Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 2/2021

01-02-2021 | Colectomy | 2019 SAGES Oral

Utilization of combination bowel preparation (CBP) is protective against the development of post-operative Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), decreases septic complications, and provides a survival benefit

Authors: Christopher W. Mangieri, Jeffrey A. Ling, David M. Modlin, Elizabeth D. Rose, Pamela L. Burgess

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 2/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The current standard recommended by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) is to utilize a combined bowel preparation (CBP) that involves both mechanical (MBP) and oral antibiotic (ABP) components. The current literature is equivocal on whether ABP predisposes to post-operative Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). CDI following colorectal surgery is a significant complication leading to increase in significant morbidity and mortality. Objective was to further delineate the association between CBP and CDI.

Methods

Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) registry was performed. Specifically the main and targeted colectomy/proctectomy databases for 2015 and 2016 were analyzed. 64,449 colorectal surgeries were contained. Exclusion of non-elective cases and cases that did not utilize a bowel preparation or used ABP alone resulted in 24,000 cases for final analysis. Primary endpoint was post-operative CDI development. Secondary analysis involved surgical site infections (SSIs), anastomotic leaks, and sepsis development. 30-day mortality rates, rapidity of return of bowel function, and length of stay were also evaluated.

Results

Approximately two-thirds of the cases analyzed involved CBP and the remaining third used MBP alone. Cases that utilized CBP had statistically significant lower rates of all infectious complications evaluated. CBP was found to be protective in regard to the development of CDI with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.58. Our results collaborate the current literature that CBP decreases SSIs and anastomotic leaks with ORs of 0.58 and 0.79, respectively. CBP had its most profound effect on lowering septic shock and mortality rates halving the incidence of both.

Conclusion

Our findings support the ASCRS guidelines for routine utilization of CBP to optimize post-operative outcomes. CBP does not increase the risk of CDI and in fact is significantly protective. CBP potentially also provides decreased risk of sepsis and mortality.
Literature
1.
Migaly J et al (2019) The American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for the use of bowel preparation in elective colon and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 62(1):3–8CrossRef
2.
Yeom CH et al (2010) Risk factors for the development of Clostridium difficile-associated colitis after colorectal cancer surgery. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 26(5):329CrossRef
3.
4.
Poth EJ (1953) Intestinal antisepsis in surgery. J Am Med Assoc 153(17):1516–1521CrossRef
5.
Nichols RL et al (1972) Efficacy of preoperative antimicrobial preparation of the bowel. Ann Surg 176(2):227CrossRef
6.
Bucher P et al (2005) Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sided colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 92(4):409–414CrossRef
7.
Ram E et al (2005) Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? A prospective randomized study. Arch Surg 140(3):285–288CrossRef
8.
Contant CME et al (2007) Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre randomised trial. The Lancet 370(9605):2112–2117CrossRef
9.
Jung B et al (2007) Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection. Br J Surg 94(6):689–695CrossRef
10.
Güenaga K, Matos D, Wille-Jørgensen P (2011) Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD001544
11.
Kiran RP et al (2015) Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 262(3):416–425CrossRef
12.
Scarborough JE et al (2015) Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces incisional surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection. Ann Surg 262(2):331–337CrossRef
13.
Kim EK et al (2014) A statewide colectomy experience: the role of full bowel preparation in preventing surgical site infection. Ann Surg 259(2):310–314CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
17.
Buffie CG, Pamer EG (2013) Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol 13:790–801CrossRef
18.
Reeves AE, Theriot CM, Bergin IL, Huffnagle GB, Schloss PD, Young VB (2011) The interplay between microbiome dynamics and pathogen dynamics in a murine model of Clostridium difficile infection. Gut Microbes 2:145–158CrossRef
19.
Lindsey JT, Smith JW, McClugage SG Jr, Nichols RL (1990) Effects of commonly used bowel preparations on the large bowel mucosal-associated and luminal microflora in the rat model. Dis Colon Rectum 33:554–560CrossRef
20.
Groner JI, Edmiston CE Jr, Krepel CJ, Telford GL, Condon RE (1989) The efficacy of oral antimicrobials in reducing aerobic and anaerobic colonic mucosal flora. Arch Surg 124:281–284CrossRef
21.
Krapohl GL et al (2011) Bowel preparation for colectomy and risk of Clostridium difficile infection. Dis Colon Rectum 54(7):810CrossRef
22.
Klinger AL et al (2019) The role of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery: results of the 2012–2015 ACS-NSQIP data. Ann Surg 269(4):671–677CrossRef
23.
Khuri SF (2005) The NSQIP: a new frontier in surgery. Surgery 138(5):837–843CrossRef
24.
Shiloach M et al (2010) Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg 210(1):6–16CrossRef
25.
Chen M et al (2016) Comparing mechanical bowel preparation with both oral and systemic antibiotics versus mechanical bowel preparation and systemic antibiotics alone for the prevention of surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 59(1):70–78CrossRef
26.
Devane LA et al (2017) A European survey of bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 19(11):O402–O406CrossRef
27.
Fry DE (2016) Antimicrobial bowel preparation for elective colon surgery. Surg Infect 17(3):269–274CrossRef
28.
Surawicz CM et al (2013) Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections. Am J Gastroenterol 108(4):478CrossRef
29.
Giske A et al (2017) Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis prior to gastrointestinal surgery–is oral administration of doxycycline and metronidazole adequate? Infect Dis 49(11–12):785–791CrossRef
30.
Lederer A-K et al (2017) Postoperative changes of the microbiome: Are surgical complications related to the gut flora? A Syst Rev. BMC Surg 17(1):125CrossRef
31.
MacFie J et al (1999) Gut origin of sepsis: a prospective study investigating associations between bacterial translocation, gastric microflora, and septic morbidity. Gut 45(2):223–228CrossRef
32.
MacFie J et al (2006) Bacterial translocation studied in 927 patients over 13 years. Br J Surg 93(1):87–93CrossRef
33.
Deitch EA (2002) Bacterial translocation or lymphatic drainage of toxic products from the gut: what is important in human beings? Surgery 131(3):241–244CrossRef
34.
35.
MacFie J (2004) Current status of bacterial translocation as a cause of surgical sepsis. Br Med Bull 71(1):1–11CrossRef
36.
Stavrou G, Kotzampassi K (2017) Gut microbiome, surgical complications and probiotics. Ann Gastroenterol 30(1):45PubMed
Metadata
Title
Utilization of combination bowel preparation (CBP) is protective against the development of post-operative Clostridium difficile infection (CDI), decreases septic complications, and provides a survival benefit
Authors
Christopher W. Mangieri
Jeffrey A. Ling
David M. Modlin
Elizabeth D. Rose
Pamela L. Burgess
Publication date
01-02-2021
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-07563-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Surgical Endoscopy 2/2021 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Long-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy compared to laparoscopic Heller myotomy for achalasia: a single-center experience

OriginalPaper

Preoperative predictors of liver decompensation after mini-invasive liver resection

OriginalPaper

The impact of fluorescence angiography on anastomotic leak rate following transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a comparative study

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopic transperitoneal adrenalectomy: a comparative study of different techniques for vessel sealing

OriginalPaper

Comparative study of gasless endoscopic selective lateral neck dissection via the anterior chest approach versus conventional open surgery for papillary thyroid carcinoma

OriginalPaper

The possibility of endoscopic treatment of cN0 submucosal esophageal cancer: results from a surgical cohort