Rogers Luke J, Vaja Ricky, Bleetman David, Ali Jason M, Rochon Melissa, Sanders Julie, Tanner Judith, Lamagni Theresa L, Talukder Shagorika, Quijano-Campos Juan Carlos, Lai Florence, Loubani Mahmoud, Murphy Gavin J
Leicester Clinical Trials Unit, University of Leicester, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester, UK.
Bristol Heart Institute, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Dec 2;12(12):CD013332. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013332.pub2.
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of hospital-acquired infection and affects up to a third of patients following surgical procedures. It is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. In the United Kingdom alone, it is estimated to add another £30 million to the cost of adult cardiac surgery. Although generic guidance for SSI prevention exists, this is not specific to adult cardiac surgery. Furthermore, many of the risk factors for SSI are prevalent within the cardiac surgery population. Despite this, there is currently no standard of care for SSI prevention in adults undergoing cardiac surgery throughout the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods of care, with variations in practice existing throughout from risk stratification, decontamination strategies and surveillance.
Primary objective: to assess the clinical effectiveness of pre-, intra-, and postoperative interventions in the prevention of cardiac SSI.
(i) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention interventions on morbidity, mortality, and resource use; (ii) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention care bundles on morbidity, mortality, and resource use.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, from inception) and Embase (Ovid, from inception) on 31 May 2021.
gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were also searched for ongoing or unpublished trials on 21 May 2021. No language restrictions were imposed.
We included RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce SSI in adults (≥ 18 years of age) who have undergone any cardiac surgery.
We followed the methods as per our published Cochrane protocol. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for SSI, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions for SSI, healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QoL), and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
A total of 118 studies involving 51,854 participants were included. Twenty-two interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery were identified. The risk of bias was judged to be high in the majority of studies. There was heterogeneity in the study populations and interventions; consequently, meta-analysis was not appropriate for many of the comparisons and these are presented as narrative summaries. We focused our reporting of findings on four comparisons deemed to be of great clinical relevance by all review authors. Decolonisation versus no decolonisation Pooled data from three studies (n = 1564) using preoperative topical oral/nasal decontamination in all patients demonstrated an uncertain direction of treatment effect in relation to total SSI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; I = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study reported that decolonisation likely results in little to no difference in superficial SSI (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence) and a reduction in deep SSI (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). The evidence on all-cause mortality from three studies (n = 1564) is very uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.84; I = 49%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) demonstrated that decolonisation may result in little to no difference in hospital readmission for SSI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) reported one case of temporary discolouration of teeth in the decolonisation arm (low-certainty-evidence. Reoperation for SSI was not reported. Tight glucose control versus standard glucose control Pooled data from seven studies (n = 880) showed that tight glucose control may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85; I = 29%; numbers need to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 13; very-low certainty evidence). Pooled data from seven studies (n = 3334) showed tight glucose control may reduce all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Based on four studies (n = 2793), there may be little to no difference in episodes of hypoglycaemia between tight control vs. standard control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.76; I = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, reoperation for SSI, or hospital readmission for SSI. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard dressings NPWT was assessed in two studies (n = 144) and it may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.97; I = 0%; NNTB = 10; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 80) reported reoperation for SSI. The relative effect could not be estimated. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, all-cause mortality, hospital readmission for SSI, or adverse effects. Topical antimicrobials versus no topical antimicrobials Five studies (n = 5382) evaluated topical gentamicin sponge, which may reduce total SSI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84; I = 48%; NNTB = 32), superficial SSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; I = 69%), and deep SSI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; I = 5%; low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 4662) demonstrated that topical gentamicin sponge may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; I = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Reoperation for SSI, hospital readmission for SSI, and adverse effects were not reported in any included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides the broadest and most recent review of the current evidence base for interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Twenty-one interventions were identified across the perioperative period. Evidence is of low to very low certainty primarily due to significant heterogeneity in how interventions were implemented and the definitions of SSI used. Knowledge gaps have been identified across a number of practices that should represent key areas for future research. Efforts to standardise SSI outcome reporting are warranted.
手术部位感染(SSI)是一种常见的医院获得性感染,影响高达三分之一的手术患者。它与显著的死亡率和发病率相关。仅在英国,据估计这会使成人心脏手术成本增加3000万英镑。虽然存在预防SSI的通用指南,但这并非专门针对成人心脏手术。此外,许多SSI的风险因素在心脏手术人群中普遍存在。尽管如此,目前在接受心脏手术的成人患者的术前、术中和术后护理期间,尚无预防SSI的标准护理方案,从风险分层、去污策略到监测,整个过程中实践存在差异。
主要目的:评估术前、术中和术后干预措施预防心脏SSI的临床效果。
(i)评估SSI预防干预措施对发病率、死亡率和资源使用的影响;(ii)评估SSI预防护理包对发病率、死亡率和资源使用的影响。
我们于2021年5月31日检索了Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(Ovid,自创刊起)和Embase(Ovid,自创刊起)。
还于2021年5月21日在ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)上检索了正在进行或未发表的试验。未设语言限制。
我们纳入了评估干预措施以降低接受任何心脏手术的成人(≥18岁)SSI的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们遵循已发表的Cochrane方案中的方法。我们的主要结局是手术部位感染。次要结局包括全因死亡率、因SSI再次手术、住院时间、因SSI再次入院、医疗费用和成本效益、生活质量(QoL)以及不良反应。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据的确定性。
共纳入118项研究,涉及51854名参与者。确定了22项降低接受心脏手术成人SSI的干预措施。大多数研究的偏倚风险被判定为高。研究人群和干预措施存在异质性;因此,荟萃分析不适用于许多比较,这些比较以叙述性总结呈现。我们将研究结果的报告重点放在所有综述作者认为具有重大临床相关性的四项比较上。去定植与未去定植:三项研究(n = 1564)对所有患者使用术前局部口腔/鼻腔去污的汇总数据显示,与总SSI相关的治疗效果方向不确定(风险比[RR]0.98,95%置信区间[CI]0.70至1.36;I² = 0%;极低确定性证据)。一项研究报告称,去定植可能导致浅表SSI几乎没有差异(RR 1.35,95% CI 0.84至2.15;中度确定性证据),而深部SSI有所降低(RR 0.36,95% CI 0.17至0.77;高确定性证据)。三项研究(n = 1564)关于全因死亡率的证据非常不确定(RR 0.66,95% CI 0.24至1.84;I² = 49%;极低确定性证据)。一项研究(n = 954)表明,去定植可能导致因SSI再次入院几乎没有差异(RR 0.80,95% CI 0.44至1.45;低确定性证据)。一项研究(n = 954)报告去定植组有1例牙齿暂时变色(低确定性证据)。未报告因SSI再次手术情况。严格血糖控制与标准血糖控制:七项研究(n = 880)的汇总数据表明,严格血糖控制可能降低总SSI,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.41,95% CI 0.19至0.85;I² = 29%;需治疗获益人数[NNTB]=13;极低确定性证据)。七项研究(n = 3334)的汇总数据显示,严格血糖控制可能降低全因死亡率,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.61,95% CI 0.41至0.91;I² = 0%;极低确定性证据)。基于四项研究(n = 2793),严格控制与标准控制之间低血糖发作可能几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(RR 2.12,95% CI 0.51至8.76;I² = 72%;极低确定性证据)。没有研究报告浅表/深部SSI、因SSI再次手术或因SSI再次入院情况。负压伤口治疗(NPWT)与标准敷料:两项研究(n = 144)评估了NPWT,它可能降低总SSI,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.17,95% CI 0.03至0.97;I² = 0%;NNTB = 10;极低确定性证据)。一项研究(n = 80)报告了因SSI再次手术情况。无法估计相对效应。证据的确定性被判定为极低。没有研究报告浅表/深部SSI、全因死亡率、因SSI再次入院或不良反应。局部抗菌药物与未使用局部抗菌药物:五项研究(n = 5382)评估了局部庆大霉素海绵,它可能降低总SSI(RR 0.62,95% CI 0.46至0.84;I² = 48%;NNTB = 32)、浅表SSI(RR 0.60,95% CI 0.37至0.98;I² = 69%)和深部SSI(RR 0.67,95% CI 0.47至0.96;I² = 5%;低确定性证据)。四项研究(n = 4662)表明,局部庆大霉素海绵可能导致全因死亡率几乎没有差异,但证据非常不确定(RR 0.96,95% CI 0.65至1.42;I² = 0%;极低确定性证据)。纳入的任何研究均未报告因SSI再次手术、因SSI再次入院和不良反应情况。
本综述对目前降低接受心脏手术成人SSI的干预措施的证据基础进行了最广泛和最新的综述。围手术期共确定了21项干预措施。证据的确定性为低到极低,主要是由于干预措施实施方式和所使用的SSI定义存在显著异质性。在许多实践中发现了知识空白,这些应是未来研究的关键领域。有必要努力使SSI结局报告标准化。