Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality in multiple trauma patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Intensive Care Medicine volume 33, pages 261–270 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Evaluation of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) on late mortality in ventilated trauma patients in an intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was undertaken in 401 trauma patients with Hospital Trauma Index-Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher. Patients were randomized to control (n = 200) or SDD (n = 201), using polymyxin E, tobramycin, and amphotericin B in throat and gut throughout ICU treatment combined with cefotaxime for 4 days. Primary endpoint was late mortality excluding early death from hemorrhage or craniocerebral injury. Secondary endpoints were infection and organ dysfunction.

Results

Mortality was 20.9% with SDD and 22.0% in controls. Overall late mortality was 15.3% (57/372) as 29 patients died from cerebral injury, 16 SDD and 13 control. The odds ratio (95% confidence intervals) of late mortality for SDD relative to control was 0.75 (0.40–1.37), corresponding to estimates of 13.4% SDD and 17.2% control. The overall infection rate was reduced in the test group (48.8% vs. 61.0%). SDD reduced lower airway infections (30.9% vs. 50.0%) and bloodstream infections due to aerobic Gram-negative bacilli (2.5% vs. 7.5%). No difference in organ dysfunction was found.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that SDD significantly reduces infection in multiple trauma, although this RCT in 401 patients was underpowered to detect a mortality benefit.

Introduction

Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) has been assessed in 54 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ten meta-analyses of RCTs only [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The most recent meta-analysis includes 36 RCTs in 6,922 unselected patients and shows that SDD using enteral and parenteral antimicrobials reduces the odds ratio (OR) for pneumonia to 0.35 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.29–0.41) and mortality to 0.78 (0.68–0.89) [9, 11]. The absolute mortality reduction was 4.8%. This indicates that five ICU patients need to be treated with SDD to prevent one case of pneumonia, and 21 ICU patients need to be treated to prevent one death [9, 11]. Two recent large RCTs [12, 13] report an absolute mortality reduction of 8%, corresponding to the treatment of 12 patients with SDD to save one life. The discrepancy between the 65% reduction in ICU-acquired respiratory tract infections and the 22% reduction in mortality in the most recent meta-analysis [9, 11] may be explained by the inclusion of patients with incurable underlying conditions, who may die of other causes even when kept infection free.

This RCT was undertaken to study the effect of SDD on mortality in multiple trauma patients. Trauma patients are thought to respond more favorably to the SDD prophylaxis [6] for three reasons: (a) they are admitted without infection, (b) they have in general a curable underlying condition once they have survived the first 5 days following trauma, and (c) late mortality in this group is mainly related to infection [14, 15]. Our experience with SDD in trauma patients [16] and the data from six other RCTs [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22] suggest that trauma patients are a prime subset of ICU patients to benefit more from SDD in terms of both infectious morbidity and mortality. An RCT with a group-sequential design using the triangular test [23] was chosen for the present study. This design ensures early stopping when a large treatment difference is apparent, or when no treatment difference seems to be present. Blinded outcome adjudication was chosen, and because of the inherent large sample size of a mortality study a multicenter design was required.

Patients and methods

Detailed information on definitions, study design, study organization, randomization procedure, and statistical methods are available in the Electronic Supplementary Material [24, 25, 26].

Patients

All patients admitted to the ICU within 24 h after nonpenetrating blunt trauma were eligible for the study. Inclusion criteria were a Hospital Trauma Index-Injury Severity Score (HTI-ISS) of 16 or higher and mechanical ventilation. Patients who previously received antibiotics for more than 3 days or patients known to be allergic to β-lactam antibiotics were excluded as were referrals from other hospitals. The lower stopping boundary of the triangular test was crossed at the 12th interim analysis (Fig. 1). At this point a total of 405 patients from the 17 participating ICUs had been randomized. Four patients were excluded from the final analysis after randomization (two because they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria, the data from one patient were not available, and one patient was lost to follow-up after the 7th day). The demographic and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. Patients receiving standard treatment were slightly older than those on SDD but had a lower HTI-ISS score. As age and injury severity are associated with increased mortality, the mortality analysis included adjustment for these two variables. The two groups were comparable with regard to other baseline characteristics.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Sample path and stopping boundaries for the group-sequential design using the triangular test. The statistics Z and V are the efficient score and Fisher's information for the log-odds ratio of late mortality for SDD relative to control, after stratification for age and HTI-ISS severity score

Full size image
Table 1 Demographic data (APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation)
Full size table

Treatment regimens

The SDD regimen consisted of a 10 ml suspension of polymyxin E 100 mg, tobramycin 80 mg, and amphotericin B 500 mg administered through the nasogastric tube four times a day. The nasogastric tube was then clamped, and gastric suction was discontinued for 1 h. A dose of 0.5 g carboxymethylcellulose paste (Orabase, Bristol-Myers Squibb) containing 2% polymyxin E, 2% tobramycin, and 2% amphotericin B was applied to the buccal mucosa four times a day [27]. SDD was given throughout the treatment on ICU. All SDD patients received 1 g cefotaxime intravenously every 6 h for 4 days. In patients in whom stress-ulcer prophylaxis was indicated H2 blockers or omeprazol were used instead of sucralfate, claimed to inactivate the enteral antibiotics [28]. The control group was treated according to the standard antibiotic protocol used in each participating center. No attempt was made to standardize the standard antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment protocols between centers. Fluoroquinolones were not allowed for prophylaxis due to their decontaminating side effect [29]. Stress ulcer prophylaxis could be used freely with the exception of sucralfate. Diagnostic samples were taken on clinical indication only and analyzed using standard methods [30]. In the case of an infection parenteral antibiotic treatment was commenced according to standard antibiotic guidelines.

Data collection

On admission the severity of injury and illness were assessed using the HTI-ISS and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, respectively. All patients were monitored daily for signs of infection throughout the treatment on ICU. The type and dose of prescribed antibiotics for prophylaxis and treatment were recorded daily. From day 5 the organ dysfunction score was calculated since organ dysfunction in the first 4 days was considered not to be infection related.

Results

All-cause mortality was 21.4% (86/401) in the overall study population: 20.9% (42/201) in the SDD group and 22.0% (44/200) in the control group. A total of 29 patients died from cerebral injury, 16 in the SDD group and 13 in the control group. The overall late mortality excluding brain death was 15.3% (57/372). Patients dying from cerebral injury had a significantly higher HTI for the central nervous system (p < 0.01) but a significantly lower total HTI-ISS score (p < 0.01) than patients dying from other causes. The median time to death was 4 days (interquartile range, IQR, 4) after admission to the ICU in patients dying from cerebral injury and 12 days (IQR 9) in patients dying from other causes. The OR of late mortality for SDD relative to control was 0.75 (95% CI 0.40–1.37, p = 0.35). The overall estimate of late mortality for SDD was 13.4% and for control 17.2%. There was no difference in the median length of ICU stay between the two groups: 13 days (IQR 13.5) in the SDD group and 12 (IQR 14) in the control group (p = 0.56). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 9 days (IQR 12) in the SDD group and 8 (IQR 12) in the control group (p = 0.82). The overall infection rate, with or without microbiological confirmation, was significantly reduced from 61.0% in controls to 48.8% in the SDD group (p = 0.01; Table 2).

Table 2 Number of patients with clinically recorded infections with or without causative agent
Full size table

Respiratory tract infections were significantly reduced by SDD (50.0% to 30.9%, (p < 0.01; Tables 2, 3]. The pneumonia rate was reduced from 23.0% to 9.5% (p < 0.01) and the tracheobronchitis rate from 40.0% to 25.9% (p < 0.01). Figure 2 shows the infection-free period for lower airway infections. The infection-free period was significantly longer in the SDD group (median 9 days, IQR 9.5) than in controls (median 7 days, IQR 6; p < 0.01). Once a patient developed a respiratory tract infection, the median duration of the infection did not differ between the two groups: 5 days (IQR 7) in the SDD group and 6 (IQR 7) in controls (p = 0.70).

Table 3 shows the micro-organisms causing pneumonia and tracheobronchitis. The number of patients infected by Staphylococcus aureus, Haemophilus influenzae, Enterobacteriaceae, or Pseudomonas spp. was significantly lower in the SDD group than in controls (p < 0.01), but there was no significant increase in lower airway infections due to Gram-positive micro-organisms. In both groups the incidence of early onset infections (i.e., within 4 days) was low: 4.5% in the SDD group and 7.0% in controls. Clinically diagnosed sepsis, wound, and urinary tract infections did not differ between SDD and controls. There were significantly fewer patients with “other infections”, including peritonitis, pleuritis, meningitis, sinusitis, and laryngitis: 5.5% in the SDD group vs. 13.0% in the control group (p < 0.01). In addition, the proportion of patients with septic periods with positive blood cultures did not differ significantly between the two groups (Table 4). However, there was a significant reduction in bloodstream infections due to aerobic Gram-negative bacilli (AGNB; p = 0.02). Gram-positive bloodstream infections were similar in test and control. Of note, there were fewer patients with enterococcal sepsis in the SDD group (1.5%) than in controls (7.0%, p < 0.01).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrating a significantly longer period free of lower airway infections in the test group than in controls: a median of 9 days vs. 7 days ( p < 0.01)

Full size image
Table 3 Number of patients with microbiologically confirmed pneumonia or tracheobronchitis (MRSA methicillin-resistant S. aureus)
Full size table
Table 4 Number of patients with periods of sepsis confirmed by positive blood culture (CNS coagulase-negative staphylococci, MRSA methicillin-resistant S. aureus)
Full size table

In the SDD group all 201 patients (100%) received 4 days of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis with cefotaxime (804 days). Additionally, there were 339 antibiotic days, due mainly to the use of aminoglycosides, antistaphylococcal, or antianaerobic agents. A total of 1,143 antibiotic days were prophylactic in the test group. In the control group 175 patients (88%) received systemic antibiotic prophylaxis during the first 4 days, mostly for perioperative prophylaxis of open fractures, totalling 1,139 antibiotic days.

Table 5 shows the use of parenteral antibiotics for the treatment of infections. Significantly fewer patients in the SDD group (64.2%) received any antibiotic treatment than in controls (74.5%, p = 0.03). The SDD group received fewer therapeutic antibiotics than the control group with the exception of glycopeptides. Figure 3 presents the number of antibiotic days per antibiotic group. The total number of systemic antibiotic days, excluding the first 4 days, was 2,165 days in the SDD group and 3,189 days in controls. Three patients in the control group developed antibiotic-associated enterocolitis with diarrhea positive for Clostridium difficile toxin and were treated with oral vancomycin. No enterocolitis was observed in the SDD group. Severe organ dysfunction after 5 days was observed with the same frequency in both groups. Gut dysfunction (59.9%) was most frequent, followed by dysfunction of the clotting system (49.1%), circulatory (42.9%), respiratory (26.2%), liver dysfunction (15.9%), and renal failure (11.0%).

Fig. 3
figure 3

The total number of days during which systemic antibiotics were administered to treat infections was 2,165 days in the prophylaxis group and 3,189 in the control group. Cephalorins I, II, and III denote the generations; penicillin III includes piperacillin, ticarcillin, mezlocillin, and temocillin; and antistaphylococcal agents used in the RCT were clindamycin, cloxacillins, fosfomycin, and fusidic acid

Full size image
Table 5 Number of patients receiving therapeutic antibiotics during ICU stay
Full size table

Discussion

This multicenter RCT in 401 trauma patients failed to reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint of late mortality due to infection and/or multiple organ failure. The study was designed to detect a 50% reduction in late mortality from a baseline value of 25%. However, the late mortality in the control group was much lower than assumed and lower than expected on the basis of the mean HTI-ISS. The reduction in late mortality from 17.2% to 13.4% (OR 0.75) found in this study is in agreement with the meta-analyses that found an OR of 0.80 in the subgroup of studies in which SDD using parenteral and enteral antimicrobials was implemented [2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11]. Assuming that a 20% reduction in late mortality is realistic and clinically relevant, and that the mean late mortality with an HTI-ISS greater than 16 is about 18% than a study with a few thousand patients in each arm is required to prove this hypothesis. This calculation is in line with the meta-analysis of the subset of trauma patients (n = 1,092) showing that SDD using parenteral and enteral antimicrobials reduces the OR for mortality to 0.78 (0.56–1.09) [5]. Furthermore, the meta-analyses and recent RCTs do not provide evidence that trauma patients do better than surgical and medical patients as the size of treatment effect of 20% is similar for the three diagnostic groups.

The overall infection rate in this study was high in both groups (48.8% vs. 61.0%). However, this RCT included severely injured patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation and treatment on ICU and at a particularly high risk of infection. Major differences were observed between infection rates among centers and in the reduction in infection rates achieved in the different centers. Factors such as outbreaks and exogenous infections were found to increase the infection rate in both SDD and control group in particular centers.

This study confirms the finding of the meta-analysis of the data from individual trauma patients (n = 1,092) that SDD using parenteral and enteral antimicrobials reduces the OR for respiratory tract infections to 0.38 (0.29–0.50) [5]. Protected specimen brush and bronchoalveolar lavage were not routinely used in this study to diagnose pneumonia because these techniques have a relatively low sensitivity of 40% in patients treated with systemic antibiotics, and in this study the great majority of patients received prophylactic antibiotics [31, 32]. No difference in early onset pneumonia was observed, due to the fact that 88% of the patients in the control group also received perioperative antibiotics in the first few days for surgical prophylaxis. However, the incidence of secondary pneumonia by AGNB was higher and the infection-free period was shorter in the control group than in the treatment group [33]. Since both groups used systemic antibiotic prophylaxis this reduction in late onset pneumonia must be due to the administration of polymyxin and tobramycin in throat and gut. This RCT is in line with the most recent meta-analysis of RCTs with endpoint of bloodstream infections demonstrating that SDD using parenteral and enteral antimicrobials reduces the OR for bloodstream infections due to AGNB to 0.38 (0.19–0.73) [11]. Additionally, infections including peritonitis, pleuritis, meningitis, and sinusitis, being mostly secondary endogenous infections, were effectively lowered by SDD. Multiple organ failure was common in this group of severely injured patients and did not differ between the two groups.

This multicenter RCT was conducted without regular surveillance samples of throat and rectum. Among the 54 RCTs on SDD, this trial is the eighth study without surveillance cultures [18, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. Surveillance cultures are an integral part of the SDD philosophy [27] for three reasons: (a) to monitor efficacy and compliance of the enteral antimicrobials, (b) to detect abnormal carriage of resistant bacteria in particular (multiresistant) AGNB and methicillin-resistant S. aureus [40, 41], and (c) to distinguish endogenous from exogenous infections. However, SDD can still be used in their absence, as the treatment effect on infection and mortality is independent of the use of surveillance cultures. If the microbiology department is unable to provide a service based on surveillance cultures, SDD prophylaxis is still feasible and well supported by evidence.

The significantly higher number of patients receiving systemic antibiotic therapy in the control group reflects the higher infection rate. The combination of broad-spectrum β-lactams, aminoglycosides, and/or antistaphylococcal agents was frequently used for blind therapy in the control group and accounts for the high number of antibiotic days. These data are in line with those froim previous RCTs [16, 17, 22]. The high antibiotic use is also reflected in the incidence of three cases of antibiotic-associated enterocolitis in the control group.

A recent clinical practice guideline for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia suggests a link between antimicrobial resistance and SDD [42]. A resistance analysis requires the distinction of the number of patients with infections due to resistant AGNB from patients with infections due to MRSA and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). The ten meta-analyses and the 54 RCTs do not provide data for a link between SDD and resistance. The parenteral and enteral antimicrobials of the SDD protocol target mainly AGNB. Two RCTs evaluated the impact of SDD among AGNB as primary endpoint [13, 43]. The Dutch study [13] demonstrated that carriage of AGNB resistant to imipenem, ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, tobramycin, and polymyxins occurred in 16% of SDD patients vs. 26% in control patients, with a relative risk of 0.6 (95% CI 0.5–0.8). This is in line with an earlier French RCT [43] showing that the addition of enteral to the parenteral antimicrobials controls carriage and infection due to extended spectrum β-lactamase producing Klebsiella spp. SDD is not designed to control MRSA and VRE [27]. VRE carriage and infection were the primary endpoints of SDD-RCTs in two ICUs in the United States [44, 45]. There was no difference between test and control. There are seven RCTs conducted in ICUs where MRSA was endemic at the time of the trial, and therefore they report a trend towards higher MRSA infection rates in patients receiving SDD [20, 36, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. The addition of enteral vancomycin to the classical SDD agents is required in ICUs with endemic MRSA [51, 52, 53, 54, 54]. VRE did not emerge in any of the eight RCTs using enteral vancomycin added to the enteral polymyxin, tobramycin, and amphotericin B [12, 37, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58]. The assertion that there is strong contravening evidence that SDD promotes infection due to Gram-positive bacteria is unsupported by the facts including this RCT [59, 60]. Antimicrobial resistance, being a long-term issue, has been evaluated in ten studies monitoring antimicrobial resistance between 2 and 9 years, and bacterial resistance associated with SDD has not been a clinical problem [40, 54, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69].

The same guideline [42] implies a higher cost to implement SDD on ICU. This statement contrasts with the conclusion of the recent report of the Agency for Health Research and Quality of the United States Department for Health and Human Services that SDD is cheap and easy to implement [70]. Indeed, the cost-effectiveness of SDD has not yet been properly assessed, but costs can hardly be a major concern for a maneuver of 6 euro’s per day [22] that reduces pneumonia by 65% and mortality by 22% without antimicrobial resistance emerging in unselected patients.

In conclusion, although this RCT had a rigorous sequential multicenter design with blinded outcome adjudication, it was insufficiently powered to detect a mortality difference of 25% given a baseline late mortality rate of 17%. However, this RCT of small sample size is in line with the meta-analyses of SDD-trials in unselected and selected trauma patients, showing a significant 20% survival benefit in both subsets once the appropriate sample size is obtained. Importantly, trauma patients do not respond to SDD to a higher extent than surgical and medical patients.

References

  1. Silvestri L, Kerr S, Gullo A (2005) Prevention of infection using selective decontamination of the digestive tract. In: van Saene HKF, Silvestri L, de la Cal MA (eds) Infection control in the intensive care unit, 2nd edn. Springer, Milan, pp 297–312

    Google Scholar 

  2. Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists' Collaborative Group (1993) Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. BMJ 307:525–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kollef M (1994) The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory tract infections. A meta-analysis. Chest 105:1101–1108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Griffith L, Lee HN, Guyatt GH (1994) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: an overview. Chest 105:1221–1229

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. D'Amico R, Pifferi S, Leonetti C, Torri V, Tinazzi A, Liberati A (1998) Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 316:1275–1285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nathens AB, Marshall JC (1999) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in surgical patients. A systematic review of the evidence. Arch Surg 134:170–176

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Redman R, Ludington E, Crocker M, Wittes J, Bellm L, Carlet J and the VAP Advisory Group (2001) Analysis of respiratory and non-respiratory infections in published trials of selective digestive decontamination. Intensive Care Med 27 [Suppl]:S285

  8. Safdar N, Said A, Lucey MR (2004) The role of selective digestive decontamination for reducing infection in patients undergoing liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Liver Transpl 10:817–827

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Liberati A, D'Amico R, Pifferi S, Torri V, Brazzi L (2004) Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, issue 1. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  10. Silvestri L, van Saene HKF, Milanese M, Gregori D (2005) Impact of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on fungal carriage and infection: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med 31:898–910

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Silvestri L, van Saene HKF, Milanese M, Duri D, Gregori D, Gullo A (2005) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces blood stream infections and mortality in critically ill patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med Abstract Oral Presentation, Amsterdam, ECICM

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krueger WA, Lenhart FP, Neeser G, Ruckdeschel G, Schreckhase H, Eissner HJ, Forst H, Eckart J, Peter K, Unertl KE (2002) Influence of combined intravenous and topical antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of infections, organ dysfunctions, and mortality in critically ill surgical patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166:1029–1037

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. de Jonge E, Schultz MJ, Spanjaard L, Bossuyt PMM, Vroom MB, Dankert J, Kesecioglu J (2003) Effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 362:1011–1016

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goris RJA, Draaisma J (1982) Causes of death after blunt trauma. J Trauma 22:141–146

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ong AW, Cohn SM, Cohn KA, Jaramillo DH, Parbhu R, McKenney MG, Barquist ES, Bell MD (2002) Unexpected findings in trauma patients dying in the intensive care unit: results of 153 consecutive autopsies. J Am Coll Surg 194:401–406

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stoutenbeek CP, van Saene HKF, Zandstra DF (1996) Prevention of multiple organ system failure by selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. In: Faist E, Baue AE, Schildberg FW (eds) The immune consequences of trauma, shock and sepsis—mechanisms and therapeutic approaches, volume II 2. Pabst Science, Lengerich, pp 1055–1066

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abele-Horn M, Dauber A, Bauernfeind A, Russwurm W, Seyfarth-Metzger I, Gleich P, Ruckdeschel G (1997) Decrease in nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients by selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD). Intensive Care Med 23:187–195

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boland JP, Sadler DL, Stewart WA, Wood DJ, Zerick W, Snodgrass KR (1991) Reduction of nosocomial respiratory tract infections in the multiple trauma patient requiring mechanical ventilation by selective parenteral and enteral antisepsis regimen (SPEAR) in the intensive care unit. 17th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Berlin, abstract 0465

  19. Georges B, Mazerolles M, Decun JF, Rouge P, Pomies S, Cougot P, Andrieu P, Virenque C (1994) Décontamination digestive selective. Résultats d'une étude chez le polytraumatisé. Reanimation Soins Intensifs Med Urgence 3:621–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lingnau W, Berger J, Javorsky F, Lejeune P, Mutz N, Benzer H (1997) Selective decontamination in multiple trauma patients: Prospective, controlled trial. J Trauma 42:687–694

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pneumatikos I, Koulouras V, Nathanail C, Goe D, Nakos G (2002) Selective decontamination of subglottic area in mechanically ventilated patients with multiple trauma. Intensive Care Med 28:432–437

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Quinio B, Albanese J, Bues-Charbit M, Viviand X, Martin C (1996) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. Chest 109:765–772

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Whitehead J (1997) The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  24. Antonelli M, Moro ML, D'Errico RR, Conti G, Bufi M, Gasparetto A (1996) Early and late onset bacteremia have different risk factors in trauma patients. Intensive Care Med 22:735–741

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Marshall JC, Christou NV, Horn R, Meakins JL (1988) The microbiology of multiple organ failure. The proximal gastrointestinal tract as an occult reservoir of pathogens. Arch Surg 123:309–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Brunier H, Whitehead J (1993) PEST3.0 operating manual. Reading University, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baxby D, van Saene HKF, Stoutenbeek CP, Zandstra DF (1996) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: 13 years on, what it is and what it is not. Intensive Care Med 22:699–706

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Feron B, Adair C, Gorman SP, McClurg B (1993) Interaction of sucralfate with antibiotics used for selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Hosp Pharm 50:2550–2553

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Krueger WA, Ruckdeschel G, Unertl K (1997) Influence of intravenously administered ciprofloxacin on aerobic intestinal microflora and fecal drug levels when administered simultaneously with sucralfate. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 41:1725–1780

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Saene HKF van, Damjanovic V, Alcock SR (2001) Basics in microbiology for the patient requiring intensive care. Curr Anaesthesia Crit Care 12:6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Torres A, Ewig S (2004) Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med 350:433–435

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. American Thoracic Society (2005) Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 171:388–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hoth JJ, Franklin GA, Stassen NA, Girard SM, Rodriguez RJ, Rodriguez JLV (2003) Prophylactic antibiotics adversely affect nosocomial pneumonia in trauma-patients. J Trauma 55:249–254

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Camus C, Bellissant E, Sebille V, Perrotin D, Baro B, Legras A et al (2005) Prevention of acquired infections in intubated patients with the combination of two decontamination regimens. Crit Care Med 33:307–314

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cockerill FR, Muller SR, Anhalt JP, Marsh HM, Farnell MB, Mucha P, Gillespie DJ, Ilstrup DM, Larson-Keller JJ, Thompson Rl (1992) Prevention of infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Ann Intern Med 117:545–553

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gastinne H, Wolff M, Delatour F, Faurisson F, Chevret S, for the French Study Group on Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract (1992) A controlled trial in intensive care units of selective decontamination of the digestive tract with nonabsorbable antibiotics. N Engl J Med 326:594–599

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gaussorgues P, Salord F, Sirodot M, Tigaud S, Cagnin S, Gerard M, Robert D (1991) Nosocomial bacteremia in patients under mechanical ventilation and receiving beta-inotropic drugs: efficacy of digestive decontamination. Reanimation Soins Intensifs Med Urgence 7:169–174

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rayes N, Seehofer D, Hansen S, Boucsein K, Müller AF, Serke S, Bengmark S, Neuhaus P (2002) Early enteral supply of Lactobacillus and fiber versus selective bowel decontamination: a controlled trial in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 74:123–128

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rolando N, Wade JJ, Stangou A, Gimson AES, Wendon J, Philpott-Howard J, Casewell MW, Williams R (1996) Prospective study comparing the efficacy of prophylactic parenteral antimicrobials, with or without enteral decontamination, in patients with acute liver failure. Liver Transpl Surg 2:8–13

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sarginson RE, Taylor N, Reilly N, Baines PB, van Saene HKF (2004) Infection in prolonged pediatric critical illness. A prospective four-year study based on knowledge of the carrier state. Crit Care Med 32:839–847

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Diekema DJ, Bootsmiller BJ, Vaughn TE, Woolson RF, Yankey JW, Erust EJ, Flach SD, Ward MM, Franciscus CLJ, Pfaller MA, Doebbeling BIV (2004) Antimicrobial resistance trends and outbreak frequency in United States hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 38:78–85

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dodek P, Keenan S, Cook D, Heyland D, Jacka M, Hand L et al. for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and the Canadian Critical Care Society (2004) Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Intern Med 141:305–313

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Brun-Buisson C, Legrand P, Rauss A, Richard C, Montravers F, Besbes M (1989) Intestinal decontamination for control of nosocomial multi-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Ann Intern Med 110:873–881

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Arnow PM, Carandang GR, Zabner R, Irwin ME (1996) Randomised controlled trial of selective bowel decontamination for prevention of infections following liver transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 22:997–1003

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Hellinger WC, Yao JD, Alvarez S, Blair JE, Cawley JJ, Paya CV (2002) A randomized, prospective, double-blind evaluation of selective bowel decontamination in liver transplantation. Transplantation 73:1904–1909

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ferrer M, Torres A, Gonzalez J, Puig de la Bellacasa J, El-Ebiary M, Roca M, Gatell JM, Rodriguez-Roisin R (1994) Utility of selective digestive decontamination in a general population of mechanically ventilated patients. Ann Intern Med 120:389–395

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hammond JMJ, Potgieter PD, Saunders GL, Forder AA (1992) Double-blind study of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care. Lancet 340:5–9

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Verwaest C, Verhaegen J, Ferdinande P, Schetz M, van den Berghe G, Verbist L, Lauwers P (1997) Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 25:63–71

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Wiener J, Itokazu G, Nathan C, Kabins SA, Weinstein RA (1995) A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in a medical, surgical intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 20:862–867

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cal MA da la, Cerda E, Garcia-Hierro P, van Saene HKF, Gomez-Santos D, Negro E, Lorente JA (2005) Survival benefit in critically ill burned patients receiving selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Ann Surg 241:424–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sanchez M, Mir N, Canton R, Luque R, Lopez B, Baquero F (1997) The effect of topical vancomycin on acquisition, carriage and infection with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in critically ill patients. A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study. 37th ICAAC, Toronto, Abstract J-119, p 310

  52. Silvestri L, van Saene HKF, Milanese M, Fontana F, Gregori D, Oblach L (2004) Prevention of MRSA pneumonia by oral vancomycin decontamination: a randomised trial. Eur Respir J 23:921–926

    PubMed  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Silvestri L, Milanese M, Oblach L, Fontana F, Gregori D, Guerra R (2002) Enteral vancomycin to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus outbreak in mechanically ventilated patients. Am J Infect Control 30:391–399

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cal MA de la, Cerda E, van Saene HKF, Garcia-Hierro P, Negro E, Parra ML (2004) Effectiveness and safety of enteral vancomycin to control endemicity of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a medical/surgical intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 56:175–183

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Bergmans DCJJ, Bonten MJM, Gaillard PA, Paling JC, van der Geest S, van Teil FH, Beysens AJ, de Leeuw PW, Stobberingh EE (2001) Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 164:382–388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Korinek AM, Laisne MJ, Nicolas MH, Raskine L, Deroin V, Sansan-Lepors MJ (1993) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurological intensive care unit patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Crit Care Med 21:1466–1473

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Pugin J, Auckenthaler R, Lew DP, Suter PM (1991) Oropharyngeal decontamination decreases incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. JAMA 265:2704–2710

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Shardey HM, Joosten U, Finke U, Stanbach KH, Schauer R, Heiss A, Kooistra A, Rau HG, Nibler R, Ludeling S, Unertl K, Ruckdeschel G, Exner H, Schildberg FW (1997) The prevention of anastomotic leakage after total gastrectomy with local decontamination. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Ann Surg 225:172–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kallet RH, Quinn ThE (2005) The gastro-intestinal tract and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Respir Care 50:910–923

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Saene HKF van, Damjanovic V, Silvestri L, de la Cal MA, Zandstra DF (2006) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract and ventilator-associated pneumonia [part 2]. Respir Care 51:72–75

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hammond JMJ, Potgieter PD (1995) Long-term effects of selective decontamination on antimicrobial resistance. Crit Care Med 23:637–645

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Voort PHJ van der, van Roon EN, Kampinga GA, Boerma EC, Gerritsen RT, Egbers PHM, Kuiper MA (2004) A before-after study of multi-resistance and cost of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Infection 32:271–277

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Viviani M, van Saene HKF, Dezzoni R, Silvestri L, di Lenarda R, Berlot G, Gullo A (2005) Control of imported and acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in mechanically ventilated patients: A dose-response study of enteral vancomycin to reduce absolute carriage and infection. Anaesth Intensive Care 33:361–372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Stoutenbeek CP, van Saene HKF, Zandstra DF (1987) The effect of oral non-absorbable antibiotics on the emergence of resistant bacteria in patients in an intensive care unit. J Antimicrob Chemother 19:513–520

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Lingnau W, Berger J, Javorsky F, Fille M, Allenberger F, Benzer H (1998) Changing bacterial ecology during a five year period of selective intestinal decontamination. J Hosp Infect 39:195–206

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Leone M, Albanese J, Antonini F, Nguyen-Michel A, Martin C (2003) Long-term (6 year) effect of selective digestive decontamination on antimicrobial resistance in intensive care, multi trauma patients. Crit Care Med 31:2090–2095

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tetteroo GWM, Wagenvoort JHT, Bruining HA (1994) Bacteriology of selective decontamination: efficacy and rebound colonisation. J Antimicrob Chemother 34:139–148

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Abella A, de la Cal MA, Cerda E, Lopez L, Alia I, Garcia-Hierro (2004) Control of MRSA endemicity with enteral vancomycin in a burn intensive care unit (abstract). Intensive Care Med 30 [Suppl 1]:S145

  69. Saene HKF van, Silvestri L, de la Cal MA, Sarginson RE (2006) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces lower airway and bloodstream infection and mortality and prevents emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Microbes Infect 8:953–954

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Collard HR, Saint S (2001) Preventive practices for ventilator-associated pneumonia. In: Shojania KG, Duncan BW, McDonald KM, Wachter RM (eds) Making health care safer: a critical analysis of patient safety practices. Evidence report/technology assessment no 43. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Download references

Acknowledgements

The working group on selective decontamination of the digestive tract included:

G.J. Dobb M.D., D.N. Watkins M.D., Perth, Australia; F. Hawker M.D., Camperdown, Australia; Y. Mudaliar M.D., Westmead, Australia; J.P. Alexander M.D., Antwerpen, Belgium; I. Demeyer M.D., Aalst, Belgium; T. Pottecher M.D., Strassbourg, France; J. Gaudias M.D., Strassbourg, France; C. Wiegand-Löhnert M.D., Berlin, Germany; W. Haupt M.D., Regensburg, Germany; D. Brandt M.D., Magdeburg, Germany; F. Feyerherd M.D., Greifswald, Germany; M. Hemmer M.D., Luxembourg, Luxembourg; P.R. Roberts M.D., M.R. Jones M.D., Wellington, New Zealand; H. Holst-Larsen M.D., Stavanger, Norway; H. Moen M.D., Oslo, Norway; J. Tellado M.D., Madrid, Spain; P.M. Suter M.D., Geneva, Switzerland. We are very grateful to Mrs. Lynda Jones and Ms. Nia Taylor for meticulously typing the manuscript, and to Dr. A. Gissler for his help with the statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Intensive Care, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    C. P. Stoutenbeek

  2. Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Liverpool, Daulby Street, L69 3GA, Liverpool, UK

    H. K. F. van Saene

  3. North Western Injury Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    R. A. Little

  4. Medical and Pharmaceutical Statistics Research Unit, University of Reading, Reading, UK

    A. Whitehead

Authors
  1. C. P. Stoutenbeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. K. F. van Saene
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. A. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Whitehead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the Working Group on Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. K. F. van Saene.

Additional information

Dr. Stoutenbeek died on 24 July 1998.

This study was supported by a grant from Hoechst-Roussel International.

This article is discussed in the editorial available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0456-3.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stoutenbeek, C.P., van Saene, H.K.F., Little, R.A. et al. The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on mortality in multiple trauma patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 33, 261–270 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0455-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0455-4

Keywords

  • Trauma Patient
  • Intensive Care Unit Patient
  • Tobramycin
  • Polymyxin
  • Late Mortality