to treat community-acquired intraabdominal infections, and broader spectrum agents used for hospital-acquired infections. Overall, these infections remain associated with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in higher-risk patients who have impaired host defenses.

Clostridium difficile colitis.

Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Its effects are mediated by C difficile toxins A and B. Recent outbreaks of severe colitis have been associated with a new strain of the bacterium that produces large amounts of the toxins. Although oral metronidazole and oral vancomycin can be used to treat C difficile-associated disease, intraluminal vancomycin is preferable for more severe C difficile colitis. Early surgical intervention can improve outcomes with fulminant colitis, although overall mortality remains high.

Antimicrobial therapy for acute colonic diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines and reviews have systematically evaluated diagnosis and surgical management of acute diverticulitis, they have focused only minimally on antibiotic selection for the treatment of this disease. We undertook a review of the literature to assess more clearly the use of specific antimicrobial agents in the treatment of patients with acute diverticulitis of the colon. METHODS: A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify original research, review papers, and guidelines on the use of antimicrobial agents for the treatment of acute diverticulitis. RESULTS: The general recommendation to use antibiotics with activity against common gram-negative and anaerobic pathogens has remained consistent. A number of single agents and combination regimens provide such activity. However, there is little evidence on which to base selection of specific antimicrobial regimens, and no regimen has demonstrated superiority. In general, episodes of diverticulitis severe enough to warrant hospitalization should be managed initially with intravenous antibiotics. Oral therapy can be used for outpatient treatment or when the patient's condition improves. There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Careful clinical studies are needed to evaluate better the antibiotic regimens for the treatment of acute diverticulitis. Until such studies are conducted, we are forced to rely on tradition, in vitro analyses, pharmacokinetic profiling, and indirect evidence from studies of complicated intra-abdominal infections to determine appropriate therapy for this disease.

Feeding the injured intestine: enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The utilization of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients is frequently suboptimal. This may be due, in part, to ongoing controversies regarding appropriate use of enteral support, but there are also perceived barriers to its use even when there is good evidence that it can be given. This review was undertaken to outline some of these controversies and barriers to use of enteral nutrition in the ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the advantages of enteral nutrition may have been overstated, it remains preferable to parenteral nutrition for support of critically ill patients. Early initiation of enteral support is a reasonable approach. Many patients with perceived contraindications to enteral therapy are actually good candidates for its use. Frequent interruptions in enteral nutrition lead to suboptimal nutrient delivery, but might be overcome by use of specific protocols emphasizing safe and effective utilization of enteral support. SUMMARY: Use of enteral nutritional support is recommended for critically ill patients requiring specialized nutritional support. Barriers to its use could be overcome by better educating providers about indications for use and by developing methods to avoid undue interruption of therapy.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus: risk factors, surveillance, infections, and treatment.

BACKGROUND: The use of vancomycin has continued to expand because of the increasing number of patients infected or colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, causing an increase in the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE). METHODS: Review of the pertinent English language literature. RESULTS: Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. are being identified more often in nosocomial infections of surgical patients. The biology of resistance, modes of transmission, patient risk factors, and current treatment strategies are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The reservoir of resistance in enterococci looms as a major threat for genetic transfer and the emergence of increasing numbers of vancomycin-resistant S. aureus.

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.