Effect of oral antimicrobial prophylaxis on surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether oral antimicrobial prophylaxis as an adjunct to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis reduces surgical site infections after elective colorectal surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: 11 university and non-university hospitals in France between 25 May 2016 and 8 August 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 926 adults scheduled for elective colorectal surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to receive either a single 1 g dose of ornidazole (n=463) or placebo (n=463) orally 12 hours before surgery, in addition to intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgical incision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical site infections and major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3 or higher) within 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 960 patients who were enrolled, 926 (96%) were included in the analysis. The mean age of participants was 63 years and 554 (60%) were men. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery occurred in 60 of 463 patients (13%) in the oral prophylaxis group and 100 of 463 (22%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -8.6%, 95% confidence interval -13.5% to -3.8%; relative risk 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.80). The proportion of patients with deep infections was 4.8% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.2%, 95% confidence interval -6.4% to -0.1%). The proportion of patients with organ space infections was 5.0% in the oral prophylaxis group and 8.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference -3.4%, -6.7% to -0.2%). Major postoperative complications occurred in 9.1% patients in the oral prophylaxis group and 13.6% in the placebo group (absolute difference -4.5%, -8.6% to -0.5%). CONCLUSION: Among adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery, the addition of a single 1 g dose of ornidazole compared with placebo before surgery significantly reduced surgical site infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02618720.

Effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery: multicentre, double blind, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of dexamethasone on complications or all cause mortality after major non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Phase III, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial. SETTING: 34 centres in France, December 2017 to March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 1222 adults (>50 years) requiring major non-cardiac surgery with an expected duration of more than 90 minutes. The anticipated time frame for recruitment was 24 months. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to receive either dexamethasone (0.2 mg/kg immediately after the surgical procedure, and on day 1) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified on the two prespecified criteria of cancer and thoracic procedure. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative complications or all cause mortality within 14 days after surgery, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (at least one treatment administered). RESULTS: Of the 1222 participants who underwent randomisation, 1184 (96.9%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 14 days after surgery, 101 of 595 participants (17.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 117 of 589 (19.9%) in the placebo group had complications or died (adjusted odds ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.08; P=0.15). In the stratum of participants who underwent non-thoracic surgery (n=1038), the primary outcome occurred in 69 of 520 participants (13.3%) in the dexamethasone group and 93 of 518 (18%) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 0.50 to 0.99). Adverse events were reported in 288 of 613 participants (47.0%) in the dexamethasone group and 296 of 609 (48.6%) in the placebo group (P=0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone was not found to significantly reduce the incidence of complications and death in patients 14 days after major non-cardiac surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the main result was, however, wide and suggests the possibility of important clinical effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03218553.

Assessment of remifentanil for rapid sequence induction and intubation in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents: study protocol for a non-inferiority simple blind randomized controlled trial (the REMICRUSH study).

BACKGROUND: Rapid-onset paralytic agents are recommended to achieve muscle relaxation and facilitate tracheal intubation during rapid sequence induction in patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. However, opioids are frequently used in this setting. The study's objective is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of remifentanil compared to rapid-onset paralytic agents, in association with an hypnotic drug, for tracheal intubation in patients undergoing  procedure under general anesthesia and at risk of pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents. METHODS: The REMICRUSH (Remifentanil for Rapid Sequence Induction of Anaesthesia) study is a multicenter, single-blinded, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing remifentanil (3 to 4 µg/kg) with rapid-onset paralytic agents (succinylcholine or rocuronium 1 mg/kg) for rapid sequence induction in 1150 adult surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation during general anesthesia. Enrolment started in October 2019 in 15 French anesthesia units. The expected date of the final follow-up is October 2021. The primary outcome is the proportion of successful tracheal intubation without major complications. A non-inferiority margin of 7% was chosen. Analyses of the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations are planned. DISCUSSION: The REMICRUSH trial protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of The Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud-Ouest et Outre-Mer II and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals. The REMICRUSH trial is the first randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether remifentanil with hypnotics is non-inferior to rapid-onset paralytic agents with hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia for full stomach patients considering successful tracheal intubation without major complication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03960801. Registered on May 23, 2019.

Balanced Opioid-free Anesthesia with Dexmedetomidine versus Balanced Anesthesia with Remifentanil for Major or Intermediate Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: It is speculated that opioid-free anesthesia may provide adequate pain control while reducing postoperative opioid consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support the speculation. The authors hypothesized that opioid-free balanced anesthetic with dexmedetomidine reduces postoperative opioid-related adverse events compared with balanced anesthetic with remifentanil. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive a standard balanced anesthetic with either intraoperative remifentanil plus morphine (remifentanil group) or dexmedetomidine (opioid-free group). All patients received intraoperative propofol, desflurane, dexamethasone, lidocaine infusion, ketamine infusion, neuromuscular blockade, and postoperative lidocaine infusion, paracetamol, nefopam, and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative opioid-related adverse events (hypoxemia, ileus, or cognitive dysfunction) within the first 48 h after extubation. The main secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely because of five cases of severe bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group. The primary composite outcome occurred in 122 of 156 (78%) dexmedetomidine group patients compared with 105 of 156 (67%) in the remifentanil group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33; P = 0.031). Hypoxemia occurred 110 of 152 (72%) of dexmedetomidine group and 94 of 155 (61%) of remifentanil group patients (relative risk, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.40; P = 0.030). There were no differences in ileus or cognitive dysfunction. Cumulative 0 to 48 h postoperative morphine consumption (11 mg [5 to 21] versus 6 mg [0 to 17]) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (58 of 157 [37%] versus 37 of 157 [24%]; relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.90) were both less in the dexmedetomidine group, whereas measures of analgesia were similar in both groups. Dexmedetomidine patients had more delayed extubation and prolonged postanesthesia care unit stay. CONCLUSIONS: This trial refuted the hypothesis that balanced opioid-free anesthesia with dexmedetomidine, compared with remifentanil, would result in fewer postoperative opioid-related adverse events. Conversely, it did result in a greater incidence of serious adverse events, especially hypoxemia and bradycardia.

Epidemiology and outcome of patients admitted to intensive care after anaphylaxis in France: a retrospective multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on patients who have experienced anaphylaxis and were admitted to ICUs. The purpose of this observational study was to describe the epidemiology and management of these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study carried out in 23 French ICUs between 2012 and 2017. All patients who suffered anaphylaxis and were transferred to an ICU were included. Data were collected using an electronic database after approval by an ethics committee. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients were included, and 17 (5%) died secondary to anaphylaxis. The main triggers were drugs (77%), contrast media (11%), and food (7%). Epinephrine was administered before ICU admission in 88% of patients with Grade III anaphylaxis and 100% of patients with Grade IV anaphylaxis. Most patients with Grades III and IV anaphylaxes did not receive the recommended dose of i.v. fluid of 30 ml kg-1 within the first 4 h of ICU admission. The time to epinephrine administration was not statistically different between survivors and non-survivors, but non-survivors received a higher dose of epinephrine (median: 5 [3-10] vs 3 [2-7] mg; P<0.0001), which suggests that some forms of anaphylactic shock may be resistant to epinephrine. In multivariate analysis, only lactate concentration at ICU admission was a predictor of death (odds ratio: 1.47 [1.15-1.88]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Lactate concentration at ICU admission appeared to be the most reliable criterion for assessing prognosis. Epinephrine is widely used during anaphylaxis, but the volume of fluid resuscitation was consistently lower than recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04290507.

Effect of Hydroxyethyl Starch vs Saline for Volume Replacement Therapy on Death or Postoperative Complications Among High-Risk Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: The FLASH Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is not known if use of colloid solutions containing hydroxyethyl starch (HES) to correct for intravascular deficits in high-risk surgical patients is either effective or safe. Objective: To evaluate the effect of HES 130/0.4 compared with 0.9% saline for intravascular volume expansion on mortality and postoperative complications after major abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 775 adult patients at increased risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery at 20 university hospitals in France from February 2016 to July 2018; final follow-up was in October 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid containing either 6% HES 130/0.4 diluted in 0.9% saline (n = 389) or 0.9% saline alone (n = 386) in 250-mL boluses using an individualized hemodynamic algorithm during surgery and for up to 24 hours on the first postoperative day, defined as ending at 7:59 am the following day. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of death or major postoperative complications at 14 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included predefined postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery, durations of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and all-cause mortality at postoperative days 28 and 90. Results: Among 826 patients enrolled (mean age, 68 [SD, 7] years; 91 women [12%]), 775 (94%) completed the trial. The primary outcome occurred in 139 of 389 patients (36%) in the HES group and 125 of 386 patients (32%) in the saline group (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -3.3% to 10.0%]; relative risk, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.91-1.34]; P = .33). Among 12 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 11 showed no significant difference, but a statistically significant difference was found in median volume of study fluid administered on day 1: 1250 mL (interquartile range, 750-2000 mL) in the HES group and 1500 mL (interquartile range, 750-2150 mL) in the saline group (median difference, 250 mL [95% CI, 83-417 mL]; P = .006). At 28 days after surgery, 4.1% and 2.3% of patients had died in the HES and saline groups, respectively (difference, 1.8% [95% CI, -0.7% to 4.3%]; relative risk, 1.76 [95% CI, 0.79-3.94]; P = .17). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients at risk of postoperative kidney injury undergoing major abdominal surgery, use of HES for volume replacement therapy compared with 0.9% saline resulted in no significant difference in a composite outcome of death or major postoperative complications within 14 days after surgery. These findings do not support the use of HES for volume replacement therapy in such patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502773.

POFA trial study protocol: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing opioid-free versus opioid anaesthesia on postoperative opioid-related adverse events after major or intermediate non-cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing opioid consumption during and after surgery has been recommended for more than 10 years. Opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) is a multimodal anaesthesia associating hypnotics, NMDA antagonists, local anaesthetics, anti-inflammatory drugs and α-2 agonists. Proofs of the effect of OFA on reducing opioid-related adverse effects after major or intermediate non-cardiac surgery are still scarce. We hypothesised that the reduced opioid consumption allowed by OFA compared with standard of care will be associated with a reduction of postoperative opioid-related adverse events. METHODS/ANALYSIS: The POFA trial is a prospective, randomised, parallel, single-blind, multicentre study of 400 patients undergoing elective intermediate or major non-cardiac surgery. Patients will be randomly allocated to receive either a standard anaesthesia protocol or an OFA. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of a severe postoperative opioid-related adverse event within the first 48 hours after extubation defined as: postoperative hypoxaemia or postoperative ileus or postoperative cognitive dysfunction. In addition, each component of the primary outcome measure will be analysed separately. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle and a per-protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The POFA trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee for all study centres. Participant recruitment begins in November 2017. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03316339; Pre-results.

Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) for the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery: study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infections (SSIs) account for 30% of all healthcare-associated infections, with reported rates ranging from 8% and 30% after colorectal surgery and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality rates, length of hospital stay and costs in healthcare. Administration of systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis before surgery is recommended to reduce the risk of SSI, but the optimal regimen remains unclear. We aim to evaluate whether a combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis could be more effective to reduce the incidence of SSI after colorectal surgery, as compared with the standard practice of intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Comparison of intravenous versus combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis (COMBINE) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel, double-blind, multicentre study of 960 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either combined oral and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis or intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone, stratified by centre, the surgical procedure (laparoscopic or open surgery) and according to the surgical skin antisepsis (chlorexidine-alcohol or povidione-iodine alcoholic solution). The primary endpoint is the rate of SSI by day 30 following surgery, with SSI defined by the criteria developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle and a per-protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: COMBINE trial has been approved by an independent ethics committee for all study centres. Participant recruitment began in May 2016. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2015-002559-84; NCT02618720.

Intra-abdominal aortic graft infection: prognostic factors associated with in-hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: Mortality associated with aortic graft infection is considerable. The gold standard for surgical treatment remains explantation of the graft. However, prognostic factors associated with early mortality due to this surgical procedure are not well-known. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients admitted in our center between January 2006 and October 2011 for aortic graft infection. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. A bivariate analysis of characteristics of patients associated with in-hospital outcome was performed. RESULTS: Twenty five evaluable patients were studied. All patients were male. Their mean age was 67 ± 8.4 years. Most of them (92%) had severe underlying diseases. An in situ prosthetic graft replacement, mainly using cryopreserved arterial allografts, was performed in all patients, excepted one who underwent extra-anatomic bypass. Causative organisms were identified in 23 patients (92%). The in-hospital mortality rate was 48%. Among pre-operative characteristics, age ≥ 70 years, creatinine ≥ 12 mg/L and C reactive protein ≥ 50 mg/L were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. Hospital mortality rates increased with the number of risk factor present on ICU admission, and were 0%, 14.3%, 85.7% and 100% for 0, 1, 2 and 3 factors, respectively. The only intra-operative factor associated with prognosis was an associated intestinal procedure due to aorto-enteric fistula. SAPS II, SOFA score and occurrence of medical or surgical complications were postoperative characteristics associated with in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Morbidity and mortality associated with surgical approach of aortic graft infections are considerable. Age and values of creatinine and C Reactive protein on hospital admission appear as the most important determinant of in hospital mortality. They could be taken into account for guiding the surgical strategy.