Predictors of relaparotomy for persisting intra abdominal infection in secondary peritonitis

Background: Peritonitis is one of the commonest causes of acute abdomen in Ethiopia. One of the causes of high morbidity and mortality is persistent intraabdominal infection. The two essential approaches for managing post-op collection are laparotomy on-demand and planned Relaparotomy. Despite multiple studies, both have comparative mortality. This study aimed to identify clinical variables that are predictive of persistent intraabdominal infection. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who were operated on from Sept 2018 to April 2020 at two affiliated referral hospitals of AAU, college of Medicine; Yekatit 12 hospital Medical College and Minilik II referral Hospital. All of the patients were cases of secondary peritonitis. Clinical progress of the patients from admission to discharge/death was documented. Multiple preoperative and intraoperative variables were analyzed to develop the predictive clinical model. Results: Out of 172 laparotomy cases for secondary peritonitis, 40 (23.3%) required relaparotomy for postop collection. From Patients who developed postop collection, 45% of them were diagnosed after pus/Gi content leaked through the surgical wound. The mortality rate of patients who develop postop collection and undergone relaparotomy was 27.5 % and 4.5% for those without postop collection. Logistic regression identified 4 variables as having significant predictive value: Duration of illness more than 5 days, Systolic BP 1000 ml, and small bowel as a source of contamination. Overall prediction successes of the above model is 88.4% (sensitivity 53.3%, specificity 96.8%). Conclusion: Management of persistent intra-abdominal infection is challenging. We have identified 4 clinical variables that predict persistent intraabdominal infection requiring relaparotomy. These sets of variables can be a milestone for future validation study before being inserted in today to day clinical practice.

An Open-Label, Multicenter, Observational Study of The Effectiveness of The Cefepime/Sulbactam Antibiotic (Maxictam®-AF) In Patients With Intra Abdominal Infection, Nosocomial Pneumonia or Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (Study MAXI-2019)

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cefepime/sulbactam in patients with intra-abdominal infection, nosocomial pneumonia (NP) or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in actual clinical practice. Material and methods. The study was conducted in 14 Russian Clinics from October 2019 to March 2020. Study design: an open-label, prospective, non-comparative, multicenter, observational study. The study included patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and signed a written informed consent. The studied antibiotic: cefepime/sulbactam (Maxictam®-AF). The primary parameter for effectiveness evaluation was the clinical effect after the conclusion of cefepime/sulbactam therapy — recovery/improvement or no effect. Results. The study included 140 patients (average age — 60.8 years) who received at least one dose of cefepime/sulbactam; 37 of them had intraabdominal infection, 72 — NP, and 31 — VAP. Most of the included patients were in the ICU department (82.1%) and their condition was severe: the average APACHE II score was 15.5 points, SOFA — 5.4 points, the Mannheim peritonitis index value in patients with intra-abdominal infection was from 14 to 35 points, with an average of 24.3 points. The majority of patients treated with cefepime/sulbactam (68.6%) had one or more risk factors for multi-resistant pathogens upon hospital or ICU admission. Cefepime/sulbactam was prescribed as the 1st or 2nd line of empirical therapy at a daily dose of 4 g (in 68.3%), 6 g (2.9%) or 8 g (28.8%); most patients were prescribed cefepime/sulbactam in monotherapy (72.3%). The average duration of therapy with cefepime/sulbactam was 9.6±3.5 days. The final assessment of treatment effectiveness was carried out in 132 patients: recovery or improvement was noted in 80.6% of patients with intra-abdominal infection, the effectiveness in NP and VAP was slightly higher — 95.6 and 89.3%. The effect was absent in 5.3% of patients, relapse or superinfection was noted in 3.0 and 1.5%. The majority of patients (81.3%) treated with cefepime/sulbactam were discharged from the hospital. No serious side effects were observed. In patients with a positive effect, age and values of APACHE II were significantly lower (59.58 years and 14.79 points) compared to those with no effect (67.95 years and 18.39 points). A multivariate analysis found that the probability of recovery of patients treated with cefepime/sulbactam did not depend on the diagnosis of infection, ICU admission, the presence of sepsis or septic shock. Conclusion. The multicenter study has established a high clinical efficacy of cefepime/sulbactam in real clinical practice in the treatment of patients with severe intraabdominal infection, nosocomial pneumonia or ventilator-associated pneumonia.