Selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal
decontamination (SOD) are among the few interventions in intensive care medicine that
have been shown to improve patient survival, but their use is limited to a minority
of European intensive care units (ICUs) (Tables 1, 2) [1].
Table 1
Large studies comparing SDD and SOD
References
Design
Results
Comments
Krueger [2]
Single centre, 2 ICUs (Tübingen University Hospital) 30 months. Placebo-randomized
standard care (SC) or SDD
ICU mortality
APACHE II ≤ 19
APACHE II 20–29
APACHE II ≥ 29
SDD lowered ICU mortality
SC
23/121 (19 %)
20/122 (16.4 %)
15/23 (62.5 %)
SDD
17/120 (14.2 %)
38/115 (33.0 %)
14/26 (53.8 %)
RR (95 % CI)
0.885 (0.472–1.659)
0.508 (0.295–0.875)
1.593 (0.767–3.306)
Infections
Pneumonia
Bloodstream
Urinary tract
SDD decreased nosocomial infections
SC
29 (11.1)
36 (13.7)
60 (22.9)
SDD
6 (2.3)
14 (5.3)
36 (13.6)
RR (95 % CI)
0.205 (0.072–0.587)
0.384 (0.176–0.836)
0.593 (0.357–0.985)
de Jonge et al. [3]
Single centre (AMC, Amsterdam) 9/1999–12/2001
ICU mortality
Hospital mortality
SDD lowered ICU and hospital mortality
SC
107/468 (22.9 %)
SC
146/468 (31.2 %)
SDD
69/466 (14.8 %)
SDD
113/466 (24.2 %)
RR (95 % CI)
0.65 (0.49–0.85)
RR (95 % CI):
0.78 (0.63–0.99)
Acquisition of resistance by Gram-negative pathogens
SDD decreased colonizationby Gram-negative pathogens
SC
104 (26 %)
SDD
61 (16 %)
RR (95 % CI)
0.61 (0.46–0.81)
de Smet et al. [4]
13 Dutch ICUs cluster-randomized to SC, SDD and SOD. 05/2004–07/2006 5939 ICU patients
ICU mortality
Hospital mortality:
SDD lowered ICU and hospital mortality
SC: 443/1990 (22.3 %)
632/1990 (31.8 %)
SDD: 440/2045 (21.5 %)
OR 0.81 (0.69–0.94)
665/2045 (32.6 %)
OR 0.88 (0.76–1.01)
SOD: 416/1904 (21.8 %)
OR 0.87 (0.74–1.02)
584/1904 (30.7 %)
OR 0.85 (0.74–0.98)
Bacteremia (any)b
SDD > SOD decreased bacteremia
SC: 186/1990 (9.3 %)
SDD: 88/2045 (4.3 %)
OR 0.44 (0.34–0.57)
SOD: 124/1904 (6.5 %)
OR 0.68 (0.53–0.86)
SDD vs SOD
OR 0.65 (0.49–0.85)
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria: Global decrease of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in
rectal samples and respiratory samples in SDD recipients in point-prevalence surveys
performed in 6–8 % of patients
SDD decreased colonization
Oostdijk et al. [5]
16 ICUs randomized to 12 months SDD and 12 months SOD or the opposite 08/2009–01/2011
ICU mortality
Hospital mortality
SDD = SOD mortality
SOD: 1165/5881 (19.8 %)
1625/5881 (27.6 %)
SDD: 1138/6116 (18.6 %)
OR 0.96 (0.86–1.05)
1929/6116 (26.6 %)
OR 0.99 (0.90–1.08)
ICU-acquired bacteremia
SDD > SOD decreased bacteremia
SOD: 319/5442 (5.9 %)
SDD: 253/5549 (4.6 %)
OR 0.77 (0.65–0.91)
Monthly acquisition of rectal carriage of aminoglycoside-resistant bacteria
SDD > SOD acquisition of aminoglycoside resistance carriage
SOD: 4 %
SDD: 7 %
P = 0.046
SDD Selective decontamination of the digestive tract. The SDD regimen consists of
4 days of intravenous cefotaxime, the oropharyngeal application (every 6 h) of a paste
containing colistin, tobramycin, and amphotericin B, each in a 2 % concentration,
and the administration (every 6 h) of a 10-mL suspension containing colistin (100 mg),
tobramycin (80 mg as sulfate), and amphotericin B (500 mg) via a nasogastric tube.
Topical antibiotics are applied until ICU discharge (Oostdijk EAN et al. JAMA 2014;312:1427–1431).
SOD: selective oropharyngeal decontamination. The SOD regimen consists of only the
oropharyngeal application (every 6 h) of the paste described above (Oostdijk EAN et
al. JAMA 2014;312:1427–1431). During SOD, application of oropharyngeal paste is increased
to eight times daily if the first surveillance culture of the throat yields yeasts,
until two consecutive surveillance cultures are negative. There are no restrictions
in physicians’ choices of systemic antibiotic therapy
APACHE II acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score, ICU intensive care
unit, SC standard care, OR odds ratio, RR relative risk, vs versus, 95 % CI 95 % confidence
intervals
aDuring SDD, several adaptations are possible: (1) application of oropharyngeal paste
is increased to 8 times daily if the first surveillance culture of the throat yields
yeasts, until two surveillance cultures are negative; (2) 5 ml (5 mg) amphotericin
B is nebulized 4 times daily if a sputum surveillance culture (not admission culture)
yields yeasts, until two sputum cultures become negative; (3) 5 ml (80 mg) colistin
is nebulized 4 times daily if a sputum surveillance culture (not admission culture)
yields Gram-negative bacteria, until two sputum cultures are negative
bDuring SDD, it is recommended to avoid antibiotics that have anaerobic activity as
much as possible so as to leave the anaerobic flora undisturbed and preserve the so-called
colonization resistance. The “to be avoided” antibiotics are penicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic
acid, flucloxacillin, piperacilline ± tazobactam, carbapenem, clindamycin. Metronidazole
is the antibiotic of choice when the coverage of anaerobics is intended for clinical
reasons
Table 2
Post hoc analyses and secondary studies on SDD and SOD
References
Design
Main results
Comments
de Smet et al. [6]
2 centres among 13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009)
Post-ICU rate of nosocomial infection (/1000 days at-risk)
No impact of SDD/SOD on post-ICU infection rates
SC: 8.3
SOD: 11.2
RR 1.44 (0.87–2.39)
SDD: 12.9
RR 1.49 (0.90–2.47)
Oostdijk et al. [7]
13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) Samples from 6 point-prevalence surveys before, during and
after SDD/SOD
Respiratory samples (n = 2304):
Pre-intervention
Intervention
Post-intervention
SDD/SOD decreased resistance in respiratory and rectal samples, followed by a rebound
effect after stopping it
Ceftazidime-resistant
10 % (7.6–13.3 %)
4 % (2.6–4.6 %)
10 % (7.4–13.0 %)
Tobramycin-resistant
10 % (6.9–12.5 %)
6 % (4.5–6.9 %)
12 % (8.8–14.6 %)
Ciprofloxacin-resistant
14 % (10.4–17.0 %)
5 % (3.5–5.7 %)
12 % (9.0–14.9 %)
Rectal samples (n = 2963)
Pre-intervention
Intervention
Post-intervention
Ceftazidime-resistant
6 % (4.7–7.5 %)
5 % (3.9–6.7 %)
15 % (12.4–17.0 %)
Tobramycin-resistant
9 % (7.7–11.2 %)
7 % (5.5–8.7 %)
13 % (10.4–14.7 %)
Ciprofloxacin-resistant
12 % (9.7–13.5 %)
7 % (5.1–8.2 %)
13 % (10.8–15.2 %)
Benus et al. [8]
1 of 13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) Fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis of the intestinal
microbiota
Total number of bacteria cultured from the faeces
SDD/SOD reduced the bacterial count of the faeces
SC: (21 out of 121 patients): 3.7 × 109 (2.2–6.2)
SOD: (19 out of 111 patients): 1.6 × 109 (0.8–3.4)
SDD: (19 put of 86 patients): 1.9 × 109 (0.9–4.3)
Enterococcus faecalis
Enterococcus faecium
F. prausnitzii
SDD/SOD significanty increased enterococci
SC:
2.6 × 106
6.3 × 106
5.5 × 107
SOD
7.6 × 106
P < 0.05
9.8 × 106
NS
4.0 × 107
NS
SDD
69 × 106
P < 0.05
54 × 106
P < 0.05
0.1 × 107
P < 0.05
Oostdijk et al. [9]
13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) and 1 ICU (UMC Utrecht: 08/2008–08/2010)
Cumulative rate of bacteremia according to respiratory colonization status:
SDD decreased bacteremia only in patients successfully decolonized
SC: 4.5/1000 patient-days
SOD: 3.0/1000 patient-days
SDD: 3.0/1000 patient-days in patients remaining colonized by enterobacteriae
SDD: 1.0/1000 patient-days in patients successfully decolonized
de Smet et al. [10]
13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) Rate of bacteremia and respiratory tract acquisition of
microorganisms in patients staying >3 days
Any bacteremia (except Coagulase-negative
Bacteremia with highly-resistant Staphylococci) microorganisms
SDD > SOD decreased bacteremia
SC: 239/1837 (13 %)
19/1837 (0.10 %)
SOD: 158/1758 (9 %)
OR: 0.66 (0.53–0.82) NNT: 25
20/1758 (1.03 %)
NS
SDD: 124/1868 (7 %)
OR: 0.48 (0.38–0.60) NNT: 16
8/1868 (0.04 %)
OR:0.41 (0.18–0.94) NNT:170
Respiratory tract acquisition of any microorganisms
Of highly-resistant microorganisms
SDD > SOD decreased respiratory colonization
SC: 867/881 (98 %)
128/881 (15 %)
SOD: 862/886 (97 %)
NS
88/886 (10 %)
OR: 0.65 (0.49–0.87) NNT: 22
SDD: 800/828 (97 %)
OR: 0.46 (0.24–0.88)
74/828 (9 %)
OR: 0.58 (0.43–0.78) NNT: 18
Respiratory tract acquisition of Enterococcus spp
Of Candida spp
SDD > SOD increased respiratory colonization by enterococci Candida spp and Psedomonas
aeruginosa
SC: 37/881 (4 %)
393/881 (45 %)
SOD: 32/886 (3 %)
NS
476/886 (53 %)
OR: 1.44 (1.20–1.74)
SDD: 93/828 (11 %)
OR: 2.89 (1.95–4.29)
465/828 (56 %)
OR: 1.59 (1.31–1.93)
Respiratory tract acquisition of tobramycin-resistant non-fermenting Gram-negative
pathogens (such as P. aeruginosa)
SC: 18/881 (2 %)
SOD: 20/886 (2 %)
NS
SDD: 49/828 (6 %)
OR: 3.02 (1.74–5.20)
Oostdijk et al. [11]
13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) Patients receiving SDD with rectal sampling and 1 single
centre cohort; UMC Utrecht 01/2008–08/2009
Proportion of successful decontamination under SDD
SDD less successfully decolonized the digestive tract from resistant microorganisms
Patients with digestive enterobacteriaceae at ICU admission
399/507 (79 %)
Patients with cephalosporin-susceptible microorganisms
343/430 (80 %)
Patients with cephalosporin-resistant microorganisms
56/77 (73 %)
P < 005
Patients with aminoglycoside-susceptible microorganisms
368/457 (81 %)
Patients with aminoglycoside-resistant microorganisms
31/50 (62 %)
P < 0.05
Patients with any resistant microorganism at ICU entry
23/109 (21 %)
Patients with any resistant microorganism at ICU discharge
24/109 (22 %)
NS
Melsen et al. [12]
13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) post hoc analysis of surgical (n = 2762) versus non-surgical
(n = 3165) patients
28-day mortality in surgical patients
28-day mortality in non-surgical patients
SDD decreased mortality in non-surgical patients
SC: 209/973 (21.6 %)
335/1016 (33.2 %)
SOD: 194/866 (22.6 %)
OR: 0.97 (0.77–1.22)
308/1038 (30.0 %)
OR: 0.77 (0.63–0·94)
SDD: 191/923 (20.8 %)
OR: 0.86 (0.69–1.09)
349/1111 (31.7 %)
OR: 0.85 (0.70–1·03)
Bacteremia in surgical patients
Bacteremia in non-surgical patients
SDD/SOD decreased bacteremia in all patients
SC: 86/973 (8.8 %)
84/1016 (8.3 %)
SOD: 50/866 (5.8 %)
P < 0.05
60/1038 (5.8 %)
P < 0.05
SDD: 39/923 (4.2 %)
P < 0.05
41/1111 (3.7 %)
P < 0.05
Oostdijk et al. [13]
9 of 13 Dutch ICUs (NEJM 2009) with colistin susceptibility testing
Colistin susceptibility testing (n = 1022 patients)
Medium-term (24 months) acquisition of colistin-resistance
Acquisition of rectal colistin-resistant microorganisms
2.4 (2.5–4.2)/1000 patient-days
Evolution from colistin-susceptible to colistin-resistant
1.7 % (1.0–2.7)
Wittekamp et al. [14]
5 of 13 Dutch ICUs participating in 2 large studies: I: SC, SOD-I, SDD-I (NEJM 2009)
1007 respiratory and 1093 rectal samples obtained from 1189 patients II: SOD-II, SDD-II
(JAMA 2014) 1755 respiratory and 1808 rectal samples obtained from 1865 patients
SC
SDD-I
SOD-I
SDD-II
SOD-II
Long-term SDD/SOD (over 7 years) decreased tobramycin resistance in rectal and respiratory
samples
Tobramycin resistance in rectal samples:
12.1 %
6.6 %1,2
14 %
4.2 %3,4
8 %5,6
1 SDD-I vs SC: RR 0.54 (0.34–0.87)
2 SDD-I vs SOD-I: RR 0.46 (0.29–0.72)
3 SDD-II vs SDD-I: RR 0.64 (0.40–1.04)
4 SDD-II vs SC: RR 0.35 (0.23–0.53)
5 SOD-II vs SOD-I: RR 0.56 (0.39–0.78)
6 SOD-II vs SC: RR 0.66 (0.47–0.95)
Tobramycin resistance in respiratory samples
10.9 %
6.7 %1
9.7 %
5.3 %2,3
4.5 %3,4
1 SDD-I vs SC: RR 0.61 (0.38–1.00)
2 SDD-II vs SC: RR 0.48 (0.32–0.73)
3 SOD-II vs SOD-I: RR 0.48 (0.30–0.76)
4 SOD-II vs SC: RR 0.42 (0.27–0.64)
Colistin resistance in rectal samples
2.7 %
2.8 %
1.2 %
1.7 %
1.1 %1
Long-term SDD/SOD (over 7 years) did not increase resistance to colistin
1 SOD-II vs SC: RR 0.41 (0.17–0.98)
Colistin resistance in respiratory samples
0.9 %
2.1 %
1.7 %
1.1 %
0.6 %
SDD selective decontamination of the digestive tract, SOD selective oropharyngeal
decontamination, SC standard care, NS not significant, APACHE II acute physiology
and chronic health evaluation II score, ICU intensive care unit, OR odds ratio, RR
relative risk, vs versus, 95 % CI 95 % confidence interval
In addition, when the microbiological data of patients receiving SDD or SOD were compared
with those receiving standard care, ICU-acquired bacteremia was significantly reduced
for Staphylococcus aureus, glucose-non-fermenting Gram-negative rods, and Enterobacteriaceae
[4], In particular, the use of SDD was associated with a lower incidence of acquired
bacteremia with Enterobacteriaceae. Similarly, ICU-acquired candidemia was lower in
the SDD group than in the SOD group or standard care group, but the difference was
not significant. These findings were confirmed in a recent study comparing SDD and
SOD on antibiotic resistance. The incidence of ICU-acquired bacteremia was also lower
for aminoglycoside-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in the SDD group [5]. Although
the survival rate of ICU patients remains similar in both studies, the lower incidence
of antibiotic resistance and nosocomial bacteremia as consistent findings are in favour
of SDD.
Common reasons for the reluctance to use SDD or SOD are related to only a few arguments
regularly mentioned in editorials and by expert opinion expressing the fear that their
use may promote antibiotic resistance and the possible increase of methicillin-resistant
S. aureus [15]. These can be summarized as follows:
The absence of emergence of resistance is against current microbiological concepts
and contradicts the worldwide pandemic of multidrug-resistant microorganisms demonstrated
to be directly related to the use of antibiotics. In a recent meta-analysis, no relation
was observed between the use of SDD and the development of antimicrobial resistance,
thus confirming earlier reports [16]. Recent studies have demonstrated similar findings
(Table 2). In a large study showing lower mortality with the use of SDD or SOD compared
with standard care, patients treated with SDD and SOD had a significantly lower incidence
of carriage and infections with antibiotic-resistant bacteria [4]. Moreover, when
compared with SOD, SDD was related with lower rectal carriage of antibiotic-resistant
Gram-negative bacteria [5]. By contrast, the continuous application of antibiotics
included in the paste, as well as the aerosolized colistin applied in the case of
emergence of Gram-negative bacilli in the respiratory samples, may largely contribute
to the absence of the documented emergence of resistance (footnote Table 1).
One of the main reasons of bacterial resistance to antibiotics is the widespread use
of antimicrobial agents. This represents the main reluctance for the use of SDD. Surprisingly,
some investigators have even advocated for the use of SOD due to the absence of widespread
systemic prophylaxis with cephalosporins and a lower volume of topical antibiotics
[4]. Indeed, when SDD was compared with standard care, the use of cephalosporins was
increased due to the SDD regimen, but the use of antimicrobial agents was reduced
significantly for broad-spectrum penicillins, carbapenems, lincosamides, and quinolones
[4]. This was also true for SOD, but the difference with standard care was less pronounced
[4].
Recent SDD/SOD studies were all performed in the Netherlands where antimicrobial resistance
is a minor concern with a low reported use of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as
piperacillin/tazobactam, cefepime, and carbapenems. Hence, a more pronounced gradual
increase was observed with aminoglycoside-resistant Gram-negative bacteria with SDD
[5]. The effects of the prolonged use of SDD and SOD on colistin resistance have been
determined in a study performed on two different large ICU cohorts [13]. No association
was observed between the use of SDD or SOD and increased acquisition of colistin-resistant
Gram-negative bacteria in the respiratory tract. In another study performed on patients
colonized with Enterobacteriaceae in the intestinal tract at ICU admission, SDD was
shown to eradicate cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae from the intestinal
tract [11]. These findings are usually related to the fact that the studies are performed
in environments with a lower incidence of highly-resistant microorganisms. By contrast,
studies performed in countries with a higher incidence of highly-resistant microorganisms
have also reported similar effects [17, 18].
Some observations were performed over a short period of time and resistance may not
have been immediately apparent. Hence, a rebound effect after stopping SDD/SOD has
been suggested in one of the post hoc analyses, as well as the emergence of colistin-resistant
strains during persistent Gram-negative bacteria colonization over the study period
(24 months) [13, 7]. Indirect evidence suggests that SDD/SOD is associated with the
long-term alteration of the microbiota of the digestive tract and a potential increase
in the associated resistome, but this remains largely speculative at the present time
[19]. However, these effects were not confirmed in a very recent report on continuous
surveillance of the impact of SDD and SOD up to 7 years [14]. This large study confirmed
a continuous reduction of the rate of tobramycin resistance and the absence of emergence
of resistance to colistin in both respiratory and rectal samples (Table 2). The occurrence
of a rebound effect after the discontinuation of SDD/SOD use in these centres remains
to be determined.
In conclusion, SDD and SOD are used in a minority of ICUs, despite the available data
on survival benefit. Although antibiotic resistance is not shown to be associated
with the use of SDD and SOD in the particular setting of experienced Dutch ICUs, some
ecological changes in ICUs have been reported (Table 2). SDD has resulted in lower
rectal carriage of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria compared to SOD. SDD
has demonstrated superiority over SOD, but both are related to a lower use of systemic
antibiotics, other than those used during the first 4 days of SDD, and result in a
lower mortality in ICU patients compared to standard care. Therefore, SOD can be viewed
as a good alternative to SDD. However, the lower rate of bacteremia and bacterial
resistance observed with SDD pleads in favor of this regimen. Further studies are
planned in higher endemic resistance regions to assess the effect of SDD or SOD on
long-term resistance development.