A Kurz1, T Kopyeva2, I Suliman3, A Podolyak4, J You5, B Lewis2, C Vlah2, R Khatib2, A Keebler2, R Reigert6, M Seuffert6, L Muzie6, S Drahuschak6, E Gorgun7, L Stocchi7, A Turan1, D I Sessler8. 1. Department of General Anesthesiology, USA; Department of Outcomes Research, USA. 2. Department of General Anesthesiology, USA. 3. Department of Outcomes Research, USA. 4. Department of Outcomes Research, USA; Anesthesiology Institute, USA. 5. Department of Outcomes Research, USA; Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, USA. 6. Anesthesiology Institute, USA. 7. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, P77, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 8. Department of Outcomes Research, USA. Electronic address: DS@OR.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main defence against bacterial infection is oxidative killing by neutrophils, which requires molecular oxygen in wounded tissues. High inspired-oxygen fractions increase tissue oxygenation. But, whether improving tissue oxygenation actually reduces surgical-site infection (SSI) remains controversial. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that supplemental oxygen (80% vs 30%) reduces the risk of a 30-day composite of deep tissue or organ-space SSI, healing-related wound complications, and mortality. METHODS: In an isolated suite of operating rooms, the inspired-oxygen concentration was alternated between 30% and 80% at 2-week intervals for 39 months. The analysis was restricted to patients who had major intestinal surgery lasting at least 2 h. Qualifying operations (5749) were analysed, including 2843 (49%) colorectal resections, 1866 (32%) lower gastrointestinal therapeutic procedures, 373 (6%) small-bowel resections, and 667 (13%) other colorectal procedures. RESULTS: The 80% and 30% oxygen groups were well balanced on all of the demographic, baseline, and procedural variables. The oxygen intervention had no effect on the composite primary outcome or any of its components. The overall observed incidence of the composite outcome was 10.8% (314/2896) in the 80% oxygen group and 11.0% (314/2853) in the 30% group. The estimated relative risk was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14) for 80% vs 30%, P=0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental oxygen does not prevent major infection and healing-related complications after major intestinal surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01777568.
BACKGROUND: The main defence against bacterial infection is oxidative killing by neutrophils, which requires molecular oxygen in wounded tissues. High inspired-oxygen fractions increase tissue oxygenation. But, whether improving tissue oxygenation actually reduces surgical-site infection (SSI) remains controversial. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that supplemental oxygen (80% vs 30%) reduces the risk of a 30-day composite of deep tissue or organ-space SSI, healing-related wound complications, and mortality. METHODS: In an isolated suite of operating rooms, the inspired-oxygen concentration was alternated between 30% and 80% at 2-week intervals for 39 months. The analysis was restricted to patients who had major intestinal surgery lasting at least 2 h. Qualifying operations (5749) were analysed, including 2843 (49%) colorectal resections, 1866 (32%) lower gastrointestinal therapeutic procedures, 373 (6%) small-bowel resections, and 667 (13%) other colorectal procedures. RESULTS: The 80% and 30% oxygen groups were well balanced on all of the demographic, baseline, and procedural variables. The oxygen intervention had no effect on the composite primary outcome or any of its components. The overall observed incidence of the composite outcome was 10.8% (314/2896) in the 80% oxygen group and 11.0% (314/2853) in the 30% group. The estimated relative risk was 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.14) for 80% vs 30%, P=0.85. CONCLUSIONS: Supplemental oxygen does not prevent major infection and healing-related complications after major intestinal surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01777568.
Authors: Robert Garcia; Sue Barnes; Roy Boukidjian; Linda Kaye Goss; Maureen Spencer; Edward J Septimus; Marc-Oliver Wright; Shannon Munro; Sara M Reese; Mohamad G Fakih; Charles E Edmiston; Martin Levesque Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 4.303
Authors: Clare M Morkane; Helen McKenna; Andrew F Cumpstey; Alex H Oldman; Michael P W Grocott; Daniel S Martin Journal: Perioper Med (Lond) Date: 2018-07-24
Authors: Mervyn Singer; Paul J Young; John G Laffey; Pierre Asfar; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Markus B Skrifvars; Christian S Meyhoff; Peter Radermacher Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-12-19 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Alexander Taschner; Barbara Kabon; Markus Falkner von Sonnenburg; Alexandra Graf; Nikolas Adamowitsch; Melanie Fraunschiel; Edith Fleischmann; Christian Reiterer Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Christian Reiterer; Barbara Kabon; Markus Falkner von Sonnenburg; Patrick Starlinger; Alexander Taschner; Oliver Zotti; Julius Goshin; Gregor Drlicek; Edith Fleischmann Journal: Trials Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 2.279