 |
|
Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract in Surgical Patients
A Systematic Review of the Evidence
Avery B. Nathens, MD, PhD, FRCSC;
John C. Marshall, MD, FRCSC
Arch Surg. 1999;134:170-176.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To determine the comparative efficacy of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill surgical and medical patients, and in selected subgroups of surgical patients with pancreatitis, major burn injury, and those undergoing major elective surgery and transplantation.
Data Sources The MEDLINE database was searched from January 1966 to December 1996 using the terms "decontamination or prophylaxis," "intensive care units," and "antibiotics." The search was limited to English-language studies evaluating the efficacy of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in human subjects.
Study Selection The primary review was restricted to prospective randomized trials.
Data Extraction End points of interest included rates of nosocomial pneumonia, bacteremia, urinary tract infection, wound infection, mortality, and length of intensive care unit stay. Methodologic quality of individual studies was assessed using a previously described model.
Data Synthesis Odds ratios (ORs) together with their (95% confidence interval [CIs]) were reported and determined using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Mortality was significantly reduced with the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill surgical patients (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.52-0.93), while no such effect was demonstrated in critically ill medical patients (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.71-1.18). The greatest effect was demonstrated in studies where both the topical and systemic components of the regimen were used. Rates of pneumonia were reduced in both subsets of patients, while those of bacteremia were significantly reduced only in surgical patients.
Conclusions Selective decontamination of the digestive tract notably reduces mortality in critically ill surgical patients, while critically ill medical patients derive no such benefit. These data suggest that the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract should be limited to those populations in whom rates of nosocomial infection are high and in whom infection contributes notably to adverse outcome.
INTRODUCTION
SELECTIVE decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is an infection prophylaxis regimen that employs topical and oral nonabsorbable antibiotics to eradicate pathogenic organisms from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The regimen was first used in patients with neutropenic leukemia undergoing induction therapy with promising results.1 In 1983, Stoutenbeek et al2 adapted the technique of SDD to patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting; the first clinical trial in a homogeneous group of multiple trauma patients was described the following year.3 Since then, at least 25 controlled clinical trials and 4 meta-analyses4-7 evaluating the technique have been reported; however, although SDD is widely used in European ICUs, it has not found favor in North America.
The microbiologic rationale for SDD derives from clinical and experimental studies on the normal GI tract flora and its changes in critical illness. The indigenous flora of the oropharynx and GI tract is remarkably constant over time. Mechanisms preventing overgrowth with potentially pathogenic organisms include salivary flow,8 gastric acidity,9 bile acids,10 secretory IgA,11 and peristalsis. In addition, obligate anaerobic bacteria contribute to the prevention of colonization of the digestive tract by facultative anaerobic and potentially pathogenic bacteria and yeasts, a phenomenon referred to as colonization resistance.
In the critically ill patient, the mechanisms limiting overgrowth of potentially pathogenic organisms are compromised by the underlying disease processes, instrumentation, and medication that result in impairment of salivary flow, gastric alkalization, cholestasis, and intestinal ileus. In addition, the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics eradicates the anaerobic flora, leading to a loss of colonization resistance. The net result is that within days of admission to an ICU, the relatively avirulent indigenous flora is replaced by a variety of potentially pathogenic species. Abnormal gastric colonization develops within days in more than two thirds of patients admitted to an ICU; the most common isolates include Candida albicans, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus, and coagulase-negative Staphylococcus,12-13 the predominant infecting species of nosocomial ICU-acquired infection.
Many descriptive studies have shown an association between pathologic, oropharyngeal, and gastric colonization and the development of nosocomial infection.14-17 Interventional studies in which normal gastric acidity is maintained by the use of cytoprotective agents support, but do not confirm, a role for altered gastric flora in the pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia.18-19 Aspiration of contaminated upper GI tract fluid is the most plausible and readily demonstrable mechanism of infection with proximal gut organisms.20-21 Alternatively, proximal GI tract colonization may lead to translocation of viable organisms through an intact gut wall. Although a well-established phenomenon in animal models,22-23 translocation has not been conclusively demonstrated in humans.24
The standard SDD regimen consists of 2 components. Topical, nonabsorbed polymyxin E, tobramycin, and amphotericin B, a combination active against essentially all aerobic gram-negative bacteria and fungi.25 These antibiotics have limited activity against the normal anaerobic flora and maintain normal colonization resistance.26 In addition, intravenous cefotaxime sodium is administered until surveillance cultures demonstrate adequate decontamination of the GI tract, generally 4 days following the initiation of SDD. Cefotaxime treats early established infection by community-acquired pathogens, particularly Streptococcus pneumoniae or Haemophilus influenzae, that may be aspirated during intubation, and temporizes until the enterally administered antibiotics have adequately decontaminated the GI tract. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract is initiated as soon as possible following admission and is continued until cessation of mechanical ventilation or discharge from the ICU.
The disparate results of clinical trials in different patient populations suggest that the practice may benefit select groups of patients. Its role in surgical patients has not been explicitly evaluated, although surgical patients might be anticipated to show particular benefit. Rates of nosocomial pneumonia seem to be higher in critically ill surgical patients than in patients admitted to a medical ICU, and the mortality attributable to nosocomial pneumonia is notably greater in the surgical subpopulation.27 On the other hand, concerns have been voiced that a reduction in rates of pneumonia in SDD studies does not seem to result in improved outcome and that widespread adoption of the technique may contribute to the emergence of antibiotic resistance.
To evaluate the utility of SDD in surgical patients, we conducted a formal, systematic, English-literature review using an evidence-based methodology28 that generates recommendations based on the strength of positive evidence provided by clinical studies. Grade A recommendations are supported by level I evidence that reflects statistically significant conclusions from randomized, controlled trials and provides a strong argument for adopting the therapy evaluated. Grade B recommendations are supported by level II evidence; and grade C recommendations, by level III, IV, or V evidence. Grade B and C recommendations provide less convincing evidence of therapeutic efficacy and justify either adoption or withholding of the therapy in question. Notable differences in the response to SDD in surgical, as compared with medical, ICU patients are evident, justifying a grade A recommendation in support of the use of routine SDD prophylaxis in critically ill surgical patients. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract shows evidence of clinical benefit in subpopulations of surgical patients as well, although the limited sample sizes of published studies preclude definitive conclusions regarding its use in specific subgroups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The MEDLINE database from January 1966 to December 1996 was searched using the search terms "decontamination or prophylaxis," "intensive care units," and "antibiotics." Titles and abstracts were also searched during this period for the term "decontamination." Additional citations were obtained from several recent meta-analyses4-6 and through personal communications from other investigators involved in primary studies. The primary review was restricted to prospective, randomized, or consecutive trials. Studies using historic controls were reviewed only in patient populations where limited data exist. Studies were considered to have enrolled surgical patients if at least 75% of the subjects evaluated had been admitted following trauma or major surgery. Studies were considered to have enrolled medical patients when fewer than 25% of patients met this criterion.
Methodologic quality of the studies selected for this systematic review was evaluated using a model previously described by Heyland et al29 (Table 1). Odds ratios (ORs) and pooled ORs together with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported and determined using the Mantel-Haenszel method. An OR of less than 1.0 suggests that SDD results in a reduction in the relative odds of dying or developing a nosocomial infection.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Criteria Used to Assess Methodologic Quality*
|
|
|
RESULTS
SDD IN CRITICALLY ILL SURGICAL PATIENTS
Eleven randomized prospective studies have been published on the use of SDD in surgical ICU patients.30-40 All of the available studies are limited in their sample size, and thus have insufficient power to detect even modest reductions in mortality. The OR for mortality in patients treated with SDD was less than 1 in 8 of the 11 trials, with 1 demonstrating a significant reduction in mortality34 (Figure 1). The pooled OR for these 11 trials is 0.70, with CIs indicating at worst a 7% and at best a 48% reduction in the odds of death in surgical ICU patients treated with SDD (Table 2). Separate analysis of studies in which systemic antimicrobial therapy was administered32, 34-35,38, 40 compared with those with only the topical components of the regimen30-31,33, 36-37,39 demonstrated the greatest survival benefit in the former group. The effect of SDD on rates of nosocomial infection in surgical patients is similarly evident. Nine of 10 assessable trials demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the rate of nosocomial pneumonia, with a pooled OR of 0.19. There is a significant reduction in bacteremic episodes and urinary tract infections in patients treated with SDD while wound infection rates are unaffected (Table 2). Only 1 of 8 assessable studies demonstrated a clear reduction in length of ICU stay,37 although there is a significant reduction in the pooled length of stay in these 8 studies (for control patients, 16.9±13 days vs 15.2±12.5 days for SDD patients; P<.05, t test). All values are expressed as mean±SD.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality in critically ill surgical patients. Odds ratios and the 95% confidence intervals (CI) in 11 studies with more than 75% postoperative or trauma patients are demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Efficacy on Mortality and Nosocomial Infection Rates of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract, Surgical vs Medical Intensive Care Units
|
|
|
SDD IN CRITICALLY ILL MEDICAL PATIENTS
Ten prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trials of SDD have been carried out in critically ill medical patients.41-50 Similar to the trials in critically ill surgical patients, almost all of the studies lack sufficient power to detect a clinically significant reduction in mortality. Only 1 study (445 evaluable patients) had adequate power to detect a 25% reduction in mortality. This trial failed to demonstrate any notable survival benefit in patients receiving SDD.43 In contrast to most of the other studies, systemic antimicrobial therapy was not administered. The pooled OR for a reduction in mortality using SDD prophylaxis in medical patients is 0.91 with the upper limit of the CI being more than 1.0 (Figure 2). Even if the analysis is limited to studies in which systemic antimicrobials are administered,41-42,44, 46-47,49 the effect on survival fails to reach statistical significance (Table 2). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract had a significant effect in reducing episodes of nosocomial pneumonia and urinary tract infections in medical patients (Table 2); however, there was no reduction in the risk of bacteremia (OR, 0.77) or length of ICU stay (for controls patients, 16.7±16 days vs 16.8±13 days for SDD patients).
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality in critically ill medical patients. Odds ratios and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in 10 studies with 25% or fewer postoperative or trauma patients are demonstrated.
|
|
|
To rule out the possibility that differences in the methodologic quality of the clinical trials evaluating medical and surgical patients accounted for the differential benefit seen in surgical patients, a formalized assessment of the quality of the individual trials was performed as described in the "Materials and Methods" section. Methodologic quality scores were similar in medical (7.6±1.9) and surgical trials (7.9±2.3), suggesting that the conduct of the study did not account for the differential results observed.
Data from meta-analyses and from subset analysis of critically ill medical and surgical patients provide sufficient level I and II evidence for a grade A recommendation for the use of SDD in critically ill surgical patients as a prophylactic measure to reduce mortality. Topical antimicrobial therapy should be used in conjunction with a short course of systemic antibiotics.
SDD IN TRANSPLANTATION
Infection contributes to mortality in patients undergoing solid-organ transplantation.51 Selective decontamination of the digestive tract has only been formally evaluated in patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation. Case series and retrospective studies suggest a reduction in rates of infection when compared with historic controls.52-55 There are 3 randomized prospective studies of SDD in liver transplantation56-58 (Table 3) that show a reduction in rates of nosocomial infection and a modest improvement in survival. Support for the use of SDD in liver transplantation is based on level II evidence and is given a grade B recommendation. Further studies are required in both liver transplant and other solid-organ recipients to provide adequate power to determine whether a true survival benefit exists.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Randomized Trials of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract (SDD) in Liver Transplantation and Cardiac Surgery*
|
|
|
SDD IN MAJOR ELECTIVE SURGERY
Selective decontamination of the digestive tract has been most extensively studied in cardiac surgical patients, a homogeneous group of patients undergoing major elective surgery.59-62 Randomized trials show a reduction in rates of infection, but not mortality, in a group of patients with a low baseline mortality rate59-61 (Table 3), and reduced levels of endotoxin and interleukin 6 in the postoperative period.61
The role of SDD vs standard perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective esophageal resection for carcinoma has been examined in a prospective, randomized study.63 Selective decontamination of the digestive tract resulted in a significant reduction in rates of pneumonia (14% vs 2%) and wound infections (35% vs 11%) without a reduction in the length of hospital stay or mortality (2% vs 3%). The effectiveness of SDD in patients undergoing total gastrectomy and esophagojejunal anastomosis has been evaluated in a designed prospective multicenter study.64 Selective decontamination of the digestive tract initiated the evening prior to the procedure resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of anastomotic leaks (10.9% vs 2.9%), pneumonia (22.3% vs 8.8%), and mortality (10.6% vs 4.9%).
Although SDD can reduce the incidence of postoperative infection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, its routine use is probably unnecessary. Risk factors for infection and mortality in cardiac surgery have been clearly elucidated, and include Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores greater than 19 in the first 24 hours,65 prolonged use of an intra-aortic balloon pump,66 and prolonged mechanical ventilation (>72 hours).67 It is recommended that SDD be considered for high-risk cardiac surgical patients. This is a grade B recommendation based on 4 level II clinical trials. The use of SDD as a method of infection prophylaxis in patients undergoing esophageal and gastric resection seems promising. Although these data cannot necessarily be extrapolated to all patients undergoing operations on the GI tract, it would seem that patients undergoing upper GI tract surgery derive benefit through a reduction in the risk of aspiration pneumonia. It is recommended that SDD be considered for patients undergoing upper GI tract surgery as a form of infection prophylaxis. This is a grade B recommendation based on level II data.
SDD IN THERMAL INJURY
The development of gram-negative bacteremia or nosocomial pneumonia following thermal injury is associated with an increased risk of death.68-69 To our knowledge, there are no prospective randomized studies evaluating the efficacy of SDD in burn patients. Mackie et al70 described a series of 31 consecutive patients with burns of greater than 30% of total body surface area who were treated with SDD, comparing them with a group of 33 historic controls. The incidence of respiratory tract infections (27.3% vs 6.5%) and bacteremias (24.2% vs 3.2%) was reduced, with a concomitant reduction in mortality (21.2% vs 3.2%); however, there was no reduction in length of hospital stay. Although promising, data on the role of SDD prophylaxis following thermal injury are retrospective and must be interpreted with due consideration. On the basis of level IV evidence, the use of SDD in patients with significant thermal injury is awarded a grade C recommendation. There is a need for well-designed prospective studies in this patient population.
SDD IN ACUTE PANCREATITIS
In a prospective randomized trial of SDD in acute pancreatitis, Luiten et al71 demonstrated a 50% reduction in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis (38% vs 18%). Patients receiving SDD required fewer laparotomies and had a significant reduction in mortality when stratified by Imrie score, with Imrie scores of 3 or higher obtaining the greatest survival benefit. A small, retrospective study72 of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation examined the effects of SDD on patients with pancreatitis compared with historic controls. This study demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of bacteremia and nosocomial pneumonia in patients poorly matched for both Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score and Ranson criteria. It is recommended that SDD be considered in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. This grade B recommendation is based on a single level I study.
COMMENT
The results of this meta-analysis show that the technique of SDD can benefit surgical patients. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces rates of nosocomial pneumonia and bacteremia and nosocomial infections at remote sites. More importantly, it has a statistically significant effect on mortality. The best estimate for this effect is a 30% reduction in ICU mortality with CIs narrow enough to all but exclude the possibility of a type I error. This mortality effect is larger than that seen with other prophylactic modalities that have become standard care in surgical practice, including those that prevent deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism73 or surgical wound infections.74
Nonetheless, SDD has not been widely adopted as a prophylactic measure. There are several possible explanations for this. Pharmaceutical-grade preparations of polymyxin E and amphotericin B for topical use are not readily available. As a result, centers that have adopted the SDD technique have had to use intravenous preparations at substantially greater cost and local hospital pharmacies must prepare the SDD paste and suspension. The cost of SDD in the ICU setting has received only passing attention. In the 21 studies evaluating the efficacy of SDD in the ICU, 6 make no reference to overall antibiotic use.33, 36, 41, 45, 48-49 In 4 studies, overall antibiotic costs were higher in patients receiving SDD.34, 42-43,50 In only 1 study was total antibiotic cost lower in the treatment group.39 Further, no attempt has been made to estimate costs related to microbiologic surveillance. With currently available data, it is not possible to conclude that SDD is a cost-effective, infection prevention strategy.
Although available data show no increase in the prevalence of resistant gram-negative organisms in patients managed with SDD (and indeed SDD has been promoted as a potential method of decontaminating patients with resistant gram-negative organisms48), its safety in centers where resistant gram-positive organisms are common has not been established. Several studies have documented an increase in rates of isolation of gram-positive organisms, particularly Staphylococcus aureus,37, 42-43 coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, and Enterococcus34, 37-38 when SDD is implemented. The spectrum of resistance is poorly reported. Gentamicin sulfate–resistant enterococci were prevalent in one study; however, surveillance cultures were not performed on the control group.38 In another study, a notable increase in methicillin-resistant S aureus colonization in patients receiving SDD compared with controls was documented.42 Resistant gram-negative organisms seem to be less of a concern; however, tobramycin-resistant, aerobic, gram-negative bacilli have been reported in 2 studies.34-35 Although notably overt infection with resistant organisms has not been reported with the use of SDD, this potential exists, and routine surveillance cultures may be necessary to allow for the early detection of antimicrobial resistance.
Meta-analyses show that SDD has a favorable effect on both nosocomial infection and ICU mortality when it is used as standard prophylactic therapy for critically ill surgical patients. Yet the technique is not widely employed in North America but rather viewed with suspicion and skepticism by many. The appropriate resolution of such a state of clinical equipoise is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial,75 and we believe it is important that such a trial be undertaken. This trial should evaluate a homogeneous group of patients at high risk for infection-related morbidity and mortality; for example, victims of multiple trauma or patients undergoing solid-organ transplantation. It must have an objective primary end point, namely, ICU mortality, and be adequately powered to include or exclude a clinically important mortality effect. It must also incorporate the microbiologic surveillance that will permit definitive conclusions regarding the effect of SDD on the microbial ecology and resistance patterns in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Finally, the study should incorporate a control group of patients receiving systemic but not topical prophylaxis. A prospective, randomized trial of SDD in trauma patients showed comparable outcomes in a control group receiving systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis alone.76
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding author: John C. Marshall, MD, FRCSC, The Toronto Hospital, EN 9-234, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2C4 (e-mail: jmarshall{at}torhosp.toronto .on.ca).
From the Division of General Surgery, The Toronto Hospital (Dr Marshall), and the Department of Surgery, University of Toronto (Dr Nathens), Toronto, Ontario.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Sleifer DT, Mulder NH, de Vries-Hospers HG, et al. Infection prevention in granulocytopenic patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Eur J Cancer. 1980;16:859-868.
2. Stoutenbeek CP, Van Saene HK, Miranda DR, Zandstra DF. A new technique of infection prevention in the intensive care unit by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 1983;34:209-221.
PUBMED
3. Stoutenbeek CP, Van Saene HKF, Miranda DR, Zandstra DF. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonisation and infection rate in multiple trauma patients. Intensive Care Med. 1984;10:185-192.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group. Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. BMJ. 1993;307:525-532.
5. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Griffith L, Lee HN, Guyatt GH. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: an overview. Chest. 1994;105:1221-1229.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Kollef MH. The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory tract infections: a meta-analysis. Chest. 1994;105:1101-1108.
FREE FULL TEXT
7. D'Amico R, Pifferi S, Leonetti C, Torri V, Tinazzi A, Liberati A for the study investigators. Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 1998; 316:1275-1285.
8. Gibson G, Barrett E. The role of salivary function on oropharyngeal colonization. Spec Care Dentist. 1992;12:153-156.
PUBMED
9. Driks MR, Craven DE, Celli BR, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in intubated patients given sucralfate as compared with antacids or histamine type 2 blockers: the role of gastric colonization. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1376-1382.
ABSTRACT
10. Floch MH, Gershengoren W, Elliott S, Spiro HM. Bile acid inhibition of the intestinal microflora: a function for simple bile acids. Gastroenterology. 1971;61:228-233.
ISI
| PUBMED
11. Mcloughlin GA, Hede JE, Temple JG, Bradley J, Chapman DM, McFarland J. The role of IgA in the prevention of bacterial colonization of the jejunum in the vagotomized subject. Br J Surg. 1978;65:435-437.
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Cade JF, McOwat E, Siganporia R, Keighley C, Presneill J, Sinickas V. Uncertain relevance of gastric colonization in the seriously ill. Intensive Care Med. 1992;18:210-217.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Horn R, Meakins JL. The microbiology of multiple organ failure: the proximal gastrointestinal tract as an occult reservoir of pathogens. Arch Surg. 1988;123:309-315.
FREE FULL TEXT
14. Johanson WG, Pierce AK, Sanford JP, Thomas GD. Nosocomial respiratory infections with gram-negative bacilli. Ann Intern Med. 1972;77:701-706.
15. du Moulin GC, Hedley-White J, Paterson DG, Lisbon A. Aspiration of gastric bacteria in antacid-treated patients: a frequent cause of postoperative colonization of the airway. Lancet. 1982;1:242-244.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
16. Simms HH, DeMaria E, McDonald L, Peterson D, Robinson A, Burchard KW. Role of gastric colonization in the development of pneumonia in critically ill trauma patients: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Trauma. 1991;31:531-537.
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Meakins JL. The gastrointestinal tract: the "undrained abscess" of multiple organ failure. Ann Surg. 1993;218:111-119.
ISI
| PUBMED
18. Cook DJ, Laine LA, Guyatt GH, Raffin TA. Nosocomial pneumonia and the role of gastric pH: a meta-analysis. Chest. 1991;100:7-13.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Marshall JC, et al for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A randomized trial of sucralfate versus ranitidine for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:791-797.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Kingston GW, Phang PT, Leathley MJ. Increased incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients with subclinical aspiration. Am J Surg. 1991;161:589-592.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
21. Torres A, Serra-Batlles J, Ros E, et al. Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents in patient receiving mechanical ventilation: the effect of body position. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:540-543.
22. Deitch EA, Winterton J, Berg R. The gut as a portal of entry for bacteremia. Ann Surg. 1987;205:681-692.
ISI
| PUBMED
23. Jones WG, Minei JP, Barber AE, Rayburn JL, Fahey TJ, Shires GT. Bacterial translocation and intestinal atrophy after thermal injury and burn wound sepsis. Ann Surg. 1990;211:399-405.
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Moore FA, Moore EE, Poggetti R, et al. Gut bacterial translocation via the portal vein: a clinical perspective with major torso trauma. J Trauma. 1991;31:629-638.
ISI
| PUBMED
25. Van Saene HK, Stoutenbeek CP, Hart CA. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) in intensive care patients: a critical evaluation of the clinical, bacteriological and epidemiological benefits. J Hosp Infect. 1991;18:261-277.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
26. van der Waaij D, Aberson J, Thijm HA, Welling GW. The screening of four aminoglycosides in the selective decontamination of the digestive tract in mice. Infection. 1982;10:35-40.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
27. Cunnion KM, Weber DJ, Broadhead WE, Hanson LC, Pieper CF, Rutala WA. Risk factors for nosocomial pneumonia: comparing adult critical-care populations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;153:158-162.
ABSTRACT
28. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Laupacis A, Sackett DL. Rules of evidence and clinical recommendations on the use of antithrombotic agents. Chest. 1992;102:305S-311S.
29. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, King D, Kernerman P, Brun-Buisson C. Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: a methodologic appraisal of the evidence. Crit Care Med. 1996;24:517-524.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Unertl K, Ruckdeschel G, Selbmann HK, et al. Prevention of colonization and respiratory infections in long-term ventilated patients by local antimicrobial prophylaxis. Intensive Care Med. 1987; 13:106-113.
31. Korinek AM, Laisne MJ, Nicolas MH, Raskine L, Deroin V, Sanson-Lepors MJ. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurosurgical intensive care unit patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Crit Care Med. 1993;21:1466-1473.
ISI
| PUBMED
32. Kerver AJ, Rommes JH, Mevissen-Verhage EA, et al. Prevention of colonization and infection in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized study. Crit Care Med. 1988;16:1087-1093.
ISI
| PUBMED
33. Godard J, Guillaume ME, Bachmann B, et al. Intestinal decontamination in a polyvalent ICU: a double-blind study. Intensive Care Med. 1990;16:307-311.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
34. Rocha LA, Martin MJ, Pita S, et al. Prevention of nosocomial infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Intensive Care Med. 1992;18:398-404.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
35. Blair P, Rowlands BJ, Lowry K, Webb H, Armstrong P, Smilie J. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a stratified, randomized, prospective study in a mixed intensive care unit. Surgery. 1991;110:303-310.
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Lew DP, Suter PM. Oropharyngeal decontamination decreases incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. JAMA. 1991;265:2704-2710.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Cerra FB, Maddaus MA, Dunn DL, et al. Selective gut decontamination reduces nosocomial infections and length of stay but not mortality or organ failure in surgical intensive care unit patients. Arch Surg. 1992;127:163-169.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Cockerill FR, Muller SR, Anhalt JP, et al. Prevention of infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:545-553.
39. Quinio B, Albanese J, Bues-Charbit M, Viviand X, Martin C. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. Chest. 1996;109:765-772.
FREE FULL TEXT
40. Stoutenbeek CP, Van Saene HKF, Zandstra DF. Prevention of multiple organ system failure by selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. In: Faist E, Baue AE, Schildberg FW, eds. The Immune Consequences of Trauma, Shock and Sepsis—Mechanisms and Therapeutic Approaches. Berlin, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers; 1996:1055-1066.
41. Ferrer M, Torres A, Gonzalez J, et al. Utility of selective digestive decontamination in mechanically ventilated patients. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:389-395.
FREE FULL TEXT
42. Hammond JM, Potgieter PD, Saunders GL, Forder AA. Double-blind study of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care. Lancet. 1992;340:5-9.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Gastinne H, Wolff M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, Chevret S. A controlled trial in intensive care units of selective decontamination of the digestive tract with nonabsorbable antibiotics. N Engl J Med. 1992;326:594-599.
ABSTRACT
44. Ulrich C, Harinck-de Weerd JE, Bakker NC, Jacz K, Doornbos L, de Ridder VA. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract with norfloxacin in the prevention of ICU-acquired infections: a prospective randomized study. Intensive Care Med. 1989;15:424-431.
ISI
| PUBMED
45. Rodriguez-Roldan JM, Altuna-Cuesta A, Lopez A, et al. Prevention of nosocomial lung infection in ventilated patients: use of an antimicrobial pharyngeal nonabsorbable paste. Crit Care Med. 1990;18:1239-1242.
ISI
| PUBMED
46. Winter R, Humphreys H, Pick A, MacGowan AP, Willatts SM, Speller DC. A controlled trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care and its effect on nosocomial infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1992;30:73-87.
FREE FULL TEXT
47. Aerdts SJA, van Dalen R, Clasener HAL, Festen J, van Lier HJJ, Vollaard EJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis of respiratory tract infection in mechanically ventilated patients. Chest. 1991;100:783-791.
FREE FULL TEXT
48. Brun-Buisson C, Legrand P, Rauss A, et al. Intestinal decontamination for control of nosocomial multiresistant Gram-negative bacilli. Ann Intern Med. 1989;110:873-881.
49. Jacobs S, Foweraker JE, Roberts SE. Effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in an ICU with a policy encouraging a low gastric pH. Clin Intensive Care. 1992;3:52-58.
50. Wiener J, Itokazu G, Nathan C, Kabins SA, Weinstein RA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of selective decontamination in a medical-surgical intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;20:861-867.
ISI
| PUBMED
51. Cuervas-Mons V, Matinez AJ, Dekker A, Starzl TE, Van Thiel DH. Adult liver transplantation: an analysis of the early causes of death in 40 consecutive cases. Hepatology. 1986;6:495-501.
ISI
| PUBMED
52. Cuervas-Mons V, Barrios C, Garrido A, et al. Bacterial infections in liver transplant patients under selective decontamination with norfloxacin. Transplant Proc. 1989;21:3558
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Raakow R, Steffen R, Lefebre B, Bechstein WO, Blumhardt G, Neuhaus P. Selective bowel decontamination effectively prevents gram-negative bacterial infections after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1990;22:1556-1557.
ISI
| PUBMED
54. Rosman C, Klompmaker IJ, Bonsel GJ, Bleichrodt RP, Arends JP, Sloof MJH. The efficacy of selective bowel decontamination as infection prevention after liver transplantation. Transplant Proc. 1990;22:1554-1555.
ISI
| PUBMED
55. Weisner RH, Hermans PE, Rakela J, et al. Selective bowel decontamination to decrease Gram-negative aerobic bacterial and candidal colonization and prevent infection after orthotopic liver transplantation. Transplantation. 1988;45:570-574.
ISI
| PUBMED
56. Bion JF, Badger I, Crosby HA, Hutchings P, et al. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces Gram-negative pulmonary colonization but not systemic endotoxemia in patients undergoing elective liver transplantation. Crit Care Med. 1994;22:40-49.
ISI
| PUBMED
57. Smith SD, Jackson RJ, Hannakan CJ, Wadowsky RM, Tzakis AG, Rowe MI. Selective decontamination in pediatric liver transplants. Transplantation. 1993;55:1306-1309.
ISI
| PUBMED
58. Arnow PM, Carandang GC, Zabner R, Irwin ME. Randomized controlled trial of selective bowel decontamination for prevention of infections following liver transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 1996;22:997-1003.
ISI
| PUBMED
59. Zobel G, Kuttnig M, Grubbauer HM, Semmelrock HJ, Thiel W. Reduction of colonization and infection rate during pediatric intensive care by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Crit Care Med. 1991;19:1242-1246.
ISI
| PUBMED
60. Flaherty J, Nathan C, Kabins SA, Weinstein RA. Pilot trial of selective decontamination for prevention of bacterial infection in an intensive care unit. J Infect Dis. 1990;162:1393-1397.
ISI
| PUBMED
61. Martinez-Pellus AE, Merino P, Bru M, et al. Can selective digestive decontamination avoid the endotoxemia and cytokine activation promoted by cardiopulmonary bypass. Crit Care Med. 1993;21:1684-1691.
ISI
| PUBMED
62. Fox MA, Peterson S, Fabri BM, Van Saene HK. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in cardiac surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1991;19:1486-1490.
ISI
| PUBMED
63. Tetteroo GW, Wagenvoort JH, Castelein A, Tilanus HW, Ince C, Bruining HA. Selective decontamination to reduce gram-negative colonisation and infections after oesophageal resection. Lancet. 1990;335:704-707.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
64. Schardey HM, Joosten U, Finke U, et al. The prevention of anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy with local decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 1997;225:172-180.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
65. Kreuzer E, Kaab S, Pilz G, Werdan K. Early prediction of septic complications after cardiac surgery by APACHE II score. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1992;6:524-528.
ABSTRACT
66. Asnes J, Abdelnoor M, Berge V, Fjeld NB. Risk factors of septicemia and perioperative myocardial infarction in a cohort of patients supported with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in the course of open heart surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7:153-157.
ABSTRACT
67. Kollef MH, Wragge T, Pasque C. Determinants of mortality and multiorgan dysfunction in cardiac surgery patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1995;107:1395-1401.
FREE FULL TEXT
68. Shirani KZ, Pruitt BA, Mason AD. The influence of inhalation injury and pneumonia on burn mortality. Ann Surg. 1987;205:82-87.
ISI
| PUBMED
69. Sittig K, Deitch EA. Effect of bacteremia on mortality after thermal injury. Arch Surg. 1988;123:1367-1370.
FREE FULL TEXT
70. Mackie DP, van Hertum WA, Schumburg T, Kuijper EC, Knape P. Prevention of infection in burns: preliminary experience with selective decontamination of the digestive tract in patients with extensive injuries. J Trauma. 1992;32:570-575.
ISI
| PUBMED
71. Luiten EJT, Hop WCJ, Lange JF, Bruining HA. Controlled clinical trial of selective decontamination for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. Ann Surg. 1995;222:57-65.
ISI
| PUBMED
72. Mclelland P, Murray A, Yaqoob M, Van Saene HKF, Bone JM, Mostafa SM. Prevention of bacterial infection and sepsis in acute severe pancreatitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1992;74:329-334.
ISI
| PUBMED
73. Collins R, Schrimgeour A, Yusuf S, Peto R. Reduction in fatal pulmonary embolism and venous thrombosis by perioperative administration of subcutaneous heparin. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1162-1173.
ISI
| PUBMED
74. Kaiser AB. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. N Engl J Med. 1986;315:1129-1138.
ISI
| PUBMED
75. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:141-145.
ABSTRACT
76. Lingnau W, Berger J, Javorsky F, Lejeune P, Mutz N, Benzer H. Selective intestinal decontamination in multiple trauma patients: prospective, controlled trial. J Trauma. 1997;42:687-694.
ISI
| PUBMED
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Oral Decontamination to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Is It a Sound Strategy?
Dallas and Kollef
Chest 2009;135:1116-1118.
FULL TEXT
Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and Oropharynx in ICU Patients
de Smet et al.
NEJM 2009;360:20-31.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the UK: Report of the Working Party on Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Masterton et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:5-34.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence on measures for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia
Lorente et al.
Eur Respir J 2007;30:1193-1207.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reducing susceptibility to bacteremia after experimental burn injury: a role for selective decontamination of the digestive tract
Horton et al.
J. Appl. Physiol. 2007;102:2207-2216.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract and Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: We Cannot Let Misinformation Go Uncorrected
Silvestri et al.
J Intensive Care Med 2007;22:181-182.
Oral decontamination for prevention of pneumonia in mechanically ventilated adults: systematic review and meta-analysis
Chan et al.
BMJ 2007;334:889-889.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention
Koenig and Truwit
Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2006;19:637-657.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: A Review
Davis
J Intensive Care Med 2006;21:211-226.
ABSTRACT
Modulation of Systemic Inflammatory Response after Cardiac Surgery
Raja and Dreyfus
Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 2005;13:382-395.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Medical management of patients with multiple organ dysfunction arising from acute radiation syndrome
Jackson et al.
Br. J. Radiol. 2005;Supplement_27:161-168.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Aspiration and the Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Parker and Heyland
Nutr Clin Pract 2004;19:597-609.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Selective decontamination of the digestive tract attenuated the myocardial inflammation and dysfunction that occur with burn injury
Horton et al.
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2004;287:H2241-H2251.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
Dodek et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:305-313.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prevention of MRSA pneumonia by oral vancomycin decontamination: a randomised trial
Silvestri et al.
Eur Respir J 2004;23:921-926.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduced intensive care unit and hospital mortality in adults
Kent
Evid. Based Nurs. 2004;7:47-47.
FULL TEXT
Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of trauma-related sepsis
Easby and Greaves
Trauma 2004;6:1-11.
ABSTRACT
Nosocomial Pneumonia: Therapy Is Just Not Good Enough
Bauer
Chest 2003;124:1632-1634.
FULL TEXT
Considering resistance in systematic reviews of antibiotic treatment
Leibovici et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2003;52:564-571.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review
Collard et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2003;138:494-501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Epidemiology and Outcomes of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in a Large US Database
Rello et al.
Chest 2002;122:2115-2121.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
In Defense of Evidence: The Continuing Saga of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract
Aarts and Marshall
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002;166:1014-1015.
FULL TEXT
Influence of Combined Intravenous and Topical Antibiotic Prophylaxis on the Incidence of Infections, Organ Dysfunctions, and Mortality in Critically Ill Surgical Patients: A Prospective, Stratified, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial
Krueger et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002;166:1029-1037.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia : Selecting Interventions That Make a Difference
Iregui and Kollef
Chest 2002;121:679-681.
FULL TEXT
Is a Silver Coating a Silver Lining?
Balk
Chest 2002;121:682-683.
FULL TEXT
Silver-Coated Endotracheal Tubes Associated With Reduced Bacterial Burden in the Lungs of Mechanically Ventilated Dogs
Olson et al.
Chest 2002;121:863-870.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Infection Control in the ICU
Eggimann and Pittet
Chest 2001;120:2059-2093.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Influence of Methodological Quality on Study Conclusions
Liberati et al.
JAMA 2001;286:2544-2547.
FULL TEXT
Prevention of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia by Oral Decontamination . Just Another SDD Study?
Pittet et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001;164:338-339.
FULL TEXT
Relationship Between Methodological Trial Quality and the Effects of Selective Digestive Decontamination on Pneumonia and Mortality in Critically Ill Patients
van Nieuwenhoven et al.
JAMA 2001;286:335-340.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ventilator-associated pneumonia: European Task Force on ventilator-associated pneumonia Chairmen of the Task Force: A. Torres and J. Carlet
Members of the Task Force: et al.
Eur Respir J 2001;17:1034-1045.
FULL TEXT
Pneumonia in Patients With Severe Burns : A Classification According to the Concept of the Carrier State
de la Cal et al.
Chest 2001;119:1160-1165.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systemic Antibiotics Fail to Clear Multidrug-Resistant Klebsiella from a Pediatric ICU
Petros et al.
Chest 2001;119:862-866.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Antibiotic Resistance in the Intensive Care Unit
Kollef and Fraser
ANN INTERN MED 2001;134:298-314.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Selective digestive decontamination in patients in intensive care
Bonten et al.
J Antimicrob Chemother 2000;46:351-362.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia
van Saene et al.
NEJM 1999;341:293-294.
FULL TEXT
|
