Surgical Infection Society Multi-Center Observational Study: Empiric Anti-Fungal Coverage after Non-Colonic Gastrointestinal Perforation.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Andrea M Gochi, Wardah Rafaqat, Vahe Panossian, Mira Ghneim, Seema Anandalwar, Dias Argandykov, Cynthia J Susai, Nathan J Alcasid, Geoffrey A Anderson, Alexander J Ordoobadi, Erik J Teicher, David P Blake, Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones, Sabrina E Sanchez, Christopher A Guidry, Pedro Teixeira, Jonathan Meizoso, Brianna L Collie, Sarah McWilliam, Patrick McGonagill, Nicole Nitschke, Tara Kortlever, Colette Galet, Lillian A Nefcy, Jeffrey L Johnson, Michael P DeWane, Joseph Cuschieri, Amber Himmler, Jennifer Rickard, Jonathan Gipson, April E Mendoza
{"title":"Surgical Infection Society Multi-Center Observational Study: Empiric Anti-Fungal Coverage after Non-Colonic Gastrointestinal Perforation.","authors":"Andrea M Gochi, Wardah Rafaqat, Vahe Panossian, Mira Ghneim, Seema Anandalwar, Dias Argandykov, Cynthia J Susai, Nathan J Alcasid, Geoffrey A Anderson, Alexander J Ordoobadi, Erik J Teicher, David P Blake, Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones, Sabrina E Sanchez, Christopher A Guidry, Pedro Teixeira, Jonathan Meizoso, Brianna L Collie, Sarah McWilliam, Patrick McGonagill, Nicole Nitschke, Tara Kortlever, Colette Galet, Lillian A Nefcy, Jeffrey L Johnson, Michael P DeWane, Joseph Cuschieri, Amber Himmler, Jennifer Rickard, Jonathan Gipson, April E Mendoza","doi":"10.1089/sur.2024.306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Empiric anti-fungals are frequently administered in patients with non-colonic gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, but there is limited evidence of their benefit. We hypothesized that empiric anti-fungals would offer no clinical benefit compared with a standard course of antimicrobial therapy. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This multi-center prospective cohort study included patients ≥18 years old undergoing operative management for non-colonic GI perforations across 15 centers between August 2021 and January 2024. The primary outcome was organ-space surgical site infection (SSI). We performed propensity score matching to adjust for confounders and a backward stepwise regression model to identify predictors of an organ-space SSI. A subgroup analysis of spontaneous upper GI perforations was performed as well. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 192 patients were included; 138 (71.88%) received empiric anti-fungal therapy, and 17.7% developed an organ-space SSI. Before matching, empiric anti-fungal use was frequent in critically ill patients although not associated with organ-space SSI. After matching, there were no differences in organ-space SSI (17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.99). In multi-variable regression, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (ASA) category 3 increased the risk of organ-space SSI (odds ratio [OR] 2.49, p = 0.04), whereas perioperative proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use was protective (OR 0.15, p = 0.004). In the subgroup analysis (N = 150), empiric anti-fungal therapy did not reduce infection risk. Pre-operative shock increased the risk of organ-space SSI (OR 2.83, p = 0.04), whereas PPI use remained protective (OR 0.15, p = 0.01). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Empiric anti-fungal use was not associated with reduced organ-space SSI, even after adjusting for confounders. Given the lack of benefit, we caution against the use of routine empiric anti-fungal therapy in non-colonic GI perforations.</p>","PeriodicalId":22109,"journal":{"name":"Surgical infections","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical infections","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2024.306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Empiric anti-fungals are frequently administered in patients with non-colonic gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, but there is limited evidence of their benefit. We hypothesized that empiric anti-fungals would offer no clinical benefit compared with a standard course of antimicrobial therapy. Methods: This multi-center prospective cohort study included patients ≥18 years old undergoing operative management for non-colonic GI perforations across 15 centers between August 2021 and January 2024. The primary outcome was organ-space surgical site infection (SSI). We performed propensity score matching to adjust for confounders and a backward stepwise regression model to identify predictors of an organ-space SSI. A subgroup analysis of spontaneous upper GI perforations was performed as well. Results: A total of 192 patients were included; 138 (71.88%) received empiric anti-fungal therapy, and 17.7% developed an organ-space SSI. Before matching, empiric anti-fungal use was frequent in critically ill patients although not associated with organ-space SSI. After matching, there were no differences in organ-space SSI (17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.99). In multi-variable regression, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (ASA) category 3 increased the risk of organ-space SSI (odds ratio [OR] 2.49, p = 0.04), whereas perioperative proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use was protective (OR 0.15, p = 0.004). In the subgroup analysis (N = 150), empiric anti-fungal therapy did not reduce infection risk. Pre-operative shock increased the risk of organ-space SSI (OR 2.83, p = 0.04), whereas PPI use remained protective (OR 0.15, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Empiric anti-fungal use was not associated with reduced organ-space SSI, even after adjusting for confounders. Given the lack of benefit, we caution against the use of routine empiric anti-fungal therapy in non-colonic GI perforations.

外科感染学会多中心观察研究:非结肠胃肠道穿孔后经验性抗真菌覆盖。
背景:经验性抗真菌药物经常用于非结肠胃肠道穿孔患者,但其益处的证据有限。我们假设经验性抗真菌药物与标准疗程的抗菌药物治疗相比不会提供临床益处。方法:这项多中心前瞻性队列研究纳入了在2021年8月至2024年1月期间在15个中心接受非结肠消化道穿孔手术治疗的≥18岁患者。主要结局为器官间隙手术部位感染(SSI)。我们使用倾向评分匹配来调整混杂因素,并使用反向逐步回归模型来确定器官空间SSI的预测因子。对自发性上消化道穿孔进行亚组分析。结果:共纳入192例患者;138例(71.88%)接受经经验抗真菌治疗,17.7%发生器官间隙SSI。在配对之前,经验性抗真菌药物的使用在危重患者中很常见,尽管与器官空间SSI无关。配对后,脏器空间SSI无差异(17.5% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.99)。在多变量回归中,美国麻醉医师协会身体状态分类系统(ASA)第3类增加了器官空间SSI的风险(比值比[OR] 2.49, p = 0.04),而围手术期使用质子泵抑制剂(PPI)具有保护作用(比值比[OR] 0.15, p = 0.004)。在亚组分析(N = 150)中,经验性抗真菌治疗并未降低感染风险。术前休克增加了器官间隙SSI的风险(OR 2.83, p = 0.04),而使用PPI仍然具有保护作用(OR 0.15, p = 0.01)。结论:经经验抗真菌使用与器官空间SSI的减少无关,即使在调整混杂因素后也是如此。鉴于缺乏益处,我们警告不要使用常规经验性抗真菌治疗非结肠胃肠道穿孔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgical infections
Surgical infections INFECTIOUS DISEASES-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
127
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Surgical Infections provides comprehensive and authoritative information on the biology, prevention, and management of post-operative infections. Original articles cover the latest advancements, new therapeutic management strategies, and translational research that is being applied to improve clinical outcomes and successfully treat post-operative infections. Surgical Infections coverage includes: -Peritonitis and intra-abdominal infections- Surgical site infections- Pneumonia and other nosocomial infections- Cellular and humoral immunity- Biology of the host response- Organ dysfunction syndromes- Antibiotic use- Resistant and opportunistic pathogens- Epidemiology and prevention- The operating room environment- Diagnostic studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信