13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Colonization with Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria – On the Efficiency of Local Decolonization Procedures

      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

          The effectiveness of a disinfectant-based decolonization strategy for multidrug-resistant bacteria like extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-positive Gram-negative bacteria with or without additional fluoroquinolon and carbapenem resistance as well as vancomycin-resistant enterococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus was assessed.

          Between 2011 and 2015, 25 patients from Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine with war traumata were treated at the Bundeswehr hospital Hamburg. The patients were heavily colonized and infected with multidrug-resistant bacteria, altogether comprising 371 distinct combinations of pathogens and isolation sites. Local disinfection was assessed for effectiveness regarding successful decolonization of multidrug-resistant bacteria.

          Altogether, 170 cases of successful decolonization were observed, comprising 95 (55.8%) such events at sampling sites that were accessible to disinfecting procedures. The remaining 75 (44.2%) decolonization events had to be considered as spontaneous. In contrast, 95 out of 172 (55.2%) colonized isolation sites that were accessible to disinfection procedures were successfully decolonized. Patient compliance with the enforced hygiene procedures was associated with decolonization success. Systemic antibiotic therapy did not relevantly affect isolation time.

          Disinfecting washing moderately supports local decolonization of multidrug-resistant pathogens in comparison with spontaneous decolonization rates if the patients’ compliance with the applied hygiene procedures is ensured.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 25

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

          Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection.

          Both targeted decolonization and universal decolonization of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are candidate strategies to prevent health care-associated infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial. Hospitals were randomly assigned to one of three strategies, with all adult ICUs in a given hospital assigned to the same strategy. Group 1 implemented MRSA screening and isolation; group 2, targeted decolonization (i.e., screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers); and group 3, universal decolonization (i.e., no screening, and decolonization of all patients). Proportional-hazards models were used to assess differences in infection reductions across the study groups, with clustering according to hospital. A total of 43 hospitals (including 74 ICUs and 74,256 patients during the intervention period) underwent randomization. In the intervention period versus the baseline period, modeled hazard ratios for MRSA clinical isolates were 0.92 for screening and isolation (crude rate, 3.2 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days), 0.75 for targeted decolonization (3.2 vs. 4.3 isolates per 1000 days), and 0.63 for universal decolonization (2.1 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days) (P=0.01 for test of all groups being equal). In the intervention versus baseline periods, hazard ratios for bloodstream infection with any pathogen in the three groups were 0.99 (crude rate, 4.1 vs. 4.2 infections per 1000 days), 0.78 (3.7 vs. 4.8 infections per 1000 days), and 0.56 (3.6 vs. 6.1 infections per 1000 days), respectively (P<0.001 for test of all groups being equal). Universal decolonization resulted in a significantly greater reduction in the rate of all bloodstream infections than either targeted decolonization or screening and isolation. One bloodstream infection was prevented per 54 patients who underwent decolonization. The reductions in rates of MRSA bloodstream infection were similar to those of all bloodstream infections, but the difference was not significant. Adverse events, which occurred in 7 patients, were mild and related to chlorhexidine. In routine ICU practice, universal decolonization was more effective than targeted decolonization or screening and isolation in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates and bloodstream infection from any pathogen. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; REDUCE MRSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00980980).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Daily Chlorhexidine Bathing on Hospital-Acquired Infection

            Results of previous single-center, observational studies suggest that daily bathing of patients with chlorhexidine may prevent hospital-acquired bloodstream infections and the acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, nonblinded crossover trial to evaluate the effect of daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths on the acquisition of MDROs and the incidence of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. Nine intensive care and bone marrow transplantation units in six hospitals were randomly assigned to bathe patients either with no-rinse 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths or with nonantimicrobial washcloths for a 6-month period, exchanged for the alternate product during the subsequent 6 months. The incidence rates of acquisition of MDROs and the rates of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections were compared between the two periods by means of Poisson regression analysis. A total of 7727 patients were enrolled during the study. The overall rate of MDRO acquisition was 5.10 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.03), the equivalent of a 23% lower rate with chlorhexidine bathing. The overall rate of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections was 4.78 cases per 1000 patient-days with chlorhexidine bathing versus 6.60 cases per 1000 patient-days with nonantimicrobial washcloths (P=0.007), a 28% lower rate with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths. No serious skin reactions were noted during either study period. Daily bathing with chlorhexidine-impregnated washcloths significantly reduced the risks of acquisition of MDROs and development of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sage Products; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00502476.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High Rate of Acquisition but Short Duration of Carriage of Multidrug-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae After Travel to the Tropics.

              Multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MRE) are widespread in the community, especially in tropical regions. Travelers are at risk of acquiring MRE in these regions, but the precise extent of the problem is not known.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                Eur J Microbiol Immunol (Bp)
                EUJMI
                European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology
                Akadémiai Kiadó (Budapest )
                2062-509X
                2062-8633
                31 May 2017
                June 2017
                : 7
                : 2
                : 99-111
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Internal Medicine, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [2 ] Department of Preventive Medicine, Bundeswehr Medical Academy , Munich, Germany
                [3 ]Central Institute of the Bundeswehr Medical Service Kiel , Department Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [4 ] Department of Hygiene, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [5 ] Department of Tropical Medicine at the Bernhard Nocht Institute, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [6 ] Institute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, Bundeswehr Hospital Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [7 ] Infectious Disease Epidemology, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Hamburg , Hamburg, Germany
                [8 ] Institute for Medical Microbiology, Virology and Hygiene, University Medicine Rostock , Rostock, Germany
                Author notes
                * Department of Tropical Medicine at the Bernhard Nocht Institute, German Armed Forces Hospital of Hamburg, Bernhard Nocht street 74, 20359 Hamburg, Germany; 0049-40-6947-28700; 0049-40-6947-28709; Frickmann@ 123456bni-hamburg.de

                Declaration of interest

                The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

                Article
                10.1556/1886.2017.00008
                5495082
                © 2017, The Author(s)

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 7, Equations: 0, References: 24, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funding sources: There was no source of funding for this study.
                Categories
                Original Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article