[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Strategies for Antibiotic Administration for Bowel Preparation Among Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal SurgeryA Network Meta-analysis

Educational Objective
To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  When only using randomized clinical trial data, what is the most effective method of bowel preparation among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery?

Findings  In this network meta-analysis, including data from 8377 patients from 35 randomized clinical trials, the addition of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics (both with and without mechanical bowel preparation) was associated with a reduction in the incidence of incisional surgical site infection by greater than 50%. There were no differences in anastomotic leak or in other clinical outcomes.

Meaning  Bowel preparation should include the addition of oral antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics, as it may reduce incisional surgical site infection among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Abstract

Importance  There are discrepancies in guidelines on preparation for colorectal surgery. While intravenous (IV) antibiotics are usually administered, the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), enemas, and/or oral antibiotics (OA) is controversial.

Objective  To summarize all data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met selection criteria using network meta-analysis (NMA) to determine the ranking of different bowel preparation treatment strategies for their associations with postoperative outcomes.

Data Sources  Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Scopus databases with no language constraints, including abstracts and articles published prior to 2021.

Study Selection  Randomized studies of adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with appropriate aerobic and anaerobic antibiotic cover that reported on incisional surgical site infection (SSI) or anastomotic leak were selected for inclusion in the analysis. These were selected by multiple reviewers and adjudicated by a separate lead investigator. A total of 167 of 6833 screened studies met initial selection criteria.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  NMA was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were extracted by multiple independent observers and pooled in a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Primary outcomes were incisional SSI and anastomotic leak. Secondary outcomes included other infections, mortality, ileus, and adverse effects of preparation.

Results  A total of 35 RCTs that included 8377 patients were identified. Treatments compared IV antibiotics (2762 patients [33%]), IV antibiotics with enema (222 patients [3%]), IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (628 patients [7%]), MBP with IV antibiotics (2712 patients [32%]), MBP with IV antibiotics with OA (with good IV antibiotic cover in 925 patients [11%] and with good overall antibiotic cover in 375 patients [4%]), MBP with OA (267 patients [3%]), and OA (486 patients [6%]). The likelihood of incisional SSI was significantly lower for those receiving IV antibiotics with OA with or without enema (rank 1) and MBP with adequate IV antibiotics with OA (rank 2) compared with all other treatment options. The addition of OA to IV antibiotics, both with and without MBP, was associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. There were minimal differences between treatments in anastomotic leak and in any of the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance  This NMA demonstrated that the addition of OA to IV antibiotics were associated with a reduction in incisional SSI by greater than 50%. The results support the addition of OA to IV antibiotics to reduce incisional SSI among patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: August 11, 2021.

Published Online: October 20, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.5251

Corresponding Author: John C. Woodfield, PhD, Department of Surgical Sciences, Otago Medical School, Dunedin Campus, PO Box 913, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand (john.woodfield@otago.ac.nz).

Author Contributions: Dr Woodfield had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Woodfield, Clifford, Schmidt, Amer, McCall.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Woodfield, Clifford, Schmidt, Turner, Amer.

Drafting of the manuscript: Woodfield, Clifford, Schmidt.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Clifford, Amer.

Obtained funding: Woodfield.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Clifford, Schmidt, Turner, Amer, McCall.

Supervision: Woodfield, Clifford.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: University of Otago, Research Grant 2017.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank the University of Otago Research Grant committee for funding this project.

References
1.
Gordon  P , Nivatvongs  S .  Principles and Practice of Surgery for the Colon, Rectum, and Anus. 2nd ed. Quality Medical Publishing. 1999.
2.
Nichols  RL , Broido  P , Condon  RE , Gorbach  SL , Nyhus  LM .  Effect of preoperative neomycin-erythromycin intestinal preparation on the incidence of infectious complications following colon surgery.   Ann Surg. 1973;178(4):453-462. doi:10.1097/00000658-197310000-00008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Matheson  DM , Arabi  Y , Baxter-Smith  D , Alexander-Williams  J , Keighley  MR .  Randomized multicentre trial of oral bowel preparation and antimicrobials for elective colorectal operations.   Br J Surg. 1978;65(9):597-600. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800650902PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Clarke  JS , Condon  RE , Bartlett  JG , Gorbach  SL , Nichols  RL , Ochi  S .  Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations: results of prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study.   Ann Surg. 1977;186(3):251-259. doi:10.1097/00000658-197709000-00003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Keighley  MR. , Arabi  Y , Alexander-Williams  J .  Which is the best route of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery: oral or parenteral?   Gut. 1979;20:A453.Google Scholar
6.
Aeberhard  P , Fluckiger  M , Berger  J ,  et al.  Antibiotic bowel preparation or perioperative parenteral shielding in colon surgery?   Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 1981;353:233–240. doi:10.1007/BF01266008Google Scholar
7.
Weaver  M , Burdon  DW , Youngs  DJ , Keighley  MR .  Oral neomycin and erythromycin compared with single-dose systemic metronidazole and ceftriaxone prophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery.   Am J Surg. 1986;151(4):437-442. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(86)90097-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Nelson  RL , Gladman  E , Barbateskovic  M .  Antimicrobial prophylaxis for colorectal surgery.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(5):CD001181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Jung  B , Påhlman  L , Nyström  PO , Nilsson  E ; Mechanical Bowel Preparation Study Group.  Multicentre randomized clinical trial of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colonic resection.   Br J Surg. 2007;94(6):689-695. doi:10.1002/bjs.5816PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Dahabreh  IJ , Steele  DW , Shah  N , Trikalinos  TA .  Oral mechanical bowel preparation for colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.   Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(7):698-707. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000375PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Wille-Jørgensen  P , Guenaga  KF , Matos  D , Castro  AA .  Pre-operative mechanical bowel cleansing or not? an updated meta-analysis.   Colorectal Dis. 2005;7(4):304-310. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00804.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Gustafsson  UO , Scott  MJ , Hubner  M ,  et al.  Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations: 2018.   World J Surg. 2019;43(3):659-695. doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Bellows  CF , Mills  KT , Kelly  TN , Gagliardi  G .  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. 2011;15(4):385-395. doi:10.1007/s10151-011-0714-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Chen  M , Song  X , Chen  LZ , Lin  ZD , Zhang  XL .  Comparing mechanical bowel preparation with both oral and systemic antibiotics versus mechanical bowel preparation and systemic antibiotics alone for the prevention of surgical site infection after elective colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.   Dis Colon Rectum. 2016;59(1):70-78. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000524PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Koullouros  M , Khan  N , Aly  EH .  The role of oral antibiotics prophylaxis in prevention of surgical site infection in colorectal surgery.   Int J Colorectal Dis. 2017;32(1):1-18. doi:10.1007/s00384-016-2662-yPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Kiran  RP , Murray  ACA , Chiuzan  C , Estrada  D , Forde  K .  Combined preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotics significantly reduces surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and ileus after colorectal surgery.   Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):416-425. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001416PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Garfinkle  R , Abou-Khalil  J , Morin  N ,  et al.  Is there a role for oral antibiotic preparation alone before colorectal surgery? ACS-NSQIP analysis by coarsened exact matching.   Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(7):729-737. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000851PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Morris  MS , Graham  LA , Chu  DI , Cannon  JA , Hawn  MT .  Oral antibiotic bowel preparation significantly reduces surgical site infection rates and readmission rates in elective colorectal surgery.   Ann Surg. 2015;261(6):1034-1040. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000001125PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Lewis  RT .  Oral versus systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in elective colon surgery: a randomized study and meta-analysis send a message from the 1990s.   Can J Surg. 2002;45(3):173-180.PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Mills  EJ , Thorlund  K , Ioannidis  JPA .  Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis.   BMJ. 2013;346:f2914. doi:10.1136/bmj.f2914PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Network meta-analysis of bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery. PROSPERO identifier:CRD42017059746. Updated November 4, 2020. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017059746&ID=CRD42017059746
22.
Jung  B , Lannerstad  O , Påhlman  L , Arodell  M , Unosson  M , Nilsson  E .  Preoperative mechanical preparation of the colon: the patient’s experience.   BMC Surg. 2007;7:5. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-7-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Weinstein  MP .  M100 Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 31st ed. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2021.
24.
Cochrane. Data collection form. Accessed December 16, 2019. https://dplp.cochrane.org/data-extraction-forms
25.
Chaimani  A , Higgins  JPT , Mavridis  D , Spyridonos  P , Salanti  G .  Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA.   PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e76654. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076654PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
White  I . NETWORK: Stata module to perform network meta-analysis.  Stata J. Published online December 1, 2015. doi:10.1177/1536867X1501500403
27.
Chaimani  A , Salanti  G . Visualizing assumptions and results in network meta-analysis: the network graphs package.  Stata J. Published online December 1, 2015. doi:10.1177/1536867X1501500402
28.
White  I . MVMETA: Stata module to perform multivariate random-effects meta-analysis. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://econpapers.repec.org/software/bocbocode/s456970.htm
29.
Shim  S , Yoon  B-H , Shin  I-S , Bae  JM .  Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata.   Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017047. doi:10.4178/epih.e2017047PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Romesburg  CH .  Cluster Analysis for Researchers. Lulu Press; 1984.
31.
Pittet  O , Nocito  A , Balke  H ,  et al.  Rectal enema is an alternative to full mechanical bowel preparation for primary rectal cancer surgery.   Colorectal Dis. 2015;17(11):1007-1010. doi:10.1111/codi.12974PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Toh  JWT , Phan  K , Hitos  K ,  et al.  Association of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotics before elective colorectal surgery with surgical site infection: a network meta-analysis.   JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183226. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3226PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Abis  GSA , Stockmann  HBAC , Bonjer  HJ ,  et al; SELECT trial study group.  Randomized clinical trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in elective colorectal cancer surgery (SELECT trial).   Br J Surg. 2019;106(4):355-363. doi:10.1002/bjs.11117PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Alcantara Moral  M , Serra Aracil  X , Bombardó Juncá  J ,  et al.  A prospective, randomised, controlled study on the need to mechanically prepare the colon in scheduled colorectal surgery.   Cir Esp. 2009;85(1):20-25. doi:10.1016/S0009-739X(09)70082-XPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Espin Basany  E , Solís-Peña  A , Pellino  G ,  et al.  Preoperative oral antibiotics and surgical-site infections in colon surgery (ORALEV): a multicentre, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.   Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(8):729-738. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30075-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Verma  GR , Pareek  S , Singh  R .  Mechanical bowel preparation in elective colo-rectal surgery: a practice to purge or promote?   Indian J Gastroenterol. 2007;26(3):142-143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Zmora  O , Mahajna  A , Bar-Zakai  B ,  et al.  Colon and rectal surgery without mechanical bowel preparation: a randomized prospective trial.   Ann Surg. 2003;237(3):363-367. doi:10.1097/01.SLA.0000055222.90581.59PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Espin Basany  E , Solís-Peña  A , Pellino  G ,  et al.  Preoperative oral antibiotics and surgical-site infections in colon surgery (ORALEV): a multicentre, single-blind, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.   Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;1253:1-10. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30075-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Abis  GSA , Stockmann  HBAC , Bonjer  HJ ,  et al; SELECT trial study group.  Randomized clinical trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in elective colorectal cancer surgery (SELECT trial).   Br J Surg. 2019;106(4):355-363. doi:10.1002/bjs.11117PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Cannon  JA , Altom  LK , Deierhoi  RJ ,  et al.  Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce surgical site infection following elective colorectal resections.   Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(11):1160-1166. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182684facPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Anjum  N , Ren  J , Wang  G ,  et al.  A randomized control trial of preoperative oral antibiotics as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty type of colorectal surgeries.   Dis Colon Rectum. 2017;60(12):1291-1298. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000927PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Lau  WY , Chu  KW , Poon  GP , Ho  KK .  Prophylactic antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery.   Br J Surg. 1988;75(8):782-785. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800750819PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Coppa  GF , Eng  K , Gouge  TH , Ranson  JH , Localio  SA .  Parenteral and oral antibiotics in elective colon and rectal surgery. a prospective, randomized trial.   Am J Surg. 1983;145(1):62-65. doi:10.1016/0002-9610(83)90167-8PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Eisenberg  HW .  Cefamandole preparation for colonic surgery.   Dis Colon Rectum. 1981;24(8):610-612. doi:10.1007/BF02605757PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Kaiser  AB , Herrington  JL  Jr , Jacobs  JK , Mulherin  JL  Jr , Roach  AC , Sawyers  JL .  Cefoxitin versus erythromycin, neomycin, and cefazolin in colorectal operations. importance of the duration of the surgical procedure.   Ann Surg. 1983;198(4):525-530. doi:10.1097/00000658-198310000-00012PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
46.
Peruzzo  L , Savio  S , De Lalla  F .  Systemic versus systemic plus oral chemoprophylaxis in elective colorectal surgery.   Chemioterapia. 1987;6(2)(suppl):601-603.PubMedGoogle Scholar
47.
Sertoli  MR , Cafiero  F , Campora  E ,  et al.  A randomized trial of systemic versus oral prophylactic antibiotic treatment in colo-rectal surgery.   Chemioterapia. 1982;1:375-378.Google Scholar
AMA CME Accreditation Information

Credit Designation Statement: The American Medical Association designates this Journal-based CME activity activity for a maximum of 1.00  AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to:

  • 1.00 Medical Knowledge MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;;
  • 1.00 Self-Assessment points in the American Board of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery’s (ABOHNS) Continuing Certification program;
  • 1.00 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program;
  • 1.00 Lifelong Learning points in the American Board of Pathology’s (ABPath) Continuing Certification program; and
  • 1.00 credit toward the CME [and Self-Assessment requirements] of the American Board of Surgery’s Continuous Certification program

It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting MOC credit.

Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
Want full access to the AMA Ed Hub?
After you sign up for AMA Membership, make sure you sign in or create a Physician account with the AMA in order to access all learning activities on the AMA Ed Hub
Buy this activity
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Close
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close

My Saved Courses

You currently have no courses saved.

Close