Procedural and educational interventions to reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia rate and central line-associated blood stream infection rate.

BACKGROUND: Implementing best practice guidelines for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and central line-associated blood stream infection (CLA-BSI) has variable success. Our institution was concerned with high rates of VAP and CLA-BSI. This retrospective study was undertaken to see whether implementation of the below practices would reduce the rates of VAP and CLA-BSI without resorting to more expensive interventions such as subglottic endotracheal (ET) tube suctioning or silver-impregnated ET tubes. We utilized easily collectable data (standardized infection ratios [SIRs]) to rapidly assess whether interventions already in place were successful. This avoided cumbersome data collection and review. METHODS: Retrospective data review calculated SIRs using National Healthcare Safety Network benchmarks. Rates and SIRs were compared using z tests with P values <.05 considered statistically significant. This data review attempted to examine the impact of education campaigns, staff meetings, in-services, physician checklist, nurse checklist, charge nurse checklist implementation, and chlorhexidine gluconate oral care addition to the VAP bundle. Additionally, central line insertion required nursing supervision, a checklist, and physician signature. RESULTS: The incidence rate of VAP went from 9.88 occurrences/1000 vent days in 2009 to 0 occurrences/1000 vent days in 2010 (P < .001). The CLA-BSI occurrences/1000 line days were 2.86 in 2009 and 0.97 in 2010 (P = .0187). The SIR for VAP was 4.12 in 2009 and 0 in 2010 (P < .001). For CLA-BSI, the SIR was 1.1 in 2009 and 0.37 in 2010 (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve physician, patient, and staff education, and checklist implementation resulted in a decrease in VAP and CLA-BSI. This study confirms the applicability of best practice guidelines and suggests a benefit to the use of checklists. We utilize a practical approach for examining the success of these changes.

Enteral nutrition as stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled exploratory study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether early enteral nutrition alone may be sufficient prophylaxis against stress-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in mechanically ventilated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, exploratory study that included mechanically ventilated patients in medical ICUs of two academic hospitals. Intravenous pantoprazole and early enteral nutrition were compared to placebo and early enteral nutrition as stress-ulcer prophylaxis. The incidences of clinically significant and overt GI bleeding were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: 124 patients were enrolled in the study. After exclusion of 22 patients, 102 patients were included in analysis: 55 patients in the treatment group and 47 patients in the placebo group. Two patients (one from each group) showed signs of overt GI bleeding (overall incidence 1.96%), and both patients experienced a drop of >3 points in hematocrit in a 24-hour period indicating a clinically significant GI bleed. There was no statistical significant difference in the incidence of overt or significant GI bleeding between groups (p=0.99). CONCLUSION: We found no benefit when pantoprazole is added to early enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The routine prescription of acid-suppressive therapy in critically ill patients who tolerate early enteral nutrition warrants further evaluation.