Evidence Hub

Antibiotic sensitivity in correlation to the origin of secondary peritonitis: a single center analysis

Grotelüschen R, Heidelmann LM, Lütgehetmann M, Melling N, Reeh M, Ghadban T, Dupree A, Izbicki JR et al.

Scientific reports, 2020

414 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Despite improvements in diagnosis, intensive-care medicine and surgical technique, the mortality of patients with secondary peritonitis is still high. Early and aggressive empiric antibiotic treatment has strong impact on the outcome. This retrospective study investigates bacterial and fungal pathogens and their antibiotic sensitivity in patients with secondary peritonitis. All patients that underwent emergency laparotomy due to secondary peritonitis at the Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf between 2005 and 2015 were reviewed and overall 414 patients were included. We correlated the intra-abdominal localization of the organ perforation with intraoperative microbiological findings and corresponding sensitivities to relevant antibiotics. Overall, the most common findings were Escherichia coli (39%) and other Enterobacterica (24%). Depending on the location of the perforation, Cefuroxime/Metronidazole and Cefutaxime/Metronidazole were effective (based on in vitro susceptibility testing) in only 55-73% of the patients, while Meropenem/Vancomycin was able to control the peritonitis in more than 98% of the patients; independent of the location. Besides early source control, appropriate empiric treatment plays a pivotal role in treatment of secondary peritonitis. We are able to show that the frequently used combinations of second or third generation Cephalosporins with Metronidazole are not always sufficient, which is due to the biological…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 414 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free