FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2012128220> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2012128220 endingPage "109" @default.
• W2012128220 startingPage "106" @default.
• W2012128220 abstract "The paper by Silvestri et al. throws down a challenge to those among us who have evaluated, used and subsequently abandoned selective digestive decontamination (SDD) as a means of reducing infection in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).1 The rationale of SDD is that conventional infection control measures in the ICU will not succeed in reducing hospital-acquired infection because much infection that is presumed to be hospital-acquired is in fact endogenous in origin. This implies that handwashing and conventional cross-infection prevention measures are of limited value.2 In the original description of SDD lower airway infections were classified as primary endogenous if the causative organisms were colonizing the patient on ICU admission, secondary endogenous if the colonization occurred after ICU admission and exogenous if the infection was not preceded by a period of mucosal colonization.3 In this system SDD is intended to prevent primary and secondary endogenous infections. However, since secondary endogenous colonization is ICU-acquired it should be possible to reduce this by conventional infection control measures. It is only possible to discriminate between primary endogenous and ICU-acquired infection if very robust sampling and typing methods are employed. Routine phenotypic laboratory methods based upon biochemical, cultural and susceptibility observations are inadequate. Consequently data describing the relative prevalence of primary endogenous and ICU-acquired infection must be interpreted with caution. However, it is upon such data that the relative efficiency of the systemic and topical components of the SDD regimen and the ultimate potential of SDD are assessed. The clinical efficacy of SDD has been very extensively investigated although study protocols, SDD regimens and definitions of infection have varied widely. Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of studies have shown a worthwhile reduction in infection, particularly in trauma and some surgical patients, and this has now been confirmed for unselected ICU patient populations by meta analyses.3–6 The most striking conclusion from the analysis of D’Amico et al., which was both large and methodologically robust, is that SDD significantly reduces mortality in unselected ICU patients provided both systemic and topical components of the regimen are applied. Why, then has SDD not been more widely advocated by microbiologists and adopted by intensivists? There is continuing concern regarding the microbiological safety of SDD. The authors suggest that the only fully effective regimen is that of Stoutenbeek et al.,3 which comprises systemic cefotaxime for the first few days in ICU with topical oropharyngeal and nasogastric polymyxin, tobramycin and amphotericin (PTA) throughout ICU stay. This gives rapid and effective decontamination of oropharynx and stomach provided that the mucosal flora does not contain micro-organisms resistant to the regimen and the patient is not receiving sucrafate.7,8 Tracheal decontamination is less reliable, possibly because of subcidal drug concentrations.9 Gut decontamination is dependent upon peristalsis and rectal decontamination may take seven days.7 This is longer than many patients spend in ICU. Consequently the majority of patients may have subcidal concentrations of the topical agents in the gut for most or all of their ICU stay. The gaps in the SDD antimicrobial Received 28 April 2000; revised manuscript accepted 4 May 2000. Author for correspondence: Dr C. H. Webb, Department of Clinical Bacteriology, Royal Hospitals Trust, Belfast BT12 6BA, UK. Fax: 44 (0) 28 90 311416; E-mail: hugh.webb@bll.n-i.nhs.uk" @default.
• W2012128220 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2012128220 creator A5077804636 @default.
• W2012128220 date "2000-10-01" @default.
• W2012128220 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2012128220 title "Selective decontamination of the digestive tract, SDD: a commentary" @default.
• W2012128220 cites W1974971455 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W1984731911 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W1986036406 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2001700040 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2007227874 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2009416510 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2023690286 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2026936598 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2035281372 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2045581012 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2053023189 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2071183862 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2074419973 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2074675545 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2075620078 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2078833739 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2118855376 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2126785336 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2130850705 @default.
• W2012128220 cites W2132974311 @default.
• W2012128220 doi "https://doi.org/10.1053/jhin.2000.0804" @default.
• W2012128220 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11049702" @default.
• W2012128220 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2012128220 type Work @default.
• W2012128220 sameAs 2012128220 @default.
• W2012128220 citedByCount "12" @default.
• W2012128220 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2012128220 hasAuthorship W2012128220A5077804636 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C107211472 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C2992581678 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConcept C89423630 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C107211472 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C126322002 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C142724271 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C177713679 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C2992581678 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C61434518 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C71924100 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C86803240 @default.
• W2012128220 hasConceptScore W2012128220C89423630 @default.
• W2012128220 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2012128220 hasLocation W20121282201 @default.
• W2012128220 hasLocation W20121282202 @default.
• W2012128220 hasOpenAccess W2012128220 @default.
• W2012128220 hasPrimaryLocation W20121282201 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W1987000140 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W2058765707 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W2481266520 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W2497165649 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W2766770000 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W3208701539 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W4200141910 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W4252371801 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W4313346385 @default.
• W2012128220 hasRelatedWork W4317816533 @default.
• W2012128220 hasVolume "46" @default.
• W2012128220 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2012128220 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2012128220 magId "2012128220" @default.
• W2012128220 workType "article" @default.