Selective digestive decontamination in patients in intensive care

M. J. M. Bontena,*, B. J. Kullbergb, R. van Dalenc, A. R. J. Girbesd, I. M. Hoepelmana, W. Hustinxe, J. W. M. van der Meerb, P. Speelmanf, E. E. Stobberinghg, H. A. Verbrughh, J. Verhoefi, J. H. Zwavelingj and consultants of the Dutch Working group on Antibiotic Policy,{dagger}

a Departments of Internal Medicine and h Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Utrecht; b Departments of Internal Medicine and c Intensive Care, University Hospital Nijmegen; d Department of Intensive Care, Free University Hospital, Amsterdam; e Department of Internal Medicine, Diaconessenhuis, Utrecht; f Department of Internal Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam; g Department of Medical Microbiology, University Hospital Maastricht; i Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam; j Department of Surgery, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is the most extensively studied method for the prevention of infection in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Despite 27 prospective randomized studies and six meta-analyses, routine use of SDD is still controversial. In this review, we summarize the available scientific information on effectiveness of SDD in ICU patients. The effects of SDD have been studied in different combinations of the concept, using different antibiotics. Comparison of the individual studies, therefore, is difficult. In most studies, SDD resulted in significant reductions in the number of diagnoses of ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia in control groups ranged from 5% to 85%. Moreover, these reductions in incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia in individual studies were not associated with improved patient survival, reductions of duration of ventilation or ICU stay, or reductions in antibiotic use. The numbers of patients studied are too small to determine effects on patient survival. Although two meta-analyses suggested a 20% mortality reduction when using the full concept of SDD (topical and systemic prophylaxis) these results should be interpreted with caution. Formal cost–benefit analyses of SDD have not been performed. SDD is associated with the selection of microorganisms that are intrinsically resistant to the antibiotics used. However, the studies are too small and too short to investigate whether SDD will lead to development of antibiotic resistance. As long as the benefits of SDD (better patient survival, reduction in antibiotic use or improved cost-effectiveness) have not been firmly established, the routine use of SDD for mechanically ventilated patients is not advised.


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
Infections constitute an important complication of the treatment of patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Respiratory infections are the most common, especially in patients on mechanical ventilation, and may be extremely serious. It is generally assumed that the occurrence of respiratory infections in ventilated patients (ventilator-associated pneumonia) is accompanied by an increased mortality, a longer duration of mechanical ventilation and a longer stay in the ICU, and leads to increased use of antibiotics and, hence, higher costs for healthcare. It goes without saying that the prevention of such infections has the highest priority. However, despite an extensive amount of scientific research, there is no consensus as to how this goal should be achieved.1,2

The method for preventing infections that has been studied most extensively is selective digestive decontamination (SDD), based on the concept of colonization resistance. This concept, according to which the intact, anaerobic, intestinal flora has a protective effect against secondary colonization with Gram-negative aerobic bacteria, was first described by Van der Waaij et al. in 1971.3 Elimination of the anaerobic flora leads to increased colonization and, hence, to an increased risk of infection with these facultatively aerobic bacteria, particularly in seriously ill patients. The purpose of SDD is to eliminate these Gram-negative bacteria and fungi from the digestive tract without harming the anaerobic flora. SDD was first applied with good results in patients with granulocytopenia.4 Later research in these patients revealed that the use of antibiotics that achieve systemic concentrations is more efficient than the topical use of antibiotics that eliminate only Gram-negative bacteria from the intestine. However, maintenance of colonization resistance by the use of specific antibiotics, as demonstrated in neutropenic mice, does not hold in humans. At therapeutic doses, there is no antibiotic that fails to affect colonization resistance in humans.5 Strictly speaking, therefore, ‘selective’ intestinal decontamination does not exist.

SDD was first used in ICU patients in 1984.6 As used in the ICU, SDD classically consists of four aspects: (i) selective eradication of potentially pathogenic microorganisms (Gram-negative aerobic intestinal bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus and fungi) in the oral cavity by application of orabase containing non-absorbable antibiotics [e.g. polymyxin E, tobramycin and amphotericin B (PTA)] and decontamination of the rest of the gastrointestinal tract by local administration of the same antibiotics; (ii) systemic prophylaxis (e.g. by means of cefotaxime) for the respiratory infections that may occur during the first few days of mechanical ventilation and are caused by commensal respiratory flora such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and S. aureus; (iii) regular cultures of throat swabs and faeces in order to monitor the effectiveness of SDD; and (iv) optimal hygiene in order to prevent cross-infection. In the PTA schedule, polymyxin E and tobramycin were chosen because they are non-absorbable and usually cover Gram-negative aerobic intestinal bacteria, S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Amphotericin B was added to the regimen to prevent overgrowth with fungi. Cefotaxime was added to PTA because it covers the commensal respiratory flora and does not affect anaerobic bacteria. The last component of SDD (optimal hygiene) is not described explicitly in any of the studies and is, therefore, an unknown variable in all of them.

Although it has been suggested7 that failure to apply the complete four-component model will reduce the effectiveness of SDD, there are no known published data to support this claim. There is one prospective study8 in which the PTA–cefotaxime regimen was compared, under comparable circumstances, with another combination (ofloxacin and amphotericin B in combination with systemic ofloxacin) and here the combination with ofloxacin was more effective. There are no studies in which varying dosages of antimicrobial agents have been compared. It is, therefore, impossible, on the basis of the studies available, to determine the optimal combination or optimal concentrations of antimicrobial agents to be used for SDD.

In this review, we will summarize the available scientific information on the effectiveness of SDD in ICU patients.


    The studies
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
Twenty-seven prospective, randomized studies have been published dealing with the routine use of SDD in ICU patients.834 One further study, previously published as a dissertation,35 has been submitted for publication (Table IGo). Two studies8,10 compared two different SDD schedules. In one of these studies,10 the results in the two study groups (PTA with ciprofloxacin as systemic prophylaxis compared with polymyxin, ciprofloxacin and amphotericin B with ciprofloxacin as systemic prophylaxis) were essentially identical. These two groups have, therefore, been combined.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table I. Outcomes and medications of prospective randomized studies on SDD in ICU patients
 
The number of patients involved in each study varied from 2811 to 660;8 13 studies were double-blind.1223,35 Six meta-analyses of SDD studies have been published (Table IIGo).3641


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table II. Characteristics and results of six recent meta-analyses of SDD
 
With regard to the antimicrobial component of SDD, there are six variants: 11 studies8,9,12,13,2427,3032 investigated the effect of decontamination of the oral cavity and the rest of the gastrointestinal tract in combination with systemic prophylaxis; nine studies10,1419,23,29 investigated the effect of decontamination of the oral cavity and gastrointestinal tract only (in three cases10,14,15 by giving systemic prophylaxis to both groups of patients and in six cases1619,23,29 because systemic prophylaxis was not given to either group); five studies11,20,21,28,35 investigated the effect of oropharyngeal decontamination only (combined with systemic prophylaxis in one case28); and three studies investigated the effect of gastrointestinal decontamination only.22,33,34

In addition to these variations on the original concept, the antimicrobial agents studied also show considerable diversity. The original SDD schedule (PTA–cefotaxime) was investigated in seven studies. In other studies, cefotaxime was replaced by ceftriaxone,13 trimethoprim,24 ofloxacin8 or ceftazidime;25 tobramycin was sometimes replaced by norfloxacin24,26 or gentamicin;13,27 and amphotericin B was sometimes replaced by nystatin.27 There is the same diversity in antibiotic combinations in those studies in which only part of the SDD schedule was used.


    Pneumonia
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
The effect of SDD on the occurrence of pneumonia and on mortality is usually expressed as the relative risk reduction (RRR).42 This is the reduction in a particular criterion of measurement (in this case, pneumonia), expressed as a proportion of the incidence in the control group (incidence in the control group minus the incidence in the study group divided by the incidence in the control group). The highest possible RRR is 1 (if the incidence in the study group is 0); in the absence of a difference, the RRR is 0. The RRR becomes negative if the incidence in the treated group is higher than that in the control group.

The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the control groups varied from 5%27 to 85%.9 There are two important reasons for this large variation: (i) differences in the patient populations and (ii) differences in the way in which pneumonia was diagnosed. Failure to distinguish between colonization and infection of the respiratory tract may be an important source of diagnostic error. The diagnosis is usually reached on the basis of a combination of clinical, radiological and microbiological criteria. The specificity of this approach is known to be low, so that a proportion of the diagnoses of pneumonia will be falsepositives. For this reason, the use of bronchoscopic techniques with quantitative cultures is recommended,43 certainly for scientific studies. When such techniques are used, the incidence of pneumonia is 50% lower, on average, than on the basis of clinical, radiological and microbiological criteria alone.44,45 In studies in which pneumonia was diagnosed by means of bronchoscopy, the incidence of pneumonia was generally lower in the control groups, making it more difficult to demonstrate a positive effect of SDD.

In 21 of the 27 studies in which the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia was analysed, SDD significantly reduced the incidence of pneumonia. The calculated RRRs in these studies varied from 0.43 to 1. The reduction in the incidence of pneumonia seems to be independent of the choice of antimicrobial agents. The only two ‘negative’ studies in which total decontamination and systemic prophylaxis were applied used the PTA–cefotaxime schedule.

A significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia was demonstrated in four of the nine studies in which only local (i.e. oropharyngeal and gastrointestinal) antimicrobial prophylaxis was used. The five ‘negative’ studies were carried out in Spain,14 South Africa,15 Austria,10 France16 and the USA.19 An important cause of the absence of an effect seems to have been the endemicity of multi-resistant bacteria [methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) among others] in all of these ICUs.

A significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia was also demonstrated in four of the five studies in which only oropharyngeal decontamination was investigated. In one of these studies, oropharyngeal decontamination had been combined with systemic prophylaxis. The only ‘negative’ study20 had used only one antibiotic (gentamicin in combination with amphotericin B) for oropharyngeal decontamination. Although the colonization of the respiratory tract by Gram-negative microorganisms decreased significantly, there was no significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia. In the only study in which the effect of intestinal decontamination (without oropharyngeal and systemic components) on the incidence of pneumonia was investigated,33 there was no demonstrable effect.

Six meta-analyses of SDD studies have been published3641 (Table IIGo). With regard to the effect of SDD on the incidence of pneumonia, the results of all the meta-analyses are in agreement with those of most of the individual studies: SDD significantly reduces the number of cases of pneumonia.

It can be concluded that SDD in any form, with the exception of exclusive gastrointestinal tract decontamination, leads to a reduced incidence of ‘pneumonia’, provided that there is no endemic colonization with multi-resistant bacteria.


    Mortality
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
The mortality in the control groups in these studies varied from 10%10 to 58%.24 In all studies, it was only the mortality of patients while they remained in the ICU that was assessed. In one study, exact numbers of patients were not provided, but the authors stated in the discussion that SDD had no effect on mortality.23 With these percentages, 3200 and 272 patients, respectively, would have to be investigated in each study group in order to demonstrate a 20% reduction in mortality. Since the largest control group consisted of only 225 patients, the studies performed cannot determine whether SDD reduces mortality. A significant reduction in ICU mortality (from 44% to 21%) was demonstrated in one study.12 The RRR varied from 0.52 (95% CI 0.12–0.92) to –0.18 (95% CI –0.58 to 0.23). In one study,35 a risk reduction of 60% in the incidence of pneumonia was accompanied by a non-significant reduction in mortality of 20% (P = 0.13). However, follow-up of these patients revealed that there was no difference in the hospital mortality, and the 1 year survival of these patients was completely identical.

In conclusion, an effect of SDD on mortality has not been demonstrated. However, only major reductions in mortality could have been demonstrated with studies of this size. Larger studies are necessary in order to demonstrate smaller reductions (e.g. 20%). Significant reductions in ICU mortality were demonstrated in two meta-analyses39,40 when only studies in which the combination of local and systemic prophylaxis had been investigated were included. The reduction in mortality in these analyses was 20%40 and 40%39 when only studies with surgical patients were analysed.

The discrepancy between the reduction in the incidence of pneumonia and that in mortality calls into question the presumed association between this infection and a poorer prognosis. Although the results could be clouded by an excessively high incidence of pneumonia, recent studies also suggest that the additional mortality caused by the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia is low or even negligible.4648 Even when the diagnosis is made by means of the most specific method (bronchoscopy with quantitative cultures), no systemic inflammatory reaction can be demonstrated in most patients.46,49 The results of the SDD studies thus support the opinion that many patients with pneumonia do indeed die, but not because of pneumonia.


    Duration of mechanical ventilation and stay in the ICU
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
The duration of mechanical ventilation and that of the stay in the ICU are associated with an increased risk of nosocomial respiratory infections.50 It has been claimed that shortening either of these durations has significant advantages in the prevention of infection. The average duration of mechanical ventilation was analysed in 20 studies and a significant reduction was demonstrated in only one of these (Table IIIGo).27 It is striking that this was not accompanied by a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia in this study. Furthermore, no significant difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation was found in any of the 11 studies in which there was a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table III. Durations of mechanical ventilation and stay in ICU, use of antibiotics and cost analysis of prospective randomized studies on SDD in ICU patients
 
The duration of the stay in the ICU was analysed in 25 studies (including 17 in which there was a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia) but a significant reduction was not found in any of these. Thus, despite the effect of SDD on the incidence of pneumonia, there is no indication that it shortens the duration of mechanical ventilation or the stay in the ICU.


    Use of antibiotics
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
A reduction in the use of antibiotics could also be a significant advantage of the prevention of infection. The use of antibiotics is probably the most important cause of the induction and selection of resistant microorganisms and thus creates a risk for the development of infections.

The systemic administration of antibiotics was analysed in 19 studies, including 13 in which SDD resulted in a significant decrease in the incidence of pneumonia (Table IIIGo). There was little consistency in how the use of antibiotics was analysed in the various studies. Three studies calculated the average number of days for which patients were receiving antibiotics (excluding the systemic prophylaxis given as part of SDD), five the average number of days of antibiotic therapy per patient, and eight the percentage of patients on antibiotics. In two studies,16,22 the use of antibiotics was not further specified, and in one study35 the number of antibiotic episodes per patient was calculated. Significant reductions in the numbers of patients given systemic antibiotics were found in six studies.13,18,23,26,28,29 It should be pointed out, however, that the systemic prophylaxis given as part of the SDD in three of these studies13,26,28 was not taken into consideration in the analysis. In two studies12,27 the average number of days of antibiotic therapy per patient was lower in patients receiving SDD, but in one of these27 there was no significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia. Finally, a reduction in the number of episodes of antibiotic treatment per patient was seen in one study.35 In conclusion, the use of SDD resulted in a reduction in the systemic administration of antibiotics in nine of 19 studies, but the systemic component of SDD was not taken into consideration in three of these nine and in one of the nine the reduction in antibiotic use was not accompanied by a reduction in the incidence of pneumonia.


    Cost-effectiveness
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
The cost-effectiveness of SDD has never been analysed formally. In a number of studies the costs of the antibiotics were compared, although in a number of different ways (Table IIIGo). An important variable is the cost of prophylaxis. There are large differences from study to study in the costs of the non-absorbable antimicrobial agents, which varied from $70 (PTA + vancomycin)17 and $66.50 (PTA)16 to less than $6 (PTA)13,18,23,28 per patient/day. The most complete cost-analyses have been carried out by Sanchez-Garcia et al.13 and Korinek et al.17 Both studies demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia together with a non-significant reduction in the total costs. Two other studies18,23 showed a significant reduction in the costs for antibiotics; here, SDD reduced the incidence of pneumonia by 46% and 48%, the number of patients given systemic therapy by 64% and 49%, and the total costs for antibiotics by 58% and 44%, respectively. In six other studies, SDD was not accompanied by a reduction in the costs of antibiotics and, in some cases,10,16,19 the costs were significantly higher. In five of these studies there was also no reduction in the incidence of pneumonia. It is striking that the costs of the cultures taken for monitoring purposes were taken into consideration in only one study.13

Although a significant cost reduction was shown in two studies,18,23 this effect was not confirmed in other studies. In three studies the costs were increased. Thus, based on the data available, it is not possible to conclude that SDD is cost-effective.


    Antibiotic resistance
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
None of the 27 studies reported the occurrence of superinfections or colonization with microorganisms that had acquired resistance to the antimicrobial agents used. However, this does not indicate that the use of SDD, if applied on a large scale, would not lead eventually to the development of resistance. Clinical experience with the use of antibiotics during the past 50 years has shown that resistance will develop to any antibiotic, whether administered orally, parenterally, topically or by aerosol. The view that ‘there is a fundamental difference’, for the development of resistance, ‘between the conventional use of exclusively parenteral agents and the complete four-component SDD protocol’7 is not based on scientific evidence.

What has been demonstrated is that SDD leads to an ecological shift in the microbial flora with an overgrowth of microorganisms that were already intrinsically resistant or had already acquired resistance to one of the agents used. This could result from the fact that all of the schedules studied also affect the colonization resistance.5 Thus, the PTA regimen selects for colonization and infections with Gram-positive bacteria such as Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus epidermidis. It is generally assumed that these bacteria have low virulence, but they can lead to infections in seriously ill patients.5153 The greatest danger of SDD, on a worldwide scale, is the selection of MRSA. In an Austrian study,54 4.5 years of SDD, involving the use of ciprofloxacin, led to an increase in the number of MRSA from 17% to 81% and of ciprofloxacin-resistant S. aureus from 33% to 80%. In a Belgian study,8 the use of SDD (with PTA and cefotaxime or ofloxacin) was accompanied by an increased resistance of Gram-negative intestinal bacteria to tobramycin and ofloxacin, of P. aeruginosa to ofloxacin, and of S. aureus to methicillin. The number of infections caused by multi-resistant bacteria such as Acinetobacter spp. also seems to be increased by SDD.15

Studies carried out in France, Spain, South Africa and the USA, where colonization with multi-resistant pathogens is endemic in ICUs, have demonstrated the danger of SDD in these settings. The Dutch policy on antibiotics is restrictive and rational. Partly as a result of this and thanks to the active search for and isolation of patients with MRSA, the Dutch ICUs, together with those in the Scandinavian countries, are the only ones in which MRSA is not endemic.55


    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
SDD studies have had a significant effect on intensive-care medicine. Ever since the first publication in 1984,6 this new field of research has stimulated investigators all over the world. Partly as a result, there is now an increased understanding of the pathogenesis, diagnosis and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia and more insight has been obtained into the specific epidemiological aspects of nosocomial infections in the ICU.

In this paper, the pros and cons of the routine use of SDD in ICUs have been discussed. In units in which there is no endemic colonization by multi-resistant microorganisms, SDD results in a decrease in the number of diagnosed cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, it can be questioned whether the full SDD schedule is necessary for this. Several studies suggest that oropharyngeal decontamination is particularly important in preventing the pneumonias that develop after a number of days of mechanical ventilation. In patients in whom pneumonia develops in the first few days of mechanical ventilation, such as those with neurological trauma, even 1 day of systemic prophylaxis without local decontamination may be effective.56 In this case, antibiotic use should probably be regarded as early treatment rather than prophylaxis.

It is tempting to assume that a significant reduction in the incidence of pneumonia will be accompanied by decreases in the duration of mechanical ventilation and of the stay in the ICU, the use of antibiotics, costs and mortality. It has not been demonstrated, however, that these parameters are affected favourably. Individual studies have not demonstrated a decrease in mortality. The results of the various meta-analyses suggest that there may be an effect on mortality, but that large numbers of patients will have to be studied to demonstrate this in a statistically significant manner. The results of these SDD studies indicate an enormous discrepancy: the successful prevention of a feared infection seems to have hardly any effect on the secondary parameters. One can, therefore, question whether the diagnosis of pneumonia, even with the most specific techniques, is sufficiently accurate, whether the use of antibiotics in the ICU is determined by the number of infections demonstrated, and whether these infections, when treated appropriately, have any effect on the patient's prognosis.

At first glance, the results of the most recent metaanalyses seem to justify the use of SDD for preventing infection, but there are pitfalls in the interpretation of these data. The use of meta-analysis to provide answers to scientific questions, followed by the drawing of clinical conclusions, is highly controversial. Ideally, the results of a meta-analysis should be used to form a hypothesis and not to test one. As Borzak & Ridker have said,57 ‘Firm recommendations for treatment should not be based on even the most promising meta-analysis in the absence of well-designed studies of sufficient size to justify the same conclusion.’ As indicated earlier, a significant reduction in mortality was demonstrated in only one small SDD study (101 patients). However, the reduction in mortality in this study 12 was no less than 52%, much more than that in other studies. This study originally included 151 patients, of whom 50 were later excluded for various reasons. On the basis of the intention-to-treat, the reduction in mortality was 30% (95% CI –1% to 60%; P > 0.05).

The result of a meta-analysis depends, among other things, on the quality of the studies included. Although SDD is one of the most frequently studied interventions in ICUs, the quantity of research is no guarantee of comparable quality. Every study in an ICU has to cope with the heterogeneity of the patient population and, as indicated before, individual studies often involved small numbers of patients and were usually not double-blind, and the SDD schedules investigated were rather variable. Moreover, five of the 33 studies in one of the meta-analyses40 had not (then) been published: the results of one study were based on a ‘personal communication’, three studies had been presented only in abstract form and one study was still ‘in press’. It is unwise to include studies in a meta-analysis that have not passed the peer-review process. One of these studies, published only in the form of an abstract,58 had a major effect on the results of the subgroup analysis in which a significant effect on mortality was demonstrated.

All of these reasons warrant a critical attitude towards the results of meta-analyses. Statements such as ‘only 23 patients need be treated in order to prevent one death’7 or ‘the magnitude of survival benefit from this method is impressive’59 are not justified on the basis of the available data. Only a prospective, randomized, preferably double-blind study of sufficient size can determine whether SDD really reduces the mortality among ICU patients.

In the absence of clearly demonstrated advantages, it is necessary to take a critical look at the possible disadvantages of SDD. The use of antibiotics in any form, whether therapeutic or prophylactic, leads to selection of microorganisms that are resistant to the agents used and related agents. This is also true of SDD. For this reason, endemic colonization with multi-resistant bacteria is an absolute contraindication for the use of SDD. It is our opinion that, at present, the suggested advantages of SDD are outweighed by the potential disadvantages, especially in the long term. The routine use of SDD in ICU patients on mechanical ventilation is, therefore, not recommended.


    Acknowledgments
 
Consultants of the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy: P. H. van den Broek, University Hospital Leiden, Leiden; K. Bruining and I. Gyssens, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam; J. Degener, University Hospital Groningen, Groningen; S. van der Geest, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht; H. Goossens, University Hospital Antwerpen, Antwerpen, Belgium; R. de Groot, Sophia Kinderziekenhuis, Rotterdam; Y. A. Hekster and J. A. A. Hoogkamp-Korstanje, University Hospital St Radboud, Nijmegen; R. Janknegt, Maasland Hospital, Sittard; B. M. de Jongh, St Antonius Ziekenhuis, Nieuwegein; E. Kuijper and J. Prins, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam; W. Peetermans, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; B. van Klingeren, Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, Bilthoven; P. J. G. M. Rietra, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam; J. J. Roord and C. M. J. E. Vandenbroucke-Grauls, University Hospital, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam; G. Verschraegen, University Hospital Gent, Gent, Belgium; W. J. A. Wijnands, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer.


    Notes
 
* Correpondence address. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and AIDS, University Hospital Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands. Tel: +31-30-2506228; Fax: +31-30-2518328; E-mail: m.bonten{at}wxs.nl Back

{dagger} Consultants of the Dutch Working Party on Antibiotic Policy are listed in the Acknowledgements. Back


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 The studies
 Pneumonia
 Mortality
 Duration of mechanical...
 Use of antibiotics
 Cost-effectiveness
 Antibiotic resistance
 Discussion
 References
 
1 . Bonten, M. J., Gaillard, C. A., de Leeuw, P. W. & Stobberingh, E. E. (1997). Role of colonization of the upper intestinal tract in the pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clinical Infectious Diseases 24, 309–19.[ISI][Medline]

2 . Kollef, M. H. (1999). The prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 340, 627–34.[Free Full Text]

3 . van der Waaij, D., Berghuis-de Vries, J. M. & Lekkerkerk-van der Wees, J. E. (1971). Colonization resistance of the digestive tract in conventional and antibiotic-treated mice. Journal of Hygiene 69, 405–11.[ISI][Medline]

4 . Sleijfer, D. T., Mulder, N. H., de Vries-Hospers, H. G., Fidler, V., Nieweg, H. O., van der Waaij, D. et al. (1980). Infection prevention in granulocytopenic patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. European Journal of Cancer 16, 859–69.[ISI][Medline]

5 . Vollaard, E. J. & Clasener, H. A. (1994). Colonization resistance. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 38, 409–14.[ISI][Medline]

6 . Stoutenbeek, C. P., van Saene, H. K., Miranda, D. R. & Zandstra, D. F. (1984). The effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on colonization and infection rate in multiple trauma patients. Intensive Care Medicine 10, 185–92.[ISI][Medline]

7 . Rommes, J. H., Zandstra, D. F. & van Saene, H. K. (1999). Selectieve darmdecontaminatie voorkomt sterfte bij intensive-carepatiënten. [Selective decontamination of the digestive tract reduces mortality in intensive care patients.] Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskdunde 143, 602–6.

8 . Verwaest, C., Verhaegen, J., Ferdinande, P., Schetz, M., van den Berghe, G., Verbist, L. et al. (1997). Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine 25, 63–71.[ISI][Medline]

9 . Kerver, A. J., Rommes, J. H., Mevissen-Verhage, E. A., Hulstaert, P. F., Vos, A., Verhoef, J. et al. (1988). Prevention of colonization and infection in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized study. Critical Care Medicine 16, 1087–93.[ISI][Medline]

10 . Lingnau, W., Berger, J., Javorsky, F., Lejeune, P., Mutz, N. & Benzer, H. (1997). Selective intestinal decontamination in multiple trauma patients: prospective, controlled trial. Journal of Trauma 42, 687–94.[ISI][Medline]

11 . Rodriguez-Roldan, J. M., Altuna-Cuesta, A., Lopez, A., Carrillo, A., Garcia, J., Lean, J. et al. (1990). Prevention of nosocomial lung infection in ventilated patients: use of an antimicrobial pharyngeal nonabsorbable paste. Critical Care Medicine 18, 1239–42.[ISI][Medline]

12 . Rocha, L. A., Martin, M. J., Pita, S., Paz, J., Seco, C., Margusino, L. et al. (1992). Prevention of nosocomial infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. Intensive Care Medicine 18, 398–404.[ISI][Medline]

13 . Sanchez Garcia, M., Cambronero Galache, J. A., Lopez Diaz, J., Cerda Cerda, E., Rubio Blasco, J., Gomez Aguinaga, M. A. et al. (1998). Effectiveness and cost of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in critically ill intubated patients. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 158, 908–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

14 . Ferrer, M., Torres, A., Gonzalez, J., Puig de la Bellacasa, J., El-Ebiary, M., Roca, M. et al. (1994). Utility of selective digestive decontamination in mechanically ventilated patients. Annals of Internal Medicine 120, 389–95.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

15 . Hammond, J. M., Potgieter, P. D., Saunders, G. L. & Forder, A. A. (1992). Double-blind study of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care. Lancet 340, 5–9.[ISI][Medline]

16 . Gastinne, H., Wolff, M., Delatour, F., Faurisson, F. & Chevret, S. (1992). A controlled trial in intensive care units of selective decontamination of the digestive tract with nonabsorbable antibiotics. New England Journal of Medicine 326, 594–9.[Abstract]

17 . Korinek, A. M., Laisne, M. J., Nicolas, M. H., Raskine, L., Deroin, V. & Sanson-Lepors, M. J. (1993). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in neurosurgical intensive care unit patients: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Critical Care Medicine 21, 1466–73.[ISI][Medline]

18 . Quinio, B., Albanese, J., Bues-Charbit, M., Viviand, X. & Martin, C. (1996). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in multiple trauma patients. A prospective double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Chest 109, 765–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

19 . Wiener, J., Itokazu, G., Nathan, C., Kabins, S. A. & Weinstein, R. A. (1995). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of selective decontamination in a medical-surgical intensive care unit. Clinical Infectious Diseases 20, 861–7.[ISI][Medline]

20 . Laggner, A. N., Tryba, M., Georgopoulos, A., Lenz, K., Grimm, G., Graninger, W. et al. (1994). Oropharyngeal decontamination with gentamicin for long-term ventilated patients on stress ulcer prophylaxis with sucralfate. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift 106, 15–9.[ISI][Medline]

21 . Pugin, J., Auckenthaler, R., Lew, D. P. & Suter, P. M. (1991). Oropharyngeal decontamination decreases incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 265, 2704–10.[Abstract]

22 . Cerra, F. B., Maddaus, M. A., Dunn, D. L., Wells, C. L., Konstantinides, N. N., Lehmann, S. L. et al. (1994). Selective gut decontamination reduces nosocomial infections and length of stay but not mortality or organ failure in surgical intensive care unit patients. Archives of Surgery 127, 163–9.

23 . Langlois-Karaga, A., Bues-Charbit, M., Davignon, A., Albanese, J., Durbec, O., Martin, C. et al. (1995). Selective digestive decontamination in multiple trauma patients: cost and efficacy. Pharmacy World and Science 17, 12–6.[Medline]

24 . Ulrich, C., Harinck-de Weerd, J. E., Bakker, N. C., Jacz, K., Doornbos, L. & de Ridder, V. A. (1989). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract with norfloxacin in the prevention of ICU-acquired infections: a prospective randomized study. Intensive Care Medicine 15, 424–31.[ISI][Medline]

25 . Winter, R., Humphreys, H., Pick, A., MacGowan, A. P., Willatts, S. M. & Speller, D. C. E. (1992). A controlled trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care and its effect on nosocomial infection. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 30, 73–87.[Abstract]

26 . Aerdts, S. J., van Dalen, R., Clasener, H. A., Festen, J., van Lier, H. J. & Vollaard, E. J. (1991). Antibiotic prophylaxis of respiratory tract infection in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective, blinded, randomized trial of the effect of a novel regimen. Chest 100, 783–91.[Abstract]

27 . Cockerill, F. R., III, Muller, S. R., Anhalt, J. P., Marsh, H. M., Farnell, M. B., Mucha, P. et al. (1992). Prevention of infection in critically ill patients by selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Annals of Internal Medicine 117, 545–53.[ISI][Medline]

28 . Abele-Horn, M., Dauber, A., Bauernfeind, A., Russwurm, M., Seyfarth-Metzger, I., Gleich, P. et al. (1997). Decrease in nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients by selective oropharyngeal decontamination. Intensive Care Medicine 23, 187–95.[ISI][Medline]

29 . Unertl, K., Ruckdeschel, G., Selbmann, H. K., Jensen, U., Forst, H., Lenhart, F. P. et al. (1987). Prevention of colonization and respiratory infections in long-term ventilated patients by local antimicrobial prophylaxis. Intensive Care Medicine 13, 106–13.[ISI][Medline]

30 . Blair, P., Rowlands, B. J., Lowry, K., Webb, H., Armstrong, P. & Smilie, J. (1991). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a stratified, randomized, prospective study in a mixed intensive care unit. Surgery 110, 303–10.[ISI][Medline]

31 . Jacobs, S., Foweraker, J. E. & Roberts, S. E. (1992). Effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in an ICU with a policy encouraging a low gastric pH. Clinical Intensive Care 3, 52–8.

32 . Palomar, M., Alvarez-Lerma, F., Jorda, R. & Bermejo, B. (1997). Prevention of nosocomial infection in mechanically ventilated patients: selective digestive decontamination versus sucralfate. Clinical Intensive Care 8, 228–35.

33 . Brun-Buisson, C., Legrand, P., Rauss, A., Richard, C., Montravers, F., Besbes, M. et al. (1989). Intestinal decontamination for control of nosocomial multiresistant gram-negative bacilli: study of an outbreak in an intensive care unit. Annals of Internal Medicine 110, 873–81.[ISI][Medline]

34 . Gaussorgues, P., Salord, F., Sirodot, M., Tigaud, S., Cagnin, S., Gerard, M. et al. (1991). Efficacité de la décontamination digestive sur la survenue des bactériémies nosocomiales chez les patients sous ventilation mécanique et recevant des betamimétiques. Réanimation Soins Intensif Médecine d'Urgence 7, 169–74.

35 . Bergmans, D. C. (1999). Ventilator-associated pneumonia: studies on pathogenesis, diagnosis and prevention. Dissertation. University of Maastricht.

36 . Vandenbroucke-Grauls, C. M. & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (1991). Effect of selective decontamination of the digestive tract on respiratory tract infections and mortality in the intensive care unit. Lancet 338, 859–62.[ISI][Medline]

37 . Selective Decontamination of the Digestive Tract Trialists Collaborative Group. (1993). Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of selective decontamination of the digestive tract. British Medical Journal 307, 525–32.[ISI][Medline]

38 . Heyland, D. K., Cook, D. J., Jaeschke, R., Griffith, L., Lee, H. N. & Guyatt, G. H. (1994). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract: an overview. Chest 105, 1221–9.[ISI][Medline]

39 . Nathens, A. B. & Marshall, J. C. (1999). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in surgical patients. A systemic review of the evidence. Archives of Surgery 134, 170–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

40 . D'Amico, R., Pifferi, S., Leonetti, C., Torri, V., Tinazzi, A. & Liberati, A. (1998). Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systemic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal 316, 1275–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

41 . Kollef, M. H. (1994). The role of selective digestive tract decontamination on mortality and respiratory tract infections: a metaanalysis. Chest 105, 1101–8.[Abstract]

42 . Jaeschke, R., Guyatt, G., Shannon, H., Walter, S., Cook, D. & Heddle, N. (1995). Basic statistics for clinicians: 3. Assessing the effects of treatment measures of association. Canadian Medical Association Journal 152, 351–7.[Abstract]

43 . Pingleton, S. K., Fagon, J. Y. & Leeper, K. V. (1992). Patient selection for clinical investigation of ventilator-associated pneumonia: criteria for evaluating diagnostic techniques. Chest 102, Suppl. 1, 553S–6S.[Medline]

44 . Bonten, M. J., Bergmans, D. C., Stobberingh, E. E., van der Geest, S., de Leeuw, P. W., van Tiel, F. H. et al. (1997). Implementation of bronchoscopic techniques in the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia to reduce antibiotic use. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 156, 1820–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

45 . Cook, D., Guyatt, G., Marshall, J., Leasa, D., Fuller, H., Hall, R. et al. (1998). A comparison of sucralfate and ranitidine for the prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. New England Journal of Medicine 338, 791–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

46 . Bonten, M. J., Froon, A. H., Gaillard, C. A., Greve, J. W., de Leeuw, P., Drent, M. et al. (1997). The systemic inflammatory response in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 156, 1105–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

47 . Papazian, L., Bregeon, F., Thirion, X., Gregoire, R., Saux, P., Denis, J. P. et al. (1996). Effect of ventilator-associated pneumonia on mortality and morbidity. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 154, 91–7.[Abstract]

48 . Rello, J., Jubert, P., Valles, J., Artigas, A., Rué, M. & Niederman, M. S. (1996). Evaluation of outcome for intubated patients with pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clinical Infectious Diseases 23, 973–8.[ISI][Medline]

49 . Monton, C., Torres, A., El-Ebiary, M., Filella, X., Xaubet, A. & Puig de la Bellacasa, J. (1999). Cytokine expression in severe pneumonia: a bronchoalveolar lavage study. Critical Care Medicine 27, 1745–53.[ISI][Medline]

50 . Cook, D. J., Walter, S. D., Cook, R. J., Griffith, L. E., Guyatt, G. H., Leasa, D. et al. (1998). Incidence of and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Annals of Internal Medicine 129, 433–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

51 . Bonten, M. J., Gaillard, C. A., van Tiel, F. H., van der Geest, S. & Stobberingh, E. E. (1995). Colonization and infection with Enterococcus faecalis in intensive care units: the role of antimicrobial agents. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 39, 2783–6.[Abstract]

52 . Kaufhold, A., Behrendt, W., Krauss, T. & van Saene, H. K. (1992). Selective decontamination of the digestive tract and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Lancet 339, 1411–2.[ISI][Medline]

53 . Sijpkens, Y. W., Buurke, E. J., Ulrich, C. & van Asselt, G. J. (1995). Enterococcus faecalis colonisation and endocarditis in five intensive care patients as late sequelae of selective decontamination. Intensive Care Medicine 21, 231–4.[ISI][Medline]

54 . Lingnau, W., Berger, J., Javorsky, F., Fille, M., Allerberger, F. & Benzer, H. (1998). Changing bacterial ecology during a five year period of selective intestinal decontamination. Journal of Hospital Infection 39, 195–206.[ISI][Medline]

55 . Ibelings, M. M. & Bruining, H. A. (1998). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: acquisition and risk of death in patients in the intensive care unit. European Journal of Surgery 164, 411–8.[ISI][Medline]

56 . Sirvent, J. M., Torres, A., El-Ebiary, M., Castro, P., de Batlle, J. & Bonet, A. (1997). Protective effect of intravenously administered cefuroxime against nosocomial pneumonia in patients with structural coma. American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine 155, 1729–34.[Abstract]

57 . Borzak, S. & Ridker, P. M. (1995). Discordance between meta-analyses and large-scale randomized, controlled trials. Examples from the management of acute myocardial infarction. Annals of Internal Medicine 123, 873–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

58 . Lenhart, F. P., Unertl, K., Neeser, G., Ruckdeschel, G., Eckart, J. & Peter, K. (1994). Selective decontamination and sucralfate for prevention of acquired infections in intensive care. In Program and Abstracts of the Thirty-fourth Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Orlando, FL, Abstract K101. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC.

59 . van Saene, H. K. & Baines, P. B. (1999). The prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 341, 293–4.[Free Full Text]

Received 20 December 1999; returned 3 February 2000; revised 21 March 2000; accepted 10 April 2000