gms | German Medical Science

GMS Infectious Diseases

Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG)

ISSN 2195-8831

Calculated parenteral initial treatment of bacterial infections: Intra-abdominal infections

Guideline Calculated parenteral initial therapy

  • corresponding author Christian Eckmann - Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Thoraxchirurgie, Klinikum Hannoversch-Münden, Germany
  • Rainer Isenmann - Allgemein- und Visceralchirurgie, St. Anna-Virngrund-Klinik Ellwangen, Germany
  • Peter Kujath - Chirurgische Klinik, Medizinische Universität Lübeck, Germany
  • Annette Pross - Klinik und Poliklinik für Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Regensburg, Germany
  • Arne C. Rodloff - Institut für Medizinische Mikrobiologie und Infektionsepidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Germany
  • Franz-Josef Schmitz - Institut für Laboratoriumsmedizin, Mikrobiologie, Hygiene, Umweltmedizin und Transfusionsmedizin Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden, Germany

GMS Infect Dis 2020;8:Doc13

doi: 10.3205/id000057, urn:nbn:de:0183-id0000570

This is the English version of the article.
The German version can be found at: http://www.egms.de/de/journals/id/2020-8/id000057.shtml

Published: March 26, 2020

© 2020 Eckmann et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Abstract

This is the seventh chapter of the guideline “Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults – update 2018” in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience.

The chapter deals with the empirical and targeted antimicrobial therapy of complicated intra-abdominal infections. It includes recommendations for antibacterial and antifungal treatment.


Indications for antimicrobial treatment

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are common. Diagnosis of acute peritonitis is very common. The Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) recorded 30,000 cases of peritonitis in the area of visceral surgery (MDC 6–7) in 2014. National and international databases show that about 30% of all cases of severe sepsis or septic shock are due to IAI [1], [2], [3]. Nearly 90% of all intra-abdominal infections primarily require surgical infectious source rehabilitation (e.g. hyperalimentation of a gastric perforation). Nevertheless the value of antibiotic treatment versus placebo is confirmed even in this disease group [4]. An initially inadequate antibiotic treatment of IAI substantially worsens the prognosis of the affected patients and leads to considerable economic damage [5], [6], [7], [8].

Recommendations for antibiotic treatment in intra-abdominal infections are derived from a variety of prospective randomized and controlled trials. Since the goal of almost all studies is to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence, the current results are insufficient and don’t allow identification of a preferred substance or a substance regimen [4]. It should be added that in all randomized studies the inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen so that patients with a less severe IAI (APACHE II score around 6) were recruited. This complicates the assessment of the effectiveness of the specified substances in life-threatening peritonitis. When selecting an appropriate antibiotic, the individual patient (e.g. immunosuppression, prior treatment), expected pathogen spectrum, local pathogen and resistance statistics, a simple mode of application, low toxicity of the substances and costs should be considered in the decision-making process.

By definition, complicated IAIs occur when the infection moves beyond the affected organ and causes an abscess or peritonitis (local or diffuse) [6]. However, clinically this differentiation is not clear. For example, phlegmonous appendicitis with low environmental response (lethality below 0.5%) constitutes a complicated IAI, whereas severe Clostridium difficile-induced colitis (lethality up to 40% in case of ribotype 027) represents an uncomplicated IAI as per the above definition. Clinically speaking, three different forms of peritonitis can be differentiated, which are causally pathogenetic, substantially different in terms of the spectrum of pathogens and surgical and antimicrobial treatment [9].


Peritonitis

Primary peritonitis

Primary (spontaneous bacterial) peritonitis (SBP) affects only about 1% of all peritonitis cases. The juvenile form is a hematogenous infection caused by streptococci, pneumococci or, more rarely, Haemophilus influenzae. In adults, predominantly patients with ascites through alcoholic liver cirrhosis (ca. 70%) are affected or patients with a reduced immune status from another cause (ca. 30%) [10], [11]. Mostly it is a mono-infection. In realistic studies, it is only possible to detect pathogens in about 35% of cases, with Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Staphylococci, enterococci or streptococci, and occasionally pathogenic gastroenteritis pathogens such as Aeromonas spp. or Salmonella spp. being detected [10]. Primary peritonitis, which can occur as part of tuberculosis, is spread hematogenously.

Randomized studies on the treatment of SBP are rare. Most of them are retrospective studies. Substances used were ceftriaxone, cefotaxime, ceftazidime, ampicillin/sulbactam, ampicillin + tobramycin and amoxycillin/clavulanic acid [12], [13], [14] (Table 1 [Tab. 1]). Using these alongside administration of albumin, clinical cure rates of about 80% were achieved [15]. Regarding treatment of primary peritonitis caused by resistant pathogens, see also Table 1 [Tab. 1].

Peritonitis under CAPD

CAPD peritonitis is usually caused by contamination of the tubing or catheter system. The most common pathogens are coagulase-negative staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus. Escherichia coli, enterococci, streptococci, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, anaerobes, Enterobacter spp., or Candida species are detected less commonly [16]. Uncomplicated cases can be treated locally by adding antimicrobial substances to the dialysis fluid. In addition to intraperitoneal treatment, parenteral treatment also becomes necessary in the rarer severe forms. The peculiarities of antibiotic dosing in cases of renal insufficiency must be taken into account.

Cefotaxime, cefuroxime or ceftriaxone (in monotherapy or in combination with ciprofloxacin) is recommended for calculated treatment [17]. Once the results of microbiological diagnostics have been obtained, treatment should continue in a targeted fashion. If MRSA, MRSE and enterococci (including VRE) are detected, the antibiotics in Table 2 [Tab. 2] are available. If the infection is not under control after one week of antimicrobial treatment, the peritoneal dialysis catheter should be removed [18].

Secondary peritonitis

Secondary peritonitis, with perforation of the gastrointestinal tract, is by far the most common IAI, at around 80–90%. By definition, surgical source control must be carried out (infectious source rehabilitation, for example appendectomy for perforated appendicitis) or interventional treatment (for example CT-controlled drainage of an abscess). In terms of a three-pillar model, diffuse peritonitis requires surgical, antimicrobial and intensive care treatment [18]. Increasingly, primary infectious source rehabilitation is followed by definitive closure of the abdomen and clinical progress monitoring of the patient [19]. In secondary peritonitis, a distinction can be made between a community-acquired (ca. 60%) and a post-operative form (ca. 40%).

Community-acquired secondary peritonitis

In community-acquired secondary peritonitis there is always a mixed infection. The pathogen spectrum derives from the flora of the gastrointestinal tract and is dependent on the pathogenesis and the location of the perforation or leakage. Key pathogens are Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, Enterococci and Candida spp. Resistant species need only be considered in patients treated with antibiotics on an out-patient basis and other specific risk factors (see Table 3 [Tab. 3]). The present recommendations take into account the duration of the illness and the pathogen spectrum depending on the cause of the disease [18]. For antibiotic treatment of localized acute peritonitis, cefuroxime, cefotaxime, ceftriaxone or ciprofloxacin, in combination with metronidazole, as well as ampicillin/sulbactam or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid can be used. Piperacillin/tazobactam and ertapenem, which have also been approved and tested in this indication, should be used in cases of more severe IAI (Table 4 [Tab. 4]).

For the treatment of diffuse peritonitis, which persists for more than 2–4 hours, substances or combinations with a broad action spectrum should be used. Piperacillin/tazobactam, moxifloxacin, tigecycline or ertapenem can be used for calculated treatment. Alternatively, combinations of metronidazole with ceftriaxone or cefepime can be used. Considering enterococci in substance selection is recommended only in the exceptional case of known colonization [20], [21], [22], [23].

Addition of aminoglycosides did result in improved effectiveness in meta-analyzes and is therefore no longer considered the treatment of choice [24]. Variable kinetic parameters as well as ototoxicity and nephrotoxicity also require regular serum-level control.

Post-operative, post-traumatic and post-interventional peritonitis

Post-operative peritonitis is a nosocomially acquired secondary form of peritonitis and is defined as an infectious abdominal complication following surgery (for example anastomotic leakage following anterior rectal resection). In post-operative peritonitis, in contrast to tertiary peritonitis, a surgical or interventional (such as an endo-VAC insert into an insufficiency cavity) is a condition in need of treatment [9]. Most patients will already have had antimicrobial treatment at the time of illness. Post-operative peritonitis is thus characterized by a selective pathogen spectrum with enterococci (including VRE), Gram-negative pathogens (“extended spectrum” beta-lactamase [ESBL]) and fungi. Pseudomonas spp. and carbapenemase producers are rarely detected.

Imipenem/cilastatin, meropenem, ertapenem, tigecycline and fosfomycin can be used as antibiotics with a broad action spectrum [20], [21], [22], [23], the latter not being used in monotherapy because of the rapid development of resistance. Ceftolozane/tazobactam has recently become available as a new ESBL-effective drug. In the approval study for IAI, which used ceftolozane/tazobactam in combination with metronidazole, this group of patients in particular was treated very successfully under controlled clinical conditions [25], [26]. Another treatment option in this indication range is the recently approved ceftazidime/avibactam in combination with metronidazole. The possibility of fungal infections in empirical anti-infective treatment must also be considered (see Table 5 [Tab. 5]).

Tertiary peritonits

In tertiary peritonitis (such as post-operative peritonitis, a nosocomial form of peritonitis), infection of the abdominal cavity persists without a focus that can be remedied surgically, after previously completed infectious source rehabilitation of secondary peritonitis [9], [20], [21]. The transitions from secondary to tertiary peritonitis can be fluid. In diagnostically unclear situations, relaparotomy is the only way of proving there is no need for a surgical intervention [21]. Most are low-virulence pathogens, which lead to a sustained infection because of the sustained immunosuppression of the affected patient. This form of nosocomial peritonitis has a similar pathogen spectrum to secondary post-operative peritonitis due to prior antimicrobial treatment. There are often enterococci including VRE, staphylococci incl. MRSA, Enterobacteriaceae incl. ESBL producers and anaerobes. In tertiary peritonitis, Pseudomonas spp. and Candida spp. are detected more frequently [9], [20], [21], [22]. For antibiotic treatment, tigecycline (possibly in combination with a Pseudomonas-active substance) as well as imipenem/cilastatin, meropenem, ceftolozane/tazobactam with metronidazole or ceftazidime/avibactam with metronidazole (if necessary in combination with linezolid) are available [20], [21], [22], [27].


Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necroses

About 80% of all deaths from acute pancreatitis are caused by septic complications. The translocation of pathogens from the colon into the peripancreatic tissue is the most common cause of secondarily infected pancreatic necrosis [28], [29], [30]. Infected pancreatic necroses can be suspected if fever, leukocytosis, CRP serum elevation and unexpected clinical deterioration occur. Detection of gas inclusions within necrotic pancreatic tissue in abdominal CT is considered to be evidence of infected necroses [31]. Interventions in cases of infected pancreatic necrosis includes conservative measures (endoscopically guided transgastric drainage, CT-guided drainage) as well as surgical intervention. Currently, it is assumed that the optimal time for surgical treatment (open or minimally invasive) is after more than three weeks [32]. Meta-analyzes already concluded in 2004 and 2006 that a general administration of antibiotics has no significant positive effect on the course of necrotizing pancreatitis and instead leads to a selection of resistant pathogens and Candida spp. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. The recent guideline of the American College of Gastroenterology recommends that in principle no antibiotic treatment should be carried out [39].

A safe indication for antibiotic treatment is proven infected necrosis, infected pseudocysts, abscess formation, cholangitis, and other extra-pancreatic infections. The most important pathogens in infected pancreatic necroses are Enterobacteriaceae, enterococci, staphylococci, anaerobes and Candida spp. When selecting appropriate antibiotics, pancreatic mobility of the drugs should also be considered (Table 5 [Tab. 5]). Studies with reliable data for good penetration into the pancreatic tissue exist for fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin, moxifloxacin), carbapenems (imipenem/cilastatin, meropenem, ertapenem), tigecycline and piperacillin/tazobactam. Inadequate tissue penetration has been demonstrated for aminoglycosides [18], [24]. All the above-mentioned substances can in rare cases cause pancreatitis.


Invasive intra-abdominal mycoses

Most intra-abdominal invasive mycoses (IIM) are triggered by Candida spp. In total, up to 18% of all severe sepsis cases in Germany were found to be due to Candida spp. [3]. One-off detection in surgically-obtained material in cases of community-acquired secondary peritonitis (for example perforated gastric ulcer) does not require anti-fungal treatment in the post-operative care of stable and immunocompetent patients. From a surgical point of view, at-risk groups are patients with severe post-operative (for instance suture insufficiency following esophagojejunostomy) or tertiary peritonitis [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Although the prophylactic administration of fluconazole has led to a reduction of Candida infections, it does not alter the lethality and is therefore not recommended [40], [47].

The number of Candida strains in Germany with limited sensitivity to fluconazole is approximately 40% [27], [40]. Therefore, against the backdrop of the results of recent multi-center studies, the use of an echinocandin (anidulafungin, caspofungin, micafungin) is preferred when the patient is unstable or when azole therapy or prophylaxis has recently been carried out. Alternatively, in cases of sensitivity to azoles and cardiovascular stability, the use of fluconazole and, if therapeutic drug monitoring is available, that of voriconazole may also be considered. Initial therapy with (liposomal) amphotericin B is also an option, taking into account the potential side effects (glomerular and tubular nephrotoxicity). There are no data available on isavuconazole or posaconazole in the treatment of invasive Candida infections (no grading). The duration of treatment is at least 14 days [40], [47]. Overall, there are few controlled data, especially for intra-abdominal mycoses. The published collectives are very heterogeneous as regards basic parameters [48]. Prognosis of IIM is poor in delayed treatment [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].


Difficult to treat and multidrug- resistant pathogens (MDROs)

While in the mid-1990s 95–97% of all bacterial pathogens detected in IAI were still sensitive to common antibiotics (such as cefotaxime or ciprofloxacin + metronidazole), in recent years, especially in post-operative and tertiary peritonitis, the proportion of more resistant strains (MRSA, VRE, ESBL producer, (multi)resistant Pseudomonas spp.) have increased significantly worldwide [21], [22], [23], [27], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. It is important to cover the expected pathogen spectrum as completely as possible with the initial antibiotic treatment, particularly in the case of life-threatening clinical scenarios caused by resistant pathogens. If no evidence of resistant pathogens is found after microbiological examination, treatment should be de-escalated.

An overview of the resistant pathogens and their frequency in intra-abdominal infections, which can also be used as a decision matrix for empirical treatment, is given in Table 6 [Tab. 6] in modified form [23]. The following sections deal with resistant pathogens, which require special considerations because of their particular importance. Information on the calculated treatment of IAI caused by these pathogens can be found in Table 2 [Tab. 3].

MRSA

An infection of the abdominal cavity with MRSA is rare in immunocompetent patients. It is usually MRSA colonization due to an open abdomen, for example after abdominal compartment syndrome. In non-immunosuppressed patients an indication for antibiotic treatment results if local and systemic signs of infection and persistent evidence are present. In immunosuppressed patients after transplantation, any detection of MRSA should be considered as requiring treatment. Tigecycline is the only MRSA-active antibiotic approved for the treatment of IAI [54] and also covers the expected Gram-negative and anaerobic pathogen spectrum. Vancomycin is characterized by a relatively poor penetration into the abdominal compartment. There is clinical data on linezolid for the treatment of IAI [55], [56]. Linezolid, daptomycin and vancomycin should be combined with an antibiotic effective against Gram-negative pathogens [20], [21], [22], [23].

Enterococci including VRE

The role of enterococci as the primary pathogen in a polymicrobial IAI is controversial [57], [58]. Enterococci of the species Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium are important pathogens of nosocomial infections. They rank third in Germany in terms of frequency [27]. Enterococcus faecium has a broad spectrum of intrinsic and acquired antibiotic resistance and has become increasingly important as a pathogen for nosocomial infections in immunosuppressed and intensive care multi-morbid patients [20], [21], [22], [23], [27]. Enterococci-effective antibiotics should be used particularly in patients with postoperative peritonitis, tertiary peritonitis, severe abdominal sepsis and prior antibiotic treatment or endocarditis-prone patients (peritonitis and heart valve replacement), [18], [20], [21], [22], [23]. Compared to the rest of Europe, a comparatively high proportion of VREnterococcus faecium is found in Germany [27]. Only a few antibiotics are active against VREnterococcus faecium. These are tigecycline [59], linezolid [60], and also to some extent daptomycin (no controlled clinical data). Cases of linezolid or tigecycline-resistant enterococci strains have been documented, for instance [61].

Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae can inactivate many of the penicillins and cephalosporins used for calculated initial treatment. In many cases there is also resistance to the beta-lactamase inhibitor-protected combinations amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ampicillin/sulbactam, and (more rarely) piperacillin/tazobactam, as well as parallel resistance to other antibiotic classes, including fluoroquinolones and aminoglycosides [62], [63]. It can be assumed that there is now a huge reservoir of people worldwide who are colonized with ESBL-producing pathogens [27], [63] and that this is not a nosocomial phenomenon. To make matters worse, the proportion of ESBL-producing bacteria is also increasing significantly in animals and the pathogens are also detected on food and in water. In the PEG resistance study in 2013, the proportion of isolates with the extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) phenotype was 15.4% for Escherichia coli and 17.8% for Klebsiella pneumoniae. Furthermore, the proportion of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae has also increased [27]. Further work on this important topic can be found in chapter 16 [64].

Carbapenems, fosfomycin (no monotherapy because of the risk of rapid development of resistance) and tigecycline are recommended as treatment of choice [18], [20], [21], [22], [23], [27]. The latter was used clinically in approximately 75% of patients with IAI under real-life conditions in a Europe-wide study [59]. Ceftolozan/tazobactam has recently become available as a new ESBL-effective drug. In the IAI licensing study, the ESBL-induced IAI group of patients was treated successfully under controlled conditions [25], [26]. Furthermore, the use of ceftazidime/avibactam, which was also recently approved for this type of indication, can also be considered [65].

By now, Enterobacteriaceae are also able to produce carbapenemases (KPC, NDM), thereby rendering carbapenem antibiotics ineffective. Occurrences of carbapenemases are most commonly found in Klebsiella pneumoniae (Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases, KPC) but can also be found in Escherichia coli and other Gram-negative pathogens, for example Acinetobacter spp. Only a few options remain for adequate targeted treatment. Combination antibiotic regimens containing tigecycline, meropenem and colistin are recommended. The use of ceftazidime/avibactam, a new substance approved for this type of indication, can also be taken into consideration [66], [67], [68].

Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp.

Pseudomonas spp. are detected in about 8–15% of all IAI, although the proportion of causally pathogenetically relevant strains is likely to be much lower [9], [20], [21], [69]. Resistance to 3 or 4 of the available antibiotic classes (3MRGN, 4MRGN) is also being observed more frequently in IAI. The same applies to carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter spp., where in some cases tigecycline can still prove to be effective. As a special feature here occasionally sulbactam in monotherapy is also effective (note test result).


Duration of empirical antibiotic treatment of intra-abdominal infections

Very often clinicians must begin antimicrobial treatment empirically, i.e. prior to pathogen detection. Recommendations for the empirical treatment of IAI according to a level model can be found in Table 4 [Tab. 4]. The more local the infection is, the shorter the duration of treatment can be. For the treatment of community-acquired local peritonitis without risk factors (level 1: treatment duration 1 day; level 2: treatment duration 3 days), substances such as cephalosporins of groups 2 or 3a (for example cefuroxime, cefotaxime) or fluoroquinolones (for example ciprofloxacin), in each case in combination with metronidazole, should be used. Alternatively, aminopenicillins may be used in combination with a beta-lactamase inhibitor (for example amoxycillin/clavulanic acid) (see Table 3 [Tab. 3]) [18], [20], [21], [22], [23].

With increased local and systemic spread of the infection and possible risk factors (see Table 3 [Tab. 3]), piperacillin/tazobactam, ertapenem and, to a lesser extent, moxifloxacin may be considered (level 3: treatment duration 5 days). For advanced localized peritonitis, a 4–5 day treatment period is not inferior to an 8 to 10-day course of antibiotics with adequate infectious source rehabilitation, as recently demonstrated in a large randomized, double-blind study [70]. However, in nosocomial peritonitis and hemodynamically unstable patients in septic shock, the likelihood is high that resistant pathogens will co-trigger the infection. Only meropenem, imipenem, tigecycline (possibly in combination with a Pseudomonas-active substance) or ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole or ceftazidime/avibactam + metronidazole should be used (level 4: treatment duration 7–10 days). If no treatment success occurs after 7–10 days, discontinuation of antimicrobial treatment and taking new samples is preferable to continuation of an unclear, resistant pathogen-selecting, potentially toxic therapy.


Note

This is the seventh chapter of the guideline “Calculated initial parenteral treatment of bacterial infections in adults – update 2018” in the 2nd updated version. The German guideline by the Paul-Ehrlich-Gesellschaft für Chemotherapie e.V. (PEG) has been translated to address an international audience.


Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


References

1.
Bader FG, Schröder M, Kujath P, Muhl E, Bruch HP, Eckmann C. Diffuse postoperative peritonitis – value of diagnostic parameters and impact of early indication for relaparotomy. Eur J Med Res. 2009 Nov;14(11):491-6. DOI: 10.1186/2047-783X-14-11-491 External link
2.
Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, Suppes R, Feinstein D, Zanotti S, Taiberg L, Gurka D, Kumar A, Cheang M. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;34(6):1589-96. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000217961.75225.E9 External link
3.
Engel C, Brunkhorst FM, Bone HG, Brunkhorst R, Gerlach H, Grond S, Gruendling M, Huhle G, Jaschinski U, John S, Mayer K, Oppert M, Olthoff D, Quintel M, Ragaller M, Rossaint R, Stuber F, Weiler N, Welte T, Bogatsch H, Hartog C, Loeffler M, Reinhart K. Epidemiology of sepsis in Germany: results from a national prospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2007 Apr;33(4):606-18. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-006-0517-7 External link
4.
Wong PF, Gilliam AD, Kumar S, Shenfine J, O’Dair GN, Leaper DJ. Antibiotic regimens for secondary peritonitis of gastrointestinal origin in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD004539. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004539.pub2 External link
5.
Edelsberg J, Berger A, Schell S, Mallick R, Kuznik A, Oster G. Economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy in hospitalized adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Jun;9(3):335-47. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.100 External link
6.
Barie PS. The cost of failure. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Jun;9(3):313-5. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2007.9964 External link
7.
Davey PG, Marwick C. Appropriate vs. inappropriate antimicrobial therapy. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2008 Apr;14 Suppl 3:15-21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2008.01959.x External link
8.
Nathens AB, Cook CH, Machiedo G, Moore EE, Namias N, Nwariaku F. Defining the research agenda for surgical infection: a consensus of experts using the Delphi approach. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2006 Apr;7(2):101-10. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.7.101 External link
9.
Kujath P, Rodloff AC. Peritonitis. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Uni-Med Verlag; 2005. p. 13-15.
10.
Gerbes AL, Gülberg V, Sauerbruch T, Wiest R, Appenrodt B, Bahr MJ, Dollinger MM, Rössle M, Schepke M. S3-Leitlinie „Aszites, spontan bakterielle Peritonitis, hepatorenales Syndrom“ [German S 3-guideline “ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome”]. Z Gastroenterol. 2011 Jun;49(6):749-79. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1273405 External link
11.
Rimola A, García-Tsao G, Navasa M, Piddock LJ, Planas R, Bernard B, Inadomi JM. Diagnosis, treatment and prophylaxis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: a consensus document. International Ascites Club. J Hepatol. 2000 Jan;32(1):142-53. DOI: 10.1016/S0168-8278(00)80201-9 External link
12.
Felisart J, Rimola A, Arroyo V, Perez-Ayuso RM, Quintero E, Gines P, Rodes J. Cefotaxime is more effective than is ampicillin-tobramycin in cirrhotics with severe infections. Hepatology. 1985 May-Jun;5(3):457-62. DOI: 10.1002/hep.1840050319 External link
13.
Javid G, Khan BA, Khan BA, Shah AH, Gulzar GM, Khan MA. Short-course ceftriaxone therapy in spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Postgrad Med J. 1998 Oct;74(876):592-5. DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.74.876.592 External link
14.
Mowat C, Stanley AJ. Review article: spontaneous bacterial peritonitis – diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2001 Dec;15(12):1851-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.01116.x External link
15.
Sort P, Navasa M, Arroyo V, Aldeguer X, Planas R, Ruiz-del-Arbol L, Castells L, Vargas V, Soriano G, Guevara M, Ginès P, Rodés J. Effect of intravenous albumin on renal impairment and mortality in patients with cirrhosis and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. N Engl J Med. 1999 Aug;341(6):403-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199908053410603 External link
16.
Stuart S, Booth TC, Cash CJ, Hameeduddin A, Goode JA, Harvey C, Malhotra A. Complications of continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis. Radiographics. 2009 Mar-Apr;29(2):441-60. DOI: 10.1148/rg.292085136 External link
17.
Lima RC, Barreira A, Cardoso FL, Lima MH, Leite M Jr. Ciprofloxacin and cefazolin as a combination for empirical initial therapy of peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis: five-year follow-up. Perit Dial Int. 2007 Jan-Feb;27(1):56-60.
18.
Bodmann KF, Grabein B; Expertengruppe der Paul-Ehrlich Gesellschaft. Empfehlungen zur kalkulierten parenteralen Initialtherapie bakterieller Erkrankungen bei Erwachsenen. Chemother J. 2010;19(6):179-255.
19.
van Ruler O, Mahler CW, Boer KR, Reuland EA, Gooszen HG, Opmeer BC, de Graaf PW, Lamme B, Gerhards MF, Steller EP, van Till JW, de Borgie CJ, Gouma DJ, Reitsma JB, Boermeester MA; Dutch Peritonitis Study Group. Comparison of on-demand vs planned relaparotomy strategy in patients with severe peritonitis: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2007 Aug;298(8):865-72. DOI: 10.1001/jama.298.8.865 External link
20.
Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, Rodvold KA, Goldstein EJ, Baron EJ, O’Neill PJ, Chow AW, Dellinger EP, Eachempati SR, Gorbach S, Hilfiker M, May AK, Nathens AB, Sawyer RG, Bartlett JG. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010 Jan;50(2):133-64. DOI: 10.1086/649554 External link
21.
Eckmann C, Dryden M, Montravers P, Kozlov R, Sganga G. Antimicrobial treatment of “complicated” intra-abdominal infections and the new IDSA guidelines? a commentary and an alternative European approach according to clinical definitions. Eur J Med Res. 2011 Mar;16(3):115-26. DOI: 10.1186/2047-783X-16-3-115 External link
22.
Eckmann C. Antibiotikatherapie intraabdomineller Infektionen im Zeitalter der Multiresistenz [Antibiotic therapy of intra-abdominal infections in the era of multiresistance]. Chirurg. 2016 Jan;87(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-015-0106-9 External link
23.
Eckmann C, Shekarriz H. Antimicrobial management of complicated intra-abdominal infections caused by resistant bacteria. Eur Infect Dis. 2012;6:22-7.
24.
Paul M, Silbiger I, Grozinsky S, Soares-Weiser K, Leibovici L. Beta lactam antibiotic monotherapy versus beta lactam-aminoglycoside antibiotic combination therapy for sepsis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jan 25;(1):CD003344. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003344.pub2 External link
25.
Solomkin J, Hershberger E, Miller B, Popejoy M, Friedland I, Steenbergen J, Yoon M, Collins S, Yuan G, Barie PS, Eckmann C. Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Plus Metronidazole for Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections in an Era of Multidrug Resistance: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (ASPECT-cIAI). Clin Infect Dis. 2015 May;60(10):1462-71. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ097 External link
26.
Eckmann C, Solomkin J. Ceftolozane/tazobactam for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015 Feb;16(2):271-80. DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2015.994504 External link
27.
Pletz MW, Eckmann C, Hagel S, Heppner HJ, Huber K, Kämmerer W, Schmitz FJ, Wilke M, Grabein B. Multiresistente Erreger – Infektionsmanagement 2015 [Current strategies against multi-drug resistant organisms]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2015 Jun;140(13):975-81. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-102452 External link
28.
Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology. 1990 Feb;174(2):331-6. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.174.2.2296641 External link
29.
Larvin M, McMahon MJ. APACHE-II score for assessment and monitoring of acute pancreatitis. Lancet. 1989 Jul 22;2(8656):201-5. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90381-4 External link
30.
Whitcomb DC. Clinical practice. Acute pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2006 May;354(20):2142-50. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp054958 External link
31.
Banks PA, Gerzof SG, Langevin RE, Silverman SG, Sica GT, Hughes MD. CT-guided aspiration of suspected pancreatic infection: bacteriology and clinical outcome. Int J Pancreatol. 1995 Dec;18(3):265-70. DOI: 10.1007/BF02784951 External link
32.
Besselink MG, Verwer TJ, Schoenmaeckers EJ, Buskens E, Ridwan BU, Visser MR, Nieuwenhuijs VB, Gooszen HG. Timing of surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis. Arch Surg. 2007 Dec;142(12):1194-201. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.142.12.1194 External link
33.
Bassi C, Larvin M, Villatoro E. Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD002941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002941 External link
34.
Villatoro E, Bassi C, Larvin M. Antibiotic therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;(4):CD002941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002941.pub2 External link
35.
Mazaki T, Ishii Y, Takayama T. Meta-analysis of prophylactic antibiotic use in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 2006 Jun;93(6):674-84. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.5389 External link
36.
Huber W, Schmid RM. Akute Pankreatitis: Evidenzbasierte Diagnostik und Therapie. Dtsch Arztebl. 2007;104(25):A1832-42.
37.
Isenmann R, Rünzi M, Kron M, Kahl S, Kraus D, Jung N, Maier L, Malfertheiner P, Goebell H, Beger HG; German Antibiotics in Severe Acute Pancreatitis Study Group. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Gastroenterology. 2004 Apr;126(4):997-1004. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2003.12.050 External link
38.
Teich N, Leinung S, Jonas S, Mössner J. Akute Pankreatitis [Acute pancreatitis]. Chirurg. 2009 Mar;80(3):245-52; quiz 253-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00104-009-1682-3 External link
39.
Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep;108(9):1400-15; 1416. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.218 External link
40.
Bassetti M, Marchetti M, Chakrabarti A, Colizza S, Garnacho-Montero J, Kett DH, Munoz P, Cristini F, Andoniadou A, Viale P, Rocca GD, Roilides E, Sganga G, Walsh TJ, Tascini C, Tumbarello M, Menichetti F, Righi E, Eckmann C, Viscoli C, Shorr AF, Leroy O, Petrikos G, De Rosa FG. A research agenda on the management of intra-abdominal candidiasis: results from a consensus of multinational experts. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Dec;39(12):2092-106. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-013-3109-3 External link
41.
Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, De Waele JJ. Candida peritonitis. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007 Apr;13(2):195-9. DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328028fd92 External link
42.
Blot S, Dimopoulos G, Rello J, Vogelaers D. Is Candida really a threat in the ICU? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008 Oct;14(5):600-4. DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e32830f1dff External link
43.
León C, Ruiz-Santana S, Saavedra P, Almirante B, Nolla-Salas J, Alvarez-Lerma F, Garnacho-Montero J, León MA; EPCAN Study Group. A bedside scoring system (“Candida score”) for early antifungal treatment in nonneutropenic critically ill patients with Candida colonization. Crit Care Med. 2006 Mar;34(3):730-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000202208.37364.7D External link
44.
Pelz RK, Hendrix CW, Swoboda SM, Diener-West M, Merz WG, Hammond J, Lipsett PA. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent candidal infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg. 2001 Apr;233(4):542-8. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200104000-00010 External link
45.
Eggimann P, Francioli P, Bille J, Schneider R, Wu MM, Chapuis G, Chiolero R, Pannatier A, Schilling J, Geroulanos S, Glauser MP, Calandra T. Fluconazole prophylaxis prevents intra-abdominal candidiasis in high-risk surgical patients. Crit Care Med. 1999 Jun;27(6):1066-72. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199906000-00019 External link
46.
Pfaller MA, Diekema DJ. Epidemiology of invasive candidiasis: a persistent public health problem. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007 Jan;20(1):133-63. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00029-06 External link
47.
Pappas PG, Kauffman CA, Andes DR, Clancy CJ, Marr KA, Ostrosky-Zeichner L, Reboli AC, Schuster MG, Vazquez JA, Walsh TJ, Zaoutis TE, Sobel JD. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Candidiasis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Feb 15;62(4):e1-50. DOI: 10.1093/cid/civ933 External link
48.
Montravers P, Leroy O, Eckmann C. Intra-abdominal candidiasis: it’s still a long way to get unquestionable data. Intensive Care Med. 2015 Sep;41(9):1682-4. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3894-y External link
49.
Kresken M, Hafner D, Schmitz FJ, Peters G, von Eiff C. Resistenz bei häufig isolierten Enterobacteriaceae gegenüber Breitspektrumantibiotika. Chemother J. 2006;15(6):179-90.
50.
Chromik AM, Meiser A, Hölling J, Sülberg D, Daigeler A, Meurer K, Vogelsang H, Seelig MH, Uhl W. Identification of patients at risk for development of tertiary peritonitis on a surgical intensive care unit. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Jul;13(7):1358-67. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-009-0882-y External link
51.
Mazuski JE. Antimicrobial treatment for intra-abdominal infections. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2007 Dec;8(17):2933-45. DOI: 10.1517/14656566.8.17.2933 External link
52.
De Waele JJ, Hoste EA, Blot SI. Blood stream infections of abdominal origin in the intensive care unit: characteristics and determinants of death. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2008 Apr;9(2):171-7. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2006.063 External link
53.
Roehrborn A, Thomas L, Potreck O, Ebener C, Ohmann C, Goretzki PE, Röher HD. The microbiology of postoperative peritonitis. Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Nov;33(9):1513-9. DOI: 10.1086/323333 External link
54.
Babinchak T, Ellis-Grosse E, Dartois N, Rose GM, Loh E; Tigecycline 301 Study Group; Tigecycline 306 Study Group. The efficacy and safety of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections: analysis of pooled clinical trial data. Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Sep;41 Suppl 5:S354-67. DOI: 10.1086/431676 External link
55.
Takatsuki M, Eguchi S, Yamanouchi K, Hidaka M, Soyama A, Miyazaki K, Tajima Y, Kanematsu T. The outcomes of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection after living donor liver transplantation in a Japanese center. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2010 Nov;17(6):839-43. DOI: 10.1007/s00534-010-0273-5 External link
56.
Salzer W. Antimicrobial-resistant gram-positive bacteria in PD peritonitis and the newer antibiotics used to treat them. Perit Dial Int. 2005 Jul-Aug;25(4):313-9.
57.
Cercenado E, Torroba L, Cantón R, Martínez-Martínez L, Chaves F, García-Rodríguez JA, Lopez-Garcia C, Aguilar L, García-Rey C, García-Escribano N, Bouza E. Multicenter study evaluating the role of enterococci in secondary bacterial peritonitis. J Clin Microbiol. 2010 Feb;48(2):456-9. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01782-09 External link
58.
Nichols RL, Muzik AC. Enterococcal infections in surgical patients: the mystery continues. Clin Infect Dis. 1992 Jul;15(1):72-6. DOI: 10.1093/clinids/15.1.72 External link
59.
Eckmann C, Montravers P, Bassetti M, Bodmann KF, Heizmann WR, Sánchez García M, Guirao X, Capparella MR, Simoneau D, Dupont H. Efficacy of tigecycline for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections in real-life clinical practice from five European observational studies. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013 Jul;68 Suppl 2:ii25-35. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkt142 External link
60.
Birmingham MC, Rayner CR, Meagher AK, Flavin SM, Batts DH, Schentag JJ. Linezolid for the treatment of multidrug-resistant, gram-positive infections: experience from a compassionate-use program. Clin Infect Dis. 2003 Jan;36(2):159-68. DOI: 10.1086/345744 External link
61.
Werner G, Gfrörer S, Fleige C, Witte W, Klare I. Tigecycline-resistant Enterococcus faecalis strain isolated from a German intensive care unit patient. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 May;61(5):1182-3. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn065 External link
62.
Witte W, Mielke M. Beta-Laktamasen mit breitem Wirkungsspektrum: Grundlagen, Epidemiologie, Schlussfolgerungen für die Prävention. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitssch. 2003;46:881-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-003-0693-3 External link
63.
Dinubile MJ, Friedland I, Chan CY, Motyl MR, Giezek H, Shivaprakash M, Weinstein RA, Quinn JP. Bowel colonization with resistant gram-negative bacilli after antimicrobial therapy of intra-abdominal infections: observations from two randomized comparative clinical trials of ertapenem therapy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005 Jul;24(7):443-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10096-005-1356-0 External link
64.
Grabein B, Ebenhoch M, Kühnen E, Thalhammer F. Kalkulierte parenterale Initialtherapie bakterieller Infektionen: Infektionen durch multiresistente gramnegative Stäbchen – ESBL-Bildner, Carbapenemase-bildende Enterobacteriaceae, Carbapenem-resistente Acinetobacter baumannii [Calculated parenteral initial treatment of bacterial infections: Infections with multi-resistant Gram-negative rods – ESBL producers, carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii]. GMS Infect Dis. 2020;8:Doc04. DOI: 10.3205/id000048 External link
65.
Mazuski JE, Gasink LB, Armstrong J, Broadhurst H, Stone GG, Rank D, Llorens L, Newell P, Pachl J. Efficacy and Safety of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Plus Metronidazole Versus Meropenem in the Treatment of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection: Results From a Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Program. Clin Infect Dis. 2016 06;62(11):1380-9. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciw133 External link
66.
Bergamasco MD, Barroso Barbosa M, de Oliveira Garcia D, Cipullo R, Moreira JC, Baia C, Barbosa V, Abboud CS. Infection with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Infect Dis. 2012 Apr;14(2):198-205. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2011.00688.x External link
67.
Hirsch EB, Tam VH. Detection and treatment options for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPCs): an emerging cause of multidrug-resistant infection. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010 Jun;65(6):1119-25. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq108 External link
68.
Di Carlo P, Pantuso G, Cusimano A, D’Arpa F, Giammanco A, Gulotta G, Latteri AM, Madonia S, Salamone G, Mammina C. Two cases of monomicrobial intraabdominal abscesses due to KPC-3 Klebsiella pneumoniae ST258 clone. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;11:103. DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-11-103 External link
69.
Driscoll JA, Brody SL, Kollef MH. The epidemiology, pathogenesis and treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. Drugs. 2007;67(3):351-68. DOI: 10.2165/00003495-200767030-00003 External link
70.
Sawyer RG, Claridge JA, Nathens AB, Rotstein OD, Duane TM, Evans HL, Cook CH, O’Neill PJ, Mazuski JE, Askari R, Wilson MA, Napolitano LM, Namias N, Miller PR, Dellinger EP, Watson CM, Coimbra R, Dent DL, Lowry SF, Cocanour CS, West MA, Banton KL, Cheadle WG, Lipsett PA, Guidry CA, Popovsky K. Trial of short-course antimicrobial therapy for intraabdominal infection. N Engl J Med. 2015 May;372(21):1996-2005. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411162 External link