Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) have been increasingly recognized in the critically ill over the past decade. In the absence of consensus definitions and treatment guidelines the diagnosis and management of IAH and ACS remains variable from institution to institution. An international consensus group of multidisciplinary critical care specialists convened at the second World Congress on Abdominal Compartment Syndrome to develop practice guidelines for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of IAH and ACS. Prior to the conference the authors developed a blueprint for consensus definitions and treatment guidelines which were refined both during and after the conference. The present article is the second installment of the final report from the 2004 International ACS Consensus Definitions Conference and is endorsed by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. The prevalence and etiological factors for IAH and ACS are reviewed. Evidence-based medicine treatment guidelines are presented to facilitate the diagnosis and management of IAH and ACS. Recommendations to guide future studies are proposed. These definitions, guidelines, and recommendations, based upon current best evidence and expert opinion are proposed to assist clinicians in the management of IAH and ACS as well as serve as a reference for future clinical and basic science research.

/pdf/results-from-the-international-conference-of-experts-on-1w3jfntgwu.pdf

Results from the International Conference of Experts on Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. II. Recommendations.

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.

/pdf/diagnosis-and-management-of-complicated-intra-abdominal-kghvsqwnes.pdf

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

Hypothesis Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a major contributor to patient injury, mortality, and health care costs. Despite evidence of effectiveness of antimicrobials to prevent SSIs, previous studies have demonstrated inappropriate timing, selection, and excess duration of administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis. We herein describe the use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for Medicare patients undergoing major surgery. Design National retrospective cohort study with medical record review. Setting Two thousand nine hundred sixty-five acute-care US hospitals. Patients A systematic random sample of 34 133 Medicare inpatients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting; other open-chest cardiac surgery (excluding transplantation); vascular surgery, including aneurysm repair, thromboendarterectomy, and vein bypass operations; general abdominal colorectal surgery; hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (excluding revision surgery); and abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy from January 1 through November 30, 2001. Main Outcome Measures The proportion of patients who had parenteral antimicrobial prophylaxis initiated within 1 hour before the surgical incision; the proportion of patients who were given a prophylactic antimicrobial agent that was consistent with currently published guidelines; and the proportion of patients whose antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued within 24 hours after surgery. Results An antimicrobial dose was administered to 55.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.8%-56.6%) of patients within 1 hour before incision. Antimicrobial agents consistent with published guidelines were administered to 92.6% (95% CI, 92.3%-92.8%) of the patients. Antimicrobial prophylaxis was discontinued within 24 hours of surgery end time for only 40.7% (95% CI, 40.2%-41.2%) of patients. Conclusion Substantial opportunities exist to improve the use of prophylactic antimicrobials for patients undergoing major surgery.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/508349/soa4085.pdf

Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: baseline results from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project.

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.

1 Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America, 2 Department of Medicine, Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford, California, United States of America, 3 Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States of America, 4 Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, Stanford, California, United States of America

/pdf/how-to-make-more-published-research-true-13hjqnf81j.pdf

How to make more published research true

Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

The influence of recently published guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) on current surgical practice are not well documented. The appropriateness of antibiotic administration in a cohort of surgical patients undergoing elective and emergency surgery in a department of surgery in an urban, community-based, private, 560-bed teaching hospital was retrospectively reviewed. The following were the criteria defining administration as appropriate as modified from SIS guidelines: Prophylactic use: (1) started prior to operation; (2) spectrum appropriate to the specific operation; (3) duration ≤ 24 hours. Therapeutic use: (1) started prior to operation; (2) spectrum appropriate to pathology; (3) Duration ≤ 24 hours for contamination or “resectable” infection and ≤ 5 days for established infection in the absence of clinical evidence of persisting infection. Any switchover from an appropriate agent to another appropriate or inappropriate agent in the same patient in the absence of microbiologic or clinical indication was considered inappropriate administration. We reviewed the charts of 211 randomly selected patients who underwent elective (n= 132) or emergency (n= 79) procedures during 1996. The operations included gastrectomy (n= 22), appendectomy (n= 27), open (n= 5) or laparoscopic (n= 27) cholecystectomy, colectomy (n= 28), hysterectomy (n= 8), laparotomy for intestinal obstruction (n= 11), mastectomy (n= 26), and ventral hernia repair (n= 37). A total of 17 antibiotics were used for prophylaxis and 21 for therapy. In 156 patients (74%) the administration was considered inappropriate. Eight patients in the inappropriate group developed diarrhea (two cases of Clostridium difficile-induced colitis) compared to two cases of diarrhea in the appropriate group (nonsignificant). The average duration of administration after elective and emergency operations was 3.3 and 5.7 days, respectively. The total expense for excessive duration of administration was $18,533. Many surgeons are not familiar with the spectrum of antimicrobials and often do not distinguish between prophylactic and therapeutic administration. Antibiotic usage in current surgical practice is often inappropriate, excessive, and chaotic.

Antibiotic administration in patients undergoing common surgical procedures in a community teaching hospital: the chaos continues.

Excessive duration of antibiotics for prophylaxis and treatment of surgical infection appears to be the principal reason for "inappropriate" administration in current surgical practice. The main factors to blame are the inability of the clinician to distinguish between contamination, infection, and inflammation. Failure to distinguish between contamination and infection is the reason that prophylaxis is unnecessarily carried through into the postoperative phase for prolonged periods. Failure to distinguish between infection and inflammation misguides surgeons to continue antibiotics for unnecessarily long treatment periods. The concept for shortening courses of antibiotic administration is supported by a forum of experts. The majority of experts also favored a trend away from the use of therapeutic courses of fixed duration, by tailoring the duration of administration to the intraoperative findings to shorten treatment courses. Specific recommendations are (1) contamination: single dose prophylaxis (gastroduodenal peptic perforations operated within 12 hours, traumatic enteric perforations operated within 12 hours, peritoneal contamination with bowel contents during elective or emergency procedures, early or phlegmonous appendicitis, or phlegmonous cholecystitis); (2) resectable infection: 24-hour postoperative antibiotics (appendectomy for gangrenous appendicitis, cholecystectomy for gangrenous cholecystitis, bowel resection for ischemic or strangulated "dead" bowel without frank perforation); (3) advanced infection: 48 hours to 5 days, based on operative findings and patient's condition (intra-abdominal infection from diverse sources); (4) severe infection with the source not easily controllable: longer administration periods may be necessary (e.g., infected pancreatic necrosis).

Moshe Schein

Papers

Redundant surgical publications: Tip of the iceberg?

Antibiotic administration in patients undergoing common surgical procedures in a community teaching hospital: the chaos continues.

Let us shorten antibiotic prophylaxis and therapy in surgery

What American surgeons read: a survey of a thousand Fellows of the American College of Surgeons

Gangrenous and perforated appendicitis: a meta-analytic study of 2532 patients indicates that the incision should be closed primarily.