22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Intervention to Reduce Transmission of Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Intensive care units (ICUs) are high-risk settings for the transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE). In a cluster-randomized trial, we evaluated the effect of surveillance for MRSA and VRE colonization and of the expanded use of barrier precautions (intervention) as compared with existing practice (control) on the incidence of MRSA or VRE colonization or infection in adult ICUs. Surveillance cultures were obtained from patients in all participating ICUs; the results were reported only to ICUs assigned to the intervention. In intervention ICUs, patients who were colonized or infected with MRSA or VRE were assigned to care with contact precautions; all the other patients were assigned to care with universal gloving until their discharge or until surveillance cultures obtained at admission were reported to be negative. During a 6-month intervention period, there were 5434 admissions to 10 intervention ICUs, and 3705 admissions to 8 control ICUs. Patients who were colonized or infected with MRSA or VRE were assigned to barrier precautions more frequently in intervention ICUs than in control ICUs (a median of 92% of ICU days with either contact precautions or universal gloving [51% with contact precautions and 43% with universal gloving] in intervention ICUs vs. a median of 38% of ICU days with contact precautions in control ICUs, P<0.001). In intervention ICUs, health care providers used clean gloves, gowns, and hand hygiene less frequently than required for contacts with patients assigned to barrier precautions; when contact precautions were specified, gloves were used for a median of 82% of contacts, gowns for 77% of contacts, and hand hygiene after 69% of contacts, and when universal gloving was specified, gloves were used for a median of 72% of contacts and hand hygiene after 62% of contacts. The mean (±SE) ICU-level incidence of events of colonization or infection with MRSA or VRE per 1000 patient-days at risk, adjusted for baseline incidence, did not differ significantly between the intervention and control ICUs (40.4±3.3 and 35.6±3.7 in the two groups, respectively; P=0.35). The intervention was not effective in reducing the transmission of MRSA or VRE, although the use of barrier precautions by providers was less than what was required. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; STAR*ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00100386.).

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          NHSN annual update: antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: annual summary of data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006-2007.

          To describe the frequency of selected antimicrobial resistance patterns among pathogens causing device-associated and procedure-associated healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) reported by hospitals in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). Data are included on HAIs (ie, central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and surgical site infections) reported to the Patient Safety Component of the NHSN between January 2006 and October 2007. The results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of up to 3 pathogenic isolates per HAI by a hospital were evaluated to define antimicrobial-resistance in the pathogenic isolates. The pooled mean proportions of pathogenic isolates interpreted as resistant to selected antimicrobial agents were calculated by type of HAI and overall. The incidence rates of specific device-associated infections were calculated for selected antimicrobial-resistant pathogens according to type of patient care area; the variability in the reported rates is described. Overall, 463 hospitals reported 1 or more HAIs: 412 (89%) were general acute care hospitals, and 309 (67%) had 200-1,000 beds. There were 28,502 HAIs reported among 25,384 patients. The 10 most common pathogens (accounting for 84% of any HAIs) were coagulase-negative staphylococci (15%), Staphylococcus aureus (15%), Enterococcus species (12%), Candida species (11%), Escherichia coli (10%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (6%), Enterobacter species (5%), Acinetobacter baumannii (3%), and Klebsiella oxytoca (2%). The pooled mean proportion of pathogenic isolates resistant to antimicrobial agents varied significantly across types of HAI for some pathogen-antimicrobial combinations. As many as 16% of all HAIs were associated with the following multidrug-resistant pathogens: methicillin-resistant S. aureus (8% of HAIs), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (4%), carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa (2%), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant K. pneumoniae (1%), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant E. coli (0.5%), and carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, K. pneumoniae, K. oxytoca, and E. coli (0.5%). Nationwide, the majority of units reported no HAIs due to these antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus.

            Infection control programs were created three decades ago to control antibiotic-resistant healthcare-associated infections, but there has been little evidence of control in most facilities. After long, steady increases of MRSA and VRE infections in NNIS System hospitals, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors made reducing antibiotic-resistant infections a strategic SHEA goal in January 2000. After 2 more years without improvement, a SHEA task force was appointed to draft this evidence-based guideline on preventing nosocomial transmission of such pathogens, focusing on the two considered most out of control: MRSA and VRE. Medline searches were conducted spanning 1966 to 2002. Pertinent abstracts of unpublished studies providing sufficient data were included. Frequent antibiotic therapy in healthcare settings provides a selective advantage for resistant flora, but patients with MRSA or VRE usually acquire it via spread. The CDC has long-recommended contact precautions for patients colonized or infected with such pathogens. Most facilities have required this as policy, but have not actively identified colonized patients with surveillance cultures, leaving most colonized patients undetected and unisolated. Many studies have shown control of endemic and/or epidemic MRSA and VRE infections using surveillance cultures and contact precautions, demonstrating consistency of evidence, high strength of association, reversibility, a dose gradient, and specificity for control with this approach. Adjunctive control measures are also discussed. Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA and VRE infections and make control possible using the CDC's long-recommended contact precautions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the stool of colonized patients.

              Colonization and infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci have been associated with exposure to antibiotics that are active against anaerobes. In mice that have intestinal colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, these agents promote high-density colonization, whereas antibiotics with minimal antianaerobic activity do not. We conducted a seven-month prospective study of 51 patients who were colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, as evidenced by the presence of the bacteria in stool. We examined the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool during and after therapy with antibiotic regimens and compared the effect on this density of antianaerobic agents and agents with minimal antianaerobic activity. In a subgroup of 10 patients, cultures of environmental specimens (e.g., from bedding and clothing) were obtained. During treatment with 40 of 42 antianaerobic-antibiotic regimens (95 percent), high-density colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci was maintained (mean [+/-SD] number of organisms, 7.8+/-1.5 log per gram of stool). The density of colonization decreased after these regimens were discontinued. Among patients who had not received antianaerobic antibiotics for at least one week, 10 of 13 patients who began such regimens had an increase in the number of organisms of more than 1.0 log per gram (mean increase, 2.2 log per gram), whereas among 10 patients who began regimens of antibiotics with minimal antianaerobic activity, there was a mean decrease in the number of enterococci of 0.6 log per gram (P=0.006 for the difference between groups). When the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool was at least 4 log per gram, 10 of 12 sets of cultures of environmental specimens had at least one positive sample, as compared with 1 of 9 sets from patients with a mean number of organisms in stool of less than 4 log per gram (P=0.002). For patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool, treatment with antianaerobic antibiotics promotes high-density colonization. Limiting the use of such agents in these patients may help decrease the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                Massachusetts Medical Society
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                April 14 2011
                April 14 2011
                : 364
                : 15
                : 1407-1418
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMoa1000373
                3410743
                21488763
                08acd56d-40c5-46af-b2d1-8e8039b2640d
                © 2011
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article