Are central line bundles and ventilator bundles effective in critically ill neonates and children? (Stockwell)

Intensive Care Med. 2013 Aug;39(8):1352-8. PMID: 23615702

Central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are common problems in adult, pediatric (PICU) and neonatal (NICU) intensive care unit patients. Care bundles have been developed to prevent these hospital-acquired infections and to provide best possible care. Studies in adults have proven that care bundles contribute to a decrease in CLABSI and VAP rates. The purpose of this literature review was to critically appraise the known evidence of the effectiveness of central line bundles and ventilator bundles in PICU and NICU patients. The number of publications of central line bundles and ventilator bundles in PICU and NICU patients is limited compared to adults. Ten studies in PICU patients demonstrated a significant decrease in the CLABSI or VAP rate after implementation of the bundle. Two studies in neonates demonstrated a reduction in the CLABSI rate after implementation of the central line bundle. No studies on the effectiveness of the ventilator bundle in neonates were found. Bundle elements differed between studies, and their scientific basis was not as robust as in adults. Monitoring of compliance to bundle elements seems required for optimal reduction of CLABSI and VAP. Bundle components that focus on maintenance of a central line probably are important to prevent CLABSI in children.

Full-text for Emory users.

Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. (Kamat)

N Engl J Med. 2013 Jun 13;368(24):2255-65. PMID: 23718152

BACKGROUND: 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).

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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 number, NCT00980980).

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.

Benefits of universal gloving on hospital-acquired infections in acute care pediatric units. (Vats)

Pediatrics. 2013 May;131(5):e1515-20. PMID: 23610206

BACKGROUND: To prevent transmission, some pediatric units require clinicians to wear gloves for all patient contacts during RSV season. We sought to assess whether a mandatory gloving policy reduced the risk of other health care-acquired infections (HAIs).

METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients admitted to pediatric units of a tertiary care center between 2002 and 2010. Poisson regression models were used to measure the association between mandatory gloving and HAI incidence. Autoregressive models were used to adjust for time correlation.

RESULTS: During the study period, 686 HAIs occurred during 363 782 patient-days. The risk of any HAI was 25% lower during mandatory gloving periods compared with during nongloving periods (relative risk [RR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.93; P = .01), after adjusting for long-term trends and seasonal effect. Mandatory gloving was associated with lower risks of bloodstream infections (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.49-0.81; P < .001), central line-associated bloodstream infections (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.44-0.84; P = 0.003), and hospital-acquired pneumonia (RR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.03-1.25; P= 0.09). The reduction was significant in the PICU (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93; P = .02), the NICU (RR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.39-0.98; P = .04), and the Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Unit (RR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.91, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS: Universal gloving during RSV season was associated with significantly lower rates of bacteremia and central line-associated bloodstream infections, particularly in the ICUs and the Pediatric Bone Marrow Transplant Unit.

Full-text for Children’s and Emory users.

Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection. (from NEJM, February 2013 – Kamat)

New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Feb 7;368(6):533-42. PMID: 23388005

Full-text access for Children’s and Emory users.

BACKGROUND: 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).

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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; number, NCT00502476.).