The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of two regimens of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, concurrent trial. SETTING: Multidisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1,800-bed university hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients (n = 660) who were likely to require mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hrs were randomized to one of three groups: conventional antibiotic regimen (control group A); oral and enteral ofloxacin-amphotericin B (group B); and oral and enteral polymyxin E-tobramycin-amphotericin B (group C). Both treatment groups received systemic antibiotics for 4 days (ofloxacin in group B and cefotaxime in group C). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive standard treatment (control group A, n = 220), selective decontamination regimen B (group B, n = 220), and selective decontamination regimen C (group C, n = 220). After early deaths and exclusions from the study, 185 controls (group A) and 193 (group B)/200 (group C) selective decontamination regimen patients were available for analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements included colonization and primary/secondary infection rate, ICU mortality rate, emergence of antibiotic resistance, length of ICU stay, and antimicrobial agent costs. The study duration was 19 months. The patient groups were fully comparable for age, diagnostic category, and severity of illness. One third of patients in each group suffered a nosocomial infection at the time of admission. There was a significant difference between treatment group B and control group A in the number of infected patients (odds ratio of 0.42, 95% confidence interval of 0.27 to 0.64), secondary lower respiratory tract infection (odds ratio of 0.47, 95% confidence interval of 0.26 to 0.82), and urinary tract infection (odds ratio of 0.47, 95% confidence interval of 0.27 to 0.81). Significantly more Gram-positive bacteremias occurred in treatment group C vs. group A (odds ratio of 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 2.08). Infection at the time of admission proved to be the most significant risk factor for subsequent infection in control and both treatment groups. ICU mortality rate was almost identical (group A 16.8%, group B 17.6%, and group C 15.5%) and was not significantly related to primary or secondary infection. Increased antimicrobial resistance was recorded in both treatment groups: tobramycin-resistant enterobacteriaceae (group C 48% vs. group A 14%, p < .01), ofloxacin-resistant enterobacteriaceae (group B 50% vs. group A 11%, p < .02), ofloxacin-resistant nonfermenters (group B 81% vs. group A 52%, p < .02), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (group C 83% vs. group A 55%, p < .05). Antimicrobial agent costs were comparable in control and group C patients; one third less was spent for group B patients. CONCLUSIONS: In cases of high colonization and infection rates at the time of ICU admission, the preventive benefit of selective decontamination is highly debatable. Emergence of multiple antibiotic-resistant microorganisms creates a clinical problem and a definite change in the ecology of environmental, colonizing, and infecting bacteria. The selection of multiple antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive cocci is particularly hazardous. No beneficial effect on survival is observed. Moreover, selective decontamination adds substantially to the cost of ICU care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Decontamination of the digestive tract and oropharynx in ICU patients
de Smet, A. M. G. A., Kluytmans, J. A. J. W., Cooper, B. S., Mascini, E. M., Benus, R. F. J., van der Werf, T. S., van der Hoeven, J. G., Pickkers, P., Bogaers-Hofman, D., van der Meer, N. J. M., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0800394 · Cited by 813
de Jonge, E., Schultz, M. J., Spanjaard, L., Bossuyt, P. M., Vroom, M. B., Dankert, J., & Kesecioglu, J. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14409-1 · Cited by 587
Daneman, N., Sarwar, S., Fowler, R. A., & Cuthbertson, B. H. (2013) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(12)70322-5 · Cited by 288
Silvestri, L., de la Cal, M. A., & van Saene, H. K. F. (2012) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2690-1 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Verwaest, C., Verhaegen, J., Ferdinande, P., Schetz, M., Van den Berghe, G., Verbist, L., & Lauwers, P.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1997-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63-71
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013556542
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199701000-00014
- The paper
- Verwaest, C., Verhaegen, J., Ferdinande, P., Schetz, M., Van den Berghe, G., Verbist, L., & Lauwers, P. (1997). Randomized, controlled trial of selective digestive decontamination in 600 mechanically ventilated patients in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199701000-00014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.