Literature DB >> 21067554

Withholding selective decontamination of the digestive tract from critically ill patients must now surely be ethically questionable given the vast evidence base.

Durk F Zandstra, Andy J Petros, Nia Taylor, Luciano Silvestri, Miguel A de la Cal, Hendrick K F van Saene.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21067554      PMCID: PMC3219259          DOI: 10.1186/cc9255

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


× No keyword cloud information.

Shibli and colleagues recently commented [1] on the Dutch randomised controlled trial in which selective digestive decontamination (SDD) and selective oro-pharyngeal decontamination (SOD) were associated with significantly lower odds of death as compared with standard care, with odds ratios of 0.83 (P = 0.02) and 0.86 (P = 0.045), respectively [2]. We disagree with the authors' conclusion that, because there were similar mortality reductions, SOD may be preferred as this avoids routinely exposing patients to intravenous antibiotics and involves less resistance. Cephalosporin consumption was higher in the SDD group, but defined daily doses of penicillins, carba-penems, quinolones and other antibiotics increased by 31%, 37%, 25% and 15%, respectively, in SOD compared with SDD in the Dutch randomised controlled trial [2]. In citing the monthly point prevalence survey [3] of the Dutch randomised controlled trial, Shibli and colleagues failed to mention that the average prevalence of aerobic Gram-negative bacilli resistant to ceftazidime, tobramycin and ciprofloxacin in the respiratory tract was significantly lower during SDD/SOD than in the pre-intervention and post-intervention periods, and that aerobic Gram-negative bacilli resistance to ciprofloxacin and tobramycin in rectal swabs was significantly reduced during SDD compared with standard care/SOD [2,3]. Finally, two recent meta-analyses evaluated the effectiveness of SDD [4] and of SOD [5]: lower airway infections were significantly reduced by both SDD and SOD, but only SDD was associated with a significant survival benefit. We believe that withholding SDD is now ethically questionable given the vast body of evidence on the technique reducing severe infections and mortality, requiring less antibiotic use, and providing less resistance.

Abbreviations

SDD: selective digestive decontamination; SOD: selective oropharyngeal decontamination.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  5 in total

1.  SDD, SOD, or oropharyngeal chlorhexidine to prevent pneumonia and to reduce mortality in ventilated patients: which manoeuvre is evidence-based?

Authors:  Luciano Silvestri; Hendrick K F van Saene; Durk F Zandstra; Marino Viviani; Dario Gregori
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Ecological effects of selective decontamination on resistant gram-negative bacterial colonization.

Authors:  Evelien A N Oostdijk; Anne Marie G A de Smet; Hetty E M Blok; Emily S Thieme Groen; Gerard J van Asselt; Robin F J Benus; Sandra A T Bernards; Ine H M E Frénay; Arjan R Jansz; Bartelt M de Jongh; Jan A Kaan; Maurine A Leverstein-van Hall; Ellen M Mascini; Wouter Pauw; Patrick D J Sturm; Steven F T Thijsen; Jan A J W Kluytmans; Marc J M Bonten
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Dirty mouth? Should you clean it out? Decontamination for the prevention of pneumonia and mortality in the ICU.

Authors:  Adeel B Shibli; Eric B Milbrandt; Marie Baldisseri
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2010-06-18       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 4.  Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Roberto D'Amico; Silvia Pifferi; Valter Torri; Luca Brazzi; Elena Parmelli
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-10-07

5.  Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx in ICU patients.

Authors:  A M G A de Smet; J A J W Kluytmans; B S Cooper; E M Mascini; R F J Benus; T S van der Werf; J G van der Hoeven; P Pickkers; D Bogaers-Hofman; N J M van der Meer; A T Bernards; E J Kuijper; J C A Joore; M A Leverstein-van Hall; A J G H Bindels; A R Jansz; R M J Wesselink; B M de Jongh; P J W Dennesen; G J van Asselt; L F te Velde; I H M E Frenay; K Kaasjager; F H Bosch; M van Iterson; S F T Thijsen; G H Kluge; W Pauw; J W de Vries; J A Kaan; J P Arends; L P H J Aarts; P D J Sturm; H I J Harinck; A Voss; E V Uijtendaal; H E M Blok; E S Thieme Groen; M E Pouw; C J Kalkman; M J M Bonten
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-01-01       Impact factor: 91.245

  5 in total
  1 in total

1.  The pros, cons, and unknowns of search and destroy for carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.

Authors:  Prashini Moodley; Andrew Whitelaw
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.725

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.