GET THE APP

Preparation with Mechanical Bowel Cleansing or/and Oral Antibiotics or Nothing for Elective Colorectal Surgery: Two-Two-Arm Multicentre Randomised Controlled Studies (MECCLANT –C and –R Trials)
Journal of Clinical Trials

Journal of Clinical Trials
Open Access

ISSN: 2167-0870

+44 20 3868 9735

Protocol - (2017) Volume 7, Issue 2

Preparation with Mechanical Bowel Cleansing or/and Oral Antibiotics or Nothing for Elective Colorectal Surgery: Two-Two-Arm Multicentre Randomised Controlled Studies (MECCLANT –C and –R Trials)

Evaghelos Xynos1, Nikolaos Gouvas2*, Christos Agalianos3, Ioannis Balogiannis4, Manoussos Christodoulakis5, Dimitrios Korkolis6, Dimitrios Manatakis6, Dimitrios Lytras7, Ioannis Papakonstantinou8, Costas Stamou9, Ioannis Triantaphyllidis10, Georgios Tzovaras4 and Georgios Zacharioudakis11
1Creta Interclinic, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
2Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK, E-mail: [email protected]
3Naval and Veterans Hospital of Athens, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
4University Hospital, Larissa, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
5Venizeleion Hospital, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
6Agios Savvas Hospital, Athens, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
7Achillopouleion Hospital, Volos, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
8Aretaieion University Hospital, Athens, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
9Bioclinic, Athens, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
10General Hospital, Florina, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
11Hippokrateion University Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece, E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding Author: Nikolaos Gouvas, Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK, Tel: 00447946469727 Email:

Abstract

Background: Based on sound evidence, traditional mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery has mostly been abandoned during the last two decades. However, more recent evidence from USA large databases show that mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics, reduces significantly surgical site infections (SSI) after elective colorectal surgery. Hypothesis-Aim: We hypothesise that administration of oral antibiotics only, and not mechanical bowel preparation, is the main factor that prevents SSI. Furthermore, we consider that rectal surgery for cancer differs from colon surgery in that the former is usually associated with defunctioning stoma, which requires an empty colon. Patients-Methods: Patients to be subjected to elective colectomy for colonic neoplasms or diverticular disease will be randomised to two arms; Arm A: no bowel preparation; Arm B: mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics (MECCLAND –C Trial). Patients scheduled for elective low anterior resection of the rectum for rectal cancer will be randomised to two arms; Arm A: mechanical bowel preparation only; Arm B: mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics (MECCLAND –R Trial). All patients will receive intravenous antibiotics one hour prior to first surgical incision. Enemas at the day prior to surgery are optional. Participating centres are advised to implement enhanced recovery programmes in all patients. Primary End-Points: The primary end point is surgical site infection (SSI), including (i) superficial wound infection, (ii) deep wound infection, and (iii) intrabdominal infection (contaminated fluid or pus collection). Statistical Points: Considering a SSI rate of 0.12 for Arm A vs. a SSI rate of 0.06 for Arm B, a randomization rate of 1:1 and negligible drop-off rate, the sample size of either Arm of either Trial should be 356 patients.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Oral antibiotics; Randomized trial; Colon cancer; Rectal cancer

Introduction

During almost all the 20th century and practically based on observational studies and experts opinion, mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) has been considered as necessary prior to colorectal surgery, in order to remove gross faecal and bacteria colonic load and thus to prevent anastomotic leakage and reduce septic postoperative complications [1-7]. However, several more recent randomised clinical trials [8-16], meta-analyses, systematic reviews and surveys [17-25] have consistently shown that MBP does not prevent either anastomotic leakage or surgical site infection (SSI), and does not reduce immediate postoperative morbidity or mortality. Furthermore, MBP is costly, time consuming, harmful and unpleasant for the patient, and also impedes implementation of enhanced recovery programmes [26]. As a result of the aforementioned evidence,it is recommended that MBP for colorectal surgery must be abandoned.

Recently, the interest in bowel preparation for colorectal surgery has been renewed, as when MBP combined with oral antobiotics seems to reduce postoperative morbidity, by preventing both anastomotic leakage and SSI, according to several clinical trials and reviews and meta-analyses [23,27-36]. Furthermore and according to three studies that analysed data form the Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACSNSQIP) of the years 2011 and 2012, it was shown that oral antibiotics bowel preparation with [37,38] or without [39] MBP in colorectal surgery is associated with reduced rates of anastomotic leakage, SSI and hospital readmissions as compared to no bowel preparation. According to the study by Morris et al [39], it is bowel preparation with oral antibiotics alone that results in reduced postoperative septic complications.

Most of the studies showing benefit for oral antibiotics bowel preparation (i) are either retrospective clinical trials or analyses of large databases; (ii) analyse cases with varying pathology involving malignant and benign neoplastic lesions and inflammatory diseases; (iii) do not report on the exact antibiotic regime and time of administration; (iv) do not report on the exact regime for mechanical bowel preparation; (v) do not analyse according to procedure (left colectomy, right colectomy, low anterior resection of rectum) and site of anastomosis (ileo-transverse, colo-colic, colorectal, colo-anal); (vi) mostly exclude cases with anastomosis with diverting stoma; and vi) do not report on the possible impact of enhanced recovery programmes (ERP) if they were implemented.

Aim-Hypothesis

The present study aims to compare the immediate postoperative outcomes of:

(a) Elective colectomy for colonic neoplastic lesions (cancer, benign solitary or multiple polyps) and diverticular disease, after no preoperative preparation or after preoperative preparation with MBP and oral antibiotics (OA) administration. It is hypothesised that preoperative OA administration, in the frame of an ERP, is the main preparative element that is associated with reduced immediate postoperative morbidity, in terms of SSI and, possibly, anastomotic leakage MECCLAND –C Trial) and

(b)Elective rectal resections, after preoperative MBP with or without preoperative oral antibiotics (OA) administration. It is hypothesised that preoperative OA administration, in the frame of an ERP, is the main preparative element that is associated with reduced immediate postoperative morbidity, in terms of SSI and, possibly, anastomotic leakage (MECCLAND –R Trial).

Design-Study Approval

The MECLLAND -C and –R trials are two phase III prospective, randomized, two-arm, comparative, multicentre studies supported by the Gastro-Intestinal Cancer Study Group (GIC-SG). A committee, under the guidance, coordination and secretarial support of the Colo- Rectal Cancer Study Group (CRC-SG) of the GIC-SG, is assigned for constant and systematic data monitoring (DMC). Participating centers register all data in a specifically designed database under the control of the DMC. Also, patients’ randomization is provided by the DMC, to which any serious adverse events or patients withdrawal from the study are reported. The trials ID are:

MECCLAND –C Trial: EudraCT number 2016-000254-35.

MECCLAND –R Trial: EudraCT number 2016-001404-32.

Patients

MECCLAND –C trial

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Primary pathology, demographic data, health status and comorbidities of eligible patients are registered in detail in specific proformas. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to one of the following two arms:

All Patients Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Programme (ERC)
Patients Informed Consent
MECCLAND -C Trial Patients to undergo surgery for colon cancer
Patients to undergo surgery for colonic benign polyps (solitary, multiple)
Patients to undergo surgery for diverticular disease
MECCLAND –R Trial Patients to undergo surgery for rectal cancer with or without protective stoma
Patients to undergo surgery for rectal benign polyps (solitary, multiple)

Table 1: Inclusion criteria.

All Patients
Patients Younger Than 18 Years of Age or Older Than 85 Years of Age
Patients With Preoperative Hospital Stay >2 Days
Patients to Undergo Non-Elective (Emergency) Operation
Patients with Contraindication for Mechanical Bowel Preparation
Patients Physically Unstable Requiring Intensive Preoperative Resuscitation Sepsis, Septic Shock, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Acute Respiratory Failure Requiring Mechanical Ventilation, Acute Renal Failure
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification of 4 or 5
Patients With Infection at the Site of Abdominal Incision
Patients with a History of Colo-Rectal Surgery
Patients to Undergo Defunctioning Stoma Only
Patients Incapable to Communicate and Provide Informed Consent
Patients undergoing surgery for IBD
Patients undergoing panproctocolectomy for Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP)

Table 2: Exclusion Criteria.

• Arm A: no bowel preparation (NBP)

• Arm B: mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotics (MBP +OA)

Randomization will be performed by the DMC, with stratification by participating centre. The allocation result will be returned to the participating centre on the same day.

MECCLAND –R trial

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Primary pathology, demographic data, health status and comorbidities of eligible patients are registered in detail in specific proformas. Eligible patients will be randomly allocated to one of the following two arms:

• Arm A: mechanical bowel preparation (MBP)

• Arm B: mechanical bowel preparation plus oral antibiotics (MBP +OA)

Randomization will be performed by the DMC, with stratification by participating centre. The allocation result will be returned to the participating centre on the same day.

Design-Methods

All patients:

• Enter an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) [40,41]. Included elements are shown in table 1.

• Are instructed to low residue diet for 3-4 days prior to surgery, and beverages rich in carbohydrates, 2 h prior to surgery.

• Are given 500 ml sodium phosphate solution as an enema, at 18:00 the day prior to surgery (could be omitted for right colectomy with planned ileal-transverse colon anastomosis).

• Are given antibiotics intravenously (1.5 g cefuroxime and 1g metronidazole), on the day of operation, one hour prior to first abdominal incision. The regime of intravenous i.v. antibiotic prophylaxis can be adjusted according to the guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection set at each participating centre, or in case of patient’s allergy to a specific antibiotic agent.

MECCLAND –C trial

Patients allocated to Arm A have no other bowel preparation.

Patients allocated to Arm B:

Consume per os 3-4 L of either Klean Prep (Norgine Ltd, Uxbridge, UK) or Fortrans (Beaufour IPSEN Industry, Dreux, France) as MBP. MBP starts at 14:00 and ends by 18:00 on the day prior to surgery.

Are given oral antibiotic prophylaxis as follows:

2 g of neomycin at 19:00 the day prior to surgery and 1.5 g of metronidazole at 21:00 the day prior to surgery.

MECCLAND –R trial

Patients of both Arms consume per os 3-4 L of either Klean Prep (Norgine Ltd, Uxbridge, UK) or Fortrans (Beaufour IPSEN Industry, Dreux, France) as MBP. MBP starts at 14:00 and ends by 18:00 on the day prior to surgery.

In addition, patients allocated to Arm B are additionally given oral antibiotic prophylaxis as follows:

• 2 g of neomycin at 19:00 the day prior to surgery and

• 1.5 g of metronidazole at 21:00 the day prior to surgery

Compliance and any reactions to the MBP regime, namely intolerance, allergy, nausea, vomiting, dehydration, electrolytes disturbance or renal failure are recorded. Also, any intolerance, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances to the antibiotic regime, and clinical manifestation of pseudomembranous colitis (clostridium difficile infection) are recorded in detail.

Surgery

It is recommended that prior to surgery an epidural catheter for intra- and post- operative analgesia is placed at the level T6-T8. If placement of an epidural catheter is contraindicated or the anaesthetist considers epidural anesthesia unnecessary, postoperative analgesia is offered by means of patient controlled anaesthesia (PCA) with opioids. Intraoperative elements are recorded in detail, and should include: mode of approach (open or laparoscopic), type of resection, site and method of anastomosis fashioning, intraoperative complications (bleeding, perforation of hollow viscera [large bowel or other], technical failure of anastomosis), prophylactic stoma, duration of operation etc.

End points

The primary end point is surgical site infection (SSI), including (i) superficial wound infection, (ii) deep wound infection, and (iii) intrabdominal infection (contaminated fluid or pus collection).

Secondary end points are (i) anastomotic leakage, (ii) 30-day mortality, (iii) 30-day morbidity, (iv) paralytic ileus, (v) length of hospital stay, and (vi) readmission rate.

Standard definitions for estimated of variables and outcomes are employed according to the Colectomy-Targeted American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACSNSQIP) [42]. Specifically, the anastomotic leak is defined as:

• A leak of intraluminal contents (air, fluids, faecal material) through the anastomosis, that either drain or form a collection or

• A leak of intraluminal contrast medium through the anastomosis or

• Presence of infection or abscess, thought to be related to the anastomosis, even if anastomotic leak cannot be demonstrated by contrast medium extravasation [28].

All data on postoperative outcomes, including clinical manifestations and laboratory findings, are recorded and registered in a specific proforma.

Sample size estimation-statistical analysis

The SSI rate will be the primary end-point. Considering (i) an α=0.05, (iii) a SSI rate of 0.12 for Arm A vs. a SSI rate of 0.06 for Arm B, (iii) randomization rate of 1:1 and (iv) negligible drop-off rate, the sample size of either Arm of either Trial should be 356 patients.

Discussion

Concerning MECCLAND –C, the theoretical question, of which sort of preoperative bowel preparation should achieve the lowest SSI rate in elective colon surgery, could be answered by a four-arm comparative study: in one Arm patients would have no preparation at all, in a second arm patients would have only MBP, in a third patients would have only oral antibiotics, and in the fourth patients would be given a combination of MBP and oral antibiotics. According to current evidence [17-25,37-39], there is no significant difference in SSI rate between the first and the second treatment, while differences between the third and the fourth treatment are around 1% or less. Conceivably, a four-arm study would require an enormous number of patients to be recruited in the study, in order differences between the four treatments to reach statistical significance. Therefore, between no preparation and preparation with only MBP, we chose no preoperative preparation as the control arm in order to avoid the side effects of MBP, whilst between only oral antibiotics and combination of oral antibiotics and MBP we chose the latter as the experimental arm.

Similarly, as regards MECCLAND -R, the theoretical question, of which sort of preoperative bowel preparation should achieve the lowest SSI rate in elective low anterior resection of the rectum, could be answered also by a four-arm comparative study: in one Arm patients would have no preparation at all, in a second arm patients would have only MBP, in a third patients would have only oral antibiotics, and in the fourth patients would be given a combination of MBP and oral antibiotics. Again, and according to current evidence [17-25,37-39], there is no significant difference in SSI rate between the first and the second treatment, while differences between the third and the fourth treatment are around 1% or less. Conceivably, a four-arm study would require an enormous number of patients to be recruited in the study, in order differences between the four treatments to reach statistical significance. Therefore, between no preparation and preparation with only MBP, we chose MBP as the control arm, whilst between only oral antibiotics and combination of oral antibiotics and MBP we chose the latter as the experimental arm. The reason for adopting MBP in both arms is the need of a clear colon, as in the majority of the cases with resection of the rectum and anastomosis, a defunctioning stoma complements the operation in order to reduce the rate and severity of possible anastomotic leak.

References

  1. Barker K, Graham NG, Mason MC, De Dombal FT, Goligher JC (1971) The relative significance of preoperative oral antibiotics, mechanical bowel preparation, and preoperative peritoneal contamination in avoidance of sepsis after radical surgery for ulcerative colitis and Crohn
  2. Dunphy JE (1971) Preoperative preparation of the colon and other factors affecting anastomotic healing. Cancer 28: 181
  3. Nichols RL, Condon RE (1971) Preoperative preparation of the colon. SurgGynecolObstet 132: 323
  4. Clarke JS, Condon RE, Bartlett JG, Gorbach SL, Nichols RL, et al. (1977) Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations: results of prospective, randomised, double-blind clinical study. Ann Surg 186: 251
  5. Chung RS, Gurll NJ, Berglund EM (1979) A controlled clinical trial of whole gut lavage as a method of bowel preparation for colonic operations. Am J Surg 137: 75
  6. Thornton FJ, Barbul A (1997) Healing in the gastrointestinal surgery. SurgClin N Am 77: 549
  7. Zmora O, Pikarsky AJ, Wexner SD (2001) Bowel preparation for colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44: 1537
  8. Ram E, Sherman Y, Weil R, Vishne T, Kravarusic D, et al. (2005) Is mechanical bowel preparation mandatory for elective colon surgery? Arch Surg 140: 285
  9. Burke P, Mealy K, Gillen P, Joyce W, Traynor O, et al. (1994) Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 81: 907
  10. Platell C, Hall J (1998) What is the role of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery? Dis Colon Rectum 41: 875
  11. Santos JC JR, Batista J, Sirimarco MT, Guimaraes AS, Levy CE (1994) Prospective randomized trial of mechanical bowel preparation in patients undergoing elective colorectalsurgery. Br J Surg 81:1673
  12. Bucher P, Gervaz P, Soravia C, Mermillod B, Erne M, et al. (2005) Randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation versus no preparation before elective left-sidedcolorectal surgery. Br J Surg 92: 409
  13. Fa-Si-Oen P, Roumen R, Buitenweg J, van de Velde C, van Geldere D, et al. (2005) Mechanical bowel preparation or not? Outcome of a multicenter, randomized trial in elective open colon surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 48: 1509
  14. Contant CM, Hop WC, van'tSant HP, Oostvogel HJ, Smeets HJ, et al. (2007) Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a multicenter randomized trial. Lancet 370: 2112
  15. Bretagnol F, Panis Y, Rullier E, Rouanet P, Berdah S, et al. (2010) Rectal cancer surgery with or without bowel preparation. The French Greccar III multicentersingleblindedrandomised trial. Ann Surg 252: 863
  16. Bucher P, Mermillod B, Gervaz P, Morel P (2004) Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 139: 1359
  17. Slim K, Vicaut E, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2004) Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of colorectal surgery with or without mechanical bowel preparation. Br J Surg 91: 1125
  18. Wille-Jorgensen P, Guenaga KF, Matos D, Castro AA (2005) Pre-operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 7: 304
  19. Lassen K, Hannemann P, Ljungqvist O, Fearon K, Dejong CH, et al. (2005) Patterns in current perioperative practice: survey of colorectal surgeons in five northern European countries. BMJ 330: 1420
  20. Kehlet H, Buchler MW, Beart RWJR, Billingham RP, Williamson R (2006) Care after colonic operation
  21. Slim K, Vicaut E, Launay-Savary MV, Contant C, Chipponi J, et al. (2009) Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials on the role of mechanical bowel preparation before colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 249: 203
  22. Fry DE (2011) Colon preparation and surgical site infection. Am J Surg 202: 225
  23. Guenaga KF, Matos D, Wille-Jorgensen P (2011) Mechanical bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9: CD001544.
  24. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, et al. (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery society recommendations. World J Surg 37: 259
  25. Larson DW, Lovely JK, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Chua H, et al. (2014) Outcomes after implementation of a multimodal standard care pathway for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 101: 1023
  26. Lewis RT (2002) Oral versus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery: a randomized study and meta-analysis send a message from the 1990s. Can J Surg 45: 173
  27. Hayashi MS, Wilson SE (2009) Is there a current role for preoperative non-absorbable oral antimicrobial agents for prophylaxis of infection after colorectal surgery? Surg Infection 10: 285
  28. Nelson R, Glenny A, Song F (2009) Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 21: CD001181.
  29. Bellows CF, Mills KT, Kelly TN, Gagliardi G, et al. Combination of oral non-absorbable and intravenous antibiotics versus intravenous antibiotics alone in the prevention of surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tech Coloproctol 15: 385
  30. Cannon JA, Altom LK, Deierhoi RJ, Morris M, Richman JS, et al. (2012) Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective colorectal resections. Dis Colon Rectum 55: 1160
  31. Toneva GD, Deierhoi RJ, Morris M, Richman J, Cannon JA, et al. (2013) Oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces length of stay and readmissions after colorectal surgery. J Am CollSurg 216: 756
  32. Kim EK, Sheetz KH, Bonn J, DeRoo S, Lee C, et al. (2014) A statewide colectomy experience: the role of full bowel preparation in preventing surgical site infection. Ann Surg 259: 310
  33. Poth EJ (1982) Historical development of intestinal antisepsis. World J Surg 6: 153
  34. Kim EK, Sheetz KH, Bonn J, DeRoo S, Lee C, et al. (2014) A statewide colectomy experience: the role of full bowel preparation in preventing surgical site infection. Ann Surg 259: 310
  35. Scarborough JE, Mantyh CR, Sun Z, Migaly J (2015) Combined mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation reduces surgical site infection and anastomotic leak rates after elective colorectal resection. An analysis of Colectomy-Targeted ACS NSQIP. Ann Surg 262: 331-337.
  36. Kiran RP, Murray ACA, Chiuzan C, Estrada D, Forde K (2015) Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 262: 416-425.
  37. Morris MS, Graham LA, Cannon JA, Hawn MT (2015) Oral antibiotic bowel preparation significantly reduces surgical site infection rates and readmission rated in elective colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 262: 1034-1040.
  38. Gouvas N1, Tan E, Windsor A, Xynos E, Tekkis PP (2009) Fast-track vs. standard care in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis update. Int J Colorectal Dis 24:1119
  39. Gouvas N, Gogos-Pappas G, Tsimogiannis K, Tsimoyannis E, Dervenis C, et al. (2012) Implementation of fast-track protocols in open and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a multicenter, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study. Dig Surg 29: 301-309.
  40. American College of Surgeons. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Available at: http://site.acsnsqip.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ACS.NSQIP_2012.PT_PUF-Accessed March 2015.
Citation: Xynos E, Gouvas N, Agalianos C, Balogiannis I, Christodoulakis M, et al. (2017) Preparation with Mechanical Bowel Cleansing or/and Oral Antibiotics or Nothing for Elective Colorectal Surgery: Two-Two-Arm Multicentre Randomised Controlled Studies (MECCLANT –C and –R Trials). J Clin Trials 7:300.

Copyright: © 2017 Xynos E, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.