Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Data on the effectiveness of ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ-AVI) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients are limited. The present retrospective observational cohort study, which was conducted in two general intensive care units (ICUs) in central Greece, compared critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients suffering from carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections receiving CAZ-AVI to patients who received appropriate available antibiotic therapy. Clinical and microbiological outcomes and safety issues were evaluated. A secondary analysis in patients with bloodstream infections (BSIs) was conducted. Forty-one patients that received CAZ-AVI (the CAZ-AVI group) were compared to 36 patients that received antibiotics other than CAZ-AVI (the control group). There was a significant improvement in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on days 4 and 10 in the CAZ-AVI group compared to that in the control group (P = 0.006, and P = 0.003, respectively). Microbiological eradication was accomplished in 33/35 (94.3%) patients in the CAZ-AVI group and 21/31 (67.7%) patients in the control group (P = 0.021), and clinical cure was observed in 33/41 (80.5%) versus 19/36 (52.8%) patients (P = 0.010), respectively. The results were similar in the BSI subgroups for both outcomes (P = 0.038 and P = 0.014, respectively). The 28-day survival was 85.4% in the CAZ-AVI group and 61.1% in the control group (log-rank test = 0.035), while there were 2 and 12 relapses in the CAZ-AVI and control groups, respectively (P = 0.042). A CAZ-AVI-containing regime was an independent predictor of survival and clinical cure (odds ratio [OR] = 5.575 and P = 0.012 and OR = 5.125 and P = 0.004, respectively), as was illness severity. No significant side effects were recorded. In conclusion, a CAZ-AVI-containing regime was more effective than other available antibiotic agents for the treatment of CRE infections in the high-risk, mechanically ventilated ICU population evaluated.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

No abstract

No abstract