Prevention of Infections in Cardiac Surgery study (PICS): study protocol for a pragmatic cluster-randomized factorial crossover pilot trial

Rachel B van Oostveen, Alberto Romero-Palacios, Richard Whitlock, Shun Fu Lee, Stuart Connolly, Alex Carignan, C David Mazer, Mark Loeb, Dominik Mertz, Rachel B van Oostveen, Alberto Romero-Palacios, Richard Whitlock, Shun Fu Lee, Stuart Connolly, Alex Carignan, C David Mazer, Mark Loeb, Dominik Mertz

Abstract

Background: A wide range of prophylactic antibiotic regimens are used for patients undergoing open-heart cardiac surgery. This reflects clinical equipoise in choice and duration of antibiotic agents. Although individual-level randomized control trials (RCT) are considered the gold standard when evaluating the efficacy of an intervention, this approach is highly resource intensive and a cluster RCT can be more appropriate for testing clinical effectiveness in a real-world setting.

Methods/design: We are conducting a factorial cluster-randomized crossover pilot trial in cardiac surgery patients to evaluate the feasibility of this design for a definite trial to evaluate the optimal duration and choice of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. Specifically, we will evaluate: (a) the non-inferiority of a single preoperative dose compared to prolonged prophylaxis and (b) the potential superiority of adding vancomycin to routine cefazolin in terms of preventing deep and organ/space sternal surgical site infections (s-SSIs). There are four strategies: (i) short-term cefazolin, (ii) long-term cefazolin, (iii) short-term cefazolin + vancomycin, and (iv) long-term cefazolin + vancomycin. These strategies are delivered in a different order in each health-care center participating in the trial. The centers are randomized to an order, and the current strategy becomes the standard operating procedure in that center during the study. The three feasibility outcomes include: (1) the proportion of patients receiving preoperative, intra-operative, and postoperative antibiotics according to the study protocol, (2) the proportion of completed follow-up assessments, and (3) a full and final assessment of the incidence of s-SSIs by the outcome adjudication committee.

Discussion: We believe that a cluster-randomized factorial crossover trial is an effective and feasible design for these research questions, allowing an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness in a real-world setting. A waiver of individual informed consent was considered appropriate by the research ethics boards in each participating site in Canada as long as an information letter with an opt-out option was provided. However, a waiver of consent was not approved at two sites in Germany and Switzerland, respectively.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02285140 . Registered on 15 October 2015.

Keywords: antibiotic prophylaxis; cardiac surgery; cluster crossover trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was granted by the principal investigator’s research ethics board for Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON (REB#15–129) and was subsequently approved by the local research ethic boards at the two other study sites (Sherbrooke University, Sherbrooke, QC, and St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
SPIRIT figure. *t1-t4: four study arms, order of the study arms for each study site allocated at timepoint ‘0’. **Exclusion criteria applied upon data collection. ***Data collection at least 90 days after surgery

References

    1. Adult Cardiac Surgery Database: Executive Summary. [Internet]. 2017. Available from: . Accessed 5 Dec 2018.
    1. Edwards FH, Engelman RM, Houck P, Shahian DM, Bridges CR, Surgeons SoT The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Practice Guideline Series: Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Cardiac Surgery, Part I: Duration. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81(1):397–404. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.06.034.
    1. Saginur R, Croteau D, Bergeron MG. Comparative efficacy of teicoplanin and cefazolin for cardiac operation prophylaxis in 3027 patients. The ESPRIT Group. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120(6):1120–1130. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2000.110384.
    1. Gupta A, Hote MP, Choudhury M, Kapil A, Bisoi AK. Comparison of 48 h and 72 h of prophylactic antibiotic therapy in adult cardiac surgery: a randomized double blind controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(5):1036–1041. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkq080.
    1. Engelman R, Shahian D, Shemin R, Guy TS, Bratzler D, Edwards F, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons practice guideline series: Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery, part II: Antibiotic choice. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83(4):1569–1576. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.09.046.
    1. ASHP Therapeutic Guidelines on Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery American Society of Health-System Pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999;56(18):1839–1888.
    1. Bratzler DW, Dellinger EP, Olsen KM, Perl TM, Auwaerter PG, Bolon MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2013;70(3):195–283. doi: 10.2146/ajhp120568.
    1. Gilber DN. Sanford guide to antimicrobial therapy 2011 / editors: David N. Gilbert, M.D., Henry F. Chambers, M.D., George M. Eliopoulos, M.D., Michael S. Saag, M.D., Andrew T. Pavia, M.D.; 2011.
    1. Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, Edwards FH, Ewy GA, Gardner TJ, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Circulation. 2004;110(14):e340–e437.
    1. Alexiou VG, Ierodiakonou V, Peppas G, Falagas ME. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: an international survey. Surg Infect. 2010;11(4):343–348. doi: 10.1089/sur.2009.023.
    1. Mertz D, Johnstone J, Loeb M. Does duration of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis matter in cardiac surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(1):48–54. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318214b7e4.
    1. Lador A, Nasir H, Mansur N, Sharoni E, Biderman P, Leibovici L, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67(3):541–550. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkr470.
    1. Poeran J, Wasserman I, Zubizarreta N, Mazumdar M. Characteristics of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Risk of Surgical Site Infections in Open Colectomies. Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(8):733–742. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000633.
    1. Hsiue PP, Gregson AL, Injean P, Vangala S, Brindis RG, Shemin RJ, et al. Variation in antibiotic prophylaxis selection for coronary artery bypass graft procedures in an era of increasing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus prevalence. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(6):737–740. doi: 10.1086/676436.
    1. Branch-Elliman W, Ripollone JE, O’Brien WJ, Itani KMF, Schweizer ML, Perencevich E, et al. Risk of surgical site infection, acute kidney injury, and Clostridium difficile infection following antibiotic prophylaxis with vancomycin plus a beta-lactam versus either drug alone: A national propensity-score-adjusted retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2017;14(7):e1002340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002340.
    1. Bolon MK, Morlote M, Weber SG, Koplan B, Carmeli Y, Wright SB. Glycopeptides are no more effective than beta-lactam agents for prevention of surgical site infection after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38(10):1357–1363. doi: 10.1086/383318.
    1. Finkelstein R, Rabino G, Mashiah T, Bar-El Y, Adler Z, Kertzman V, et al. Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(2):326–332. doi: 10.1067/mtc.2002.119698.
    1. Walsh EE, Greene L, Kirshner R. Sustained reduction in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus wound infections after cardiothoracic surgery. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(1):68–73.
    1. Garey KW, Lai D, Dao-Tran TK, Gentry LO, Hwang LY, Davis BR. Interrupted time series analysis of vancomycin compared to cefuroxime for surgical prophylaxis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(2):446–451. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00495-07.
    1. Schweizer M, Perencevich E, McDanel J, Carson J, Formanek M, Hafner J, et al. Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2743. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2743.
    1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC/NHSN): Surveillance Definitions for Specific Types of Infections. . Accessed 5 Dec 2018.
    1. Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Donner A. Sample size calculation for cluster randomized cross-over trials. Stat Med. 2008;27(27):5578–5585. doi: 10.1002/sim.3383.
    1. Connolly SJ, Philippon F, Longtin Y, Casanova A, Birnie DH, Exner DV, et al. Randomized cluster crossover trials for reliable, efficient, comparative effectiveness testing: design of the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) Can J Cardiol. 2013;29(6):652–658. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2013.01.020.
    1. Turner RM, White IR, Croudace T, Group PS Analysis of cluster randomized cross-over trial data: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 2007;26(2):274–289. doi: 10.1002/sim.2537.
    1. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, Jones DS. Assessing the Gold Standard–Lessons from the History of RCTs. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2175–2181. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1604593.
    1. Sox HC, Lewis RJ. Pragmatic Trials: Practical Answers to “Real World” Questions. JAMA. 2016;316(11):1205–1206. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.11409.
    1. Taljaard M, Weijer C, Grimshaw JM, Belle Brown J, Binik A, Boruch R, et al. Ethical and policy issues in cluster randomized trials: rationale and design of a mixed methods research study. Trials. 2009;10:61. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-61.
    1. Collins LM, Dziak JJ, Kugler KC, Trail JB. Factorial experiments: efficient tools for evaluation of intervention components. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(4):498–504. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.021.
    1. Collins LM, Baker TB, Mermelstein RJ, Piper ME, Jorenby DE, Smith SS, et al. The multiphase optimization strategy for engineering effective tobacco use interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2011;41(2):208–226. doi: 10.1007/s12160-010-9253-x.
    1. Tri-Council Policy Statement. Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 2014. [Available from: .
    1. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office for Human Research Protection. Attachment D: Informed Consent and Waiver of Consent 2013 [Available from: . Accessed 5 Dec 2018.
    1. Harbarth S, Samore MH, Lichtenberg D, Carmeli Y. Prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis after cardiovascular surgery and its effect on surgical site infections and antimicrobial resistance. Circulation. 2000;101(25):2916–2921. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.25.2916.
    1. McKinney RE, Beskow LM, Ford DE, Lantos JD, McCall J, Patrick-Lake B, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):494–502. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597688.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する