RESUMEN
Significant events impacting healthcare over the last several years have been associated with escalating rates of healthcare-associated infections. This has resulted in increased efforts to reinstitute well-established and evidence-based infection prevention practices, particularly for central line associated bloodstream infections. However, implementation of prevention initiatives beyond central lines has not received the same level of acknowledgement and response as being a considerable risk to patients. This article, authored by infection prevention, infectious disease, and vascular access professionals, provides emerging perspectives and technical aspects associated with the complete lifecycle of a vascular access device. The intent is to provide insight and perspective into enhancing current IP practices in the acute care hospital setting. This will also help prepare hospitals for upcoming broader surveillance and intervention activities aimed at reducing Hospital Onset Bacteremia and Fungemia (HOB) associated with all types of vascular access devices.
RESUMEN
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) as a pay-for-reporting measure in 2015 and is now planning to make it a pay-for-performance measure by incorporating it into the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program. This joint IDSA/ACEP/PIDS/SHEA/SHM/SIPD position paper highlights concerns with this change. Multiple studies indicate that SEP-1 implementation was associated with increased broad-spectrum antibiotic use, lactate measurements, and aggressive fluid resuscitation for patients with suspected sepsis but not with decreased mortality rates. Increased focus on SEP-1 risks further diverting attention and resources from more effective measures and comprehensive sepsis care. We recommend retiring SEP-1 rather than using it in a payment model and shifting instead to new sepsis metrics that focus on patient outcomes. CMS is developing a community-onset sepsis 30-day mortality electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) that is an important step in this direction. The eCQM preliminarily identifies sepsis using systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, antibiotic administrations or diagnosis codes for infection or sepsis, and clinical indicators of acute organ dysfunction. We support the eCQM but recommend removing SIRS criteria and diagnosis codes to streamline implementation, decrease variability between hospitals, maintain vigilance for patients with sepsis but without SIRS, and avoid promoting antibiotic use in uninfected patients with SIRS. We further advocate for CMS to harmonize the eCQM with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Adult Sepsis Event surveillance metric to promote unity in federal measures, decrease reporting burden for hospitals, and facilitate shared prevention initiatives. These steps will result in a more robust measure that will encourage hospitals to pay more attention to the full breadth of sepsis care, stimulate new innovations in diagnosis and treatment, and ultimately bring us closer to our shared goal of improving outcomes for patients.
Asunto(s)
Sepsis , Choque Séptico , Anciano , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Reembolso de Incentivo , Medicare , Sepsis/diagnóstico , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológico , Síndrome de Respuesta Inflamatoria Sistémica , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Choque Séptico/diagnóstico , Choque Séptico/terapiaRESUMEN
Importance: Pneumonia is the most common infection requiring hospitalization and is a major reason for overuse of extended-spectrum antibiotics. Despite low risk of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infection, clinical uncertainty often drives initial antibiotic selection. Strategies to limit empiric antibiotic overuse for patients with pneumonia are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO infection risk estimates could reduce empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for non-critically ill patients admitted with pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time MDRO risk-based CPOE prompts; n = 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in non-critically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with pneumonia. There was an 18-month baseline period from April 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and a 15-month intervention period from April 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. Intervention: CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics during the empiric period who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO pneumonia, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy and safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes compared differences between baseline and intervention periods across strategies. Results: Among 59 hospitals with 96â¯451 (51â¯671 in the baseline period and 44â¯780 in the intervention period) adult patients admitted with pneumonia, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.1 (17.0) years, 48.1% were men, and the median (IQR) Elixhauser comorbidity count was 4 (2-6). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 28.4% reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P < .001). Safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.5 vs 7.1 days) and hospital length of stay (6.8 vs 7.1 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and CPOE intervention groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use was significantly lower among adults admitted with pneumonia to non-ICU settings in hospitals using education, feedback, and CPOE prompts recommending standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients at low risk of MDRO infection, compared with routine stewardship practices. Hospital length of stay and days to ICU transfer were unchanged. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697070.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos , Sistemas de Entrada de Órdenes Médicas , Neumonía , Humanos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Neumonía/tratamiento farmacológico , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Neumonía Bacteriana/tratamiento farmacológico , HospitalizaciónRESUMEN
Importance: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the second most common infection leading to hospitalization and is often associated with gram-negative multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Clinicians overuse extended-spectrum antibiotics although most patients are at low risk for MDRO infection. Safe strategies to limit overuse of empiric antibiotics are needed. Objective: To evaluate whether computerized provider order entry (CPOE) prompts providing patient- and pathogen-specific MDRO risk estimates could reduce use of empiric extended-spectrum antibiotics for treatment of UTI. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster-randomized trial in 59 US community hospitals comparing the effect of a CPOE stewardship bundle (education, feedback, and real-time and risk-based CPOE prompts; 29 hospitals) vs routine stewardship (n = 30 hospitals) on antibiotic selection during the first 3 hospital days (empiric period) in noncritically ill adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with UTI with an 18-month baseline (April 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and 15-month intervention period (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2020). Interventions: CPOE prompts recommending empiric standard-spectrum antibiotics in patients ordered to receive extended-spectrum antibiotics who have low estimated absolute risk (<10%) of MDRO UTI, coupled with feedback and education. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was empiric (first 3 days of hospitalization) extended-spectrum antibiotic days of therapy. Secondary outcomes included empiric vancomycin and antipseudomonal days of therapy. Safety outcomes included days to intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were assessed using generalized linear mixed-effect models to assess differences between the baseline and intervention periods. Results: Among 127â¯403 adult patients (71â¯991 baseline and 55â¯412 intervention period) admitted with UTI in 59 hospitals, the mean (SD) age was 69.4 (17.9) years, 30.5% were male, and the median Elixhauser Comorbidity Index count was 4 (IQR, 2-5). Compared with routine stewardship, the group using CPOE prompts had a 17.4% (95% CI, 11.2%-23.2%) reduction in empiric extended-spectrum days of therapy (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; P < .001). The safety outcomes of mean days to ICU transfer (6.6 vs 7.0 days) and hospital length of stay (6.3 vs 6.5 days) did not differ significantly between the routine and intervention groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with routine stewardship, CPOE prompts providing real-time recommendations for standard-spectrum antibiotics for patients with low MDRO risk coupled with feedback and education significantly reduced empiric extended-spectrum antibiotic use among noncritically ill adults admitted with UTI without changing hospital length of stay or days to ICU transfers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03697096.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Programas de Optimización del Uso de los Antimicrobianos , Sistemas de Entrada de Órdenes Médicas , Infecciones Urinarias , Humanos , Infecciones Urinarias/tratamiento farmacológico , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple , Hospitales Comunitarios , Tiempo de Internación , AdultoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Influential studies conclude that each hour until antibiotics increases mortality in sepsis. However, these analyses often (1) adjusted for limited covariates, (2) included patients with long delays until antibiotics, (3) combined sepsis and septic shock, and (4) used linear models presuming each hour delay has equal impact. We evaluated the effect of these analytic choices on associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 104 248 adults admitted to 5 hospitals from 2015-2022 with suspected infection (blood culture collection and intravenous antibiotics ≤24 h of arrival), including 25 990 with suspected septic shock and 23 619 with sepsis without shock. We used multivariable regression to calculate associations between time-to-antibiotics and in-hospital mortality under successively broader confounding-adjustment, shorter maximum time-to-antibiotic intervals, stratification by illness severity, and removing assumptions of linear hourly associations. RESULTS: Changing covariates, maximum time-to-antibiotics, and severity stratification altered the magnitude, direction, and significance of observed associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality. In a fully adjusted model of patients treated ≤6 hours, each hour was associated with higher mortality for septic shock (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.04-1.11) but not sepsis without shock (aOR: 1.03; .98-1.09) or suspected infection alone (aOR: .99; .94-1.05). Modeling each hour separately confirmed that every hour of delay was associated with increased mortality for septic shock, but only delays >6 hours were associated with higher mortality for sepsis without shock. CONCLUSIONS: Associations between time-to-antibiotics and mortality in sepsis are highly sensitive to analytic choices. Failure to adequately address these issues can generate misleading conclusions.
Asunto(s)
Sepsis , Choque Séptico , Adulto , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Factores de Tiempo , Mortalidad HospitalariaRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a leading cause of preventable harm in US hospitals. Hospitals are required to conduct surveillance and report selected HAIs, including central line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, colon and abdominal hysterectomy surgical-site infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia, and Clostridioides difficile infections, to the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network. RECENT FINDINGS: Up until the COVID-19 pandemic, there was significant progress in reducing HAIs. However, the pandemic resulted in extraordinary challenges for infection prevention in hospitals. Increases in HAIs were observed throughout 2020 and 2021. The Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals has recently been updated and provides common sense evidenced-based strategies to reduce HAIs. SUMMARY: The purpose of this review is to highlight important changes since the 2014 Compendium.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Infecciones Urinarias , Femenino , Humanos , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/epidemiología , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & control , Pandemias/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infecciones Urinarias/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Importance: Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included. Intervention: Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline). Main Outcomes and Measures: ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%. Results: Among the 801â¯668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos , Baños , Clorhexidina , Yodóforos , Mupirocina , Sepsis , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Administración Intranasal , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos/administración & dosificación , Antiinfecciosos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Baños/métodos , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Yodóforos/administración & dosificación , Yodóforos/uso terapéutico , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Mupirocina/administración & dosificación , Mupirocina/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto , Sepsis/epidemiología , Sepsis/microbiología , Sepsis/prevención & control , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Staphylococcus aureus/aislamiento & purificación , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The profound changes wrought by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on routine hospital operations may have influenced performance on hospital measures, including healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). We aimed to evaluate the association between COVID-19 surges and HAI and cluster rates. METHODS: In 148 HCA Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, from 1 March 2020 to 30 September 2020, and a subset of hospitals with microbiology and cluster data through 31 December 2020, we evaluated the association between COVID-19 surges and HAIs, hospital-onset pathogens, and cluster rates using negative binomial mixed models. To account for local variation in COVID-19 pandemic surge timing, we included the number of discharges with a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis per staffed bed per month. RESULTS: Central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia increased as COVID-19 burden increased. There were 60% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 23-108%) more CLABSI, 43% (95% CI: 8-90%) more CAUTI, and 44% (95% CI: 10-88%) more cases of MRSA bacteremia than expected over 7 months based on predicted HAIs had there not been COVID-19 cases. Clostridioides difficile infection was not significantly associated with COVID-19 burden. Microbiology data from 81 of the hospitals corroborated the findings. Notably, rates of hospital-onset bloodstream infections and multidrug resistant organisms, including MRSA, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, and Gram-negative organisms, were each significantly associated with COVID-19 surges. Finally, clusters of hospital-onset pathogens increased as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 surges adversely impact HAI rates and clusters of infections within hospitals, emphasizing the need for balancing COVID-related demands with routine hospital infection prevention.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia , COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres , Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Infecciones Urinarias , Enterococos Resistentes a la Vancomicina , Bacteriemia/epidemiología , Bacteriemia/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Infecciones Relacionadas con Catéteres/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Pandemias , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador/microbiología , Infecciones Urinarias/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients who are colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at high risk for infection after discharge. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of postdischarge hygiene education, as compared with education plus decolonization, in patients colonized with MRSA (carriers). Decolonization involved chlorhexidine mouthwash, baths or showers with chlorhexidine, and nasal mupirocin for 5 days twice per month for 6 months. Participants were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was MRSA infection as defined according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Secondary outcomes included MRSA infection determined on the basis of clinical judgment, infection from any cause, and infection-related hospitalization. All analyses were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol population (all participants who underwent randomization, met the inclusion criteria, and survived beyond the recruitment hospitalization) and as-treated population (participants stratified according to adherence). RESULTS: In the per-protocol population, MRSA infection occurred in 98 of 1063 participants (9.2%) in the education group and in 67 of 1058 (6.3%) in the decolonization group; 84.8% of the MRSA infections led to hospitalization. Infection from any cause occurred in 23.7% of the participants in the education group and 19.6% of those in the decolonization group; 85.8% of the infections led to hospitalization. The hazard of MRSA infection was significantly lower in the decolonization group than in the education group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.96; P=0.03; number needed to treat to prevent one infection, 30; 95% CI, 18 to 230); this lower hazard led to a lower risk of hospitalization due to MRSA infection (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.99). The decolonization group had lower likelihoods of clinically judged infection from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.99) and infection-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.93); treatment effects for secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution owing to a lack of prespecified adjustment for multiple comparisons. In as-treated analyses, participants in the decolonization group who adhered fully to the regimen had 44% fewer MRSA infections than the education group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.86) and had 40% fewer infections from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.78). Side effects (all mild) occurred in 4.2% of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: Postdischarge MRSA decolonization with chlorhexidine and mupirocin led to a 30% lower risk of MRSA infection than education alone. (Funded by the AHRQ Healthcare-Associated Infections Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01209234 .).
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Clorhexidina/uso terapéutico , Desinfección , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Mupirocina/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Intranasal , Adulto , Anciano , Portador Sano , Comorbilidad , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa/prevención & control , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Higiene/educación , Control de Infecciones/métodos , Masculino , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/transmisiónRESUMEN
Patients with invasive candidiasis (IC) have complex medical and infectious disease problems that often require continued care after discharge. This study aimed to assess echinocandin use at hospital discharge and develop a transition of care (TOC) model to facilitate discharge for patients with IC. This was a mixed method study design that used epidemiologic assessment to better understand echinocandin use at hospital discharge TOC. Using grounded theory methodology focused on patients given echinocandins during their last day of hospitalization, a TOC model for patients with IC, the invasive candidiasis [I Can] discharge model was developed to better understand discharge barriers. A total of 33% (1405/4211) echinocandin courses were continued until the last day of hospitalization. Of 536 patients chosen for in-depth review, 220 (41%) were discharged home, 109 (20%) were transferred, and 207 (39%) died prior to discharge. Almost half (46%, 151/329) of patients discharged alive received outpatient echinocandin therapy. Independent predictors for outpatient echinocandin use were osteomyelitis (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.1-15.7; p = 0.04), other deep-seated infection (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.7-12.0; p = 0.003), and non-home discharge location (OR, 3.9, 95% CI, 2.0-7.7; p < 0.001). The I Can discharge model was developed encompassing four distinct themes which was used to identify potential barriers to discharge. Significant echinocadin use occurs at hospital discharge TOC. The I Can discharge model may help clinical, policy, and research decision-making processes to facilitate smoother and earlier hospital discharges.
Asunto(s)
Candidiasis Invasiva , Alta del Paciente , Antifúngicos/uso terapéutico , Candidiasis , Candidiasis Invasiva/diagnóstico , Candidiasis Invasiva/tratamiento farmacológico , Candidiasis Invasiva/microbiología , Equinocandinas/uso terapéutico , HumanosRESUMEN
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle (SEP-1) measure has appropriately established sepsis as a national priority. However, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA and five additional endorsing societies) is concerned about SEP-1's potential to drive antibiotic overuse because it does not account for the high rate of sepsis overdiagnosis and encourages aggressive antibiotics for all patients with possible sepsis, regardless of the certainty of diagnosis or severity of illness. IDSA is also concerned that SEP-1's complex "time zero" definition is not evidence-based and is prone to inter-observer variation. In this position paper, IDSA outlines several recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of unintended consequences of SEP-1 while maintaining focus on its evidence-based elements. IDSA's core recommendation is to limit SEP-1 to septic shock, for which the evidence supporting the benefit of immediate antibiotics is greatest. Prompt empiric antibiotics are often appropriate for suspected sepsis without shock, but IDSA believes there is too much heterogeneity and difficulty defining this population, uncertainty about the presence of infection, and insufficient data on the necessity of immediate antibiotics to support a mandatory treatment standard for all patients in this category. IDSA believes guidance on managing possible sepsis without shock is more appropriate for guidelines that can delineate the strengths and limitations of supporting evidence and allow clinicians discretion in applying specific recommendations to individual patients. Removing sepsis without shock from SEP-1 will mitigate the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for noninfectious syndromes, simplify data abstraction, increase measure reliability, and focus attention on the population most likely to benefit from immediate empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles , Sepsis , Choque Séptico , Anciano , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Transmisibles/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Medicare , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sepsis/diagnóstico , Sepsis/tratamiento farmacológico , Choque Séptico/diagnóstico , Choque Séptico/tratamiento farmacológico , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Widespread use and misuse of prescription and illicit opioids have exposed millions to health risks including serious infectious complications. Little is known, however, about the association between opioid use and sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: About 373 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Adults hospitalized between January 2009 and September 2015. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was identified by clinical indicators of concurrent infection and organ dysfunction. Opioid-related hospitalizations were identified by the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes and/or inpatient orders for buprenorphine. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared by sepsis and opioid-related hospitalization status. The association between opioid-related hospitalization and all-cause, in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis was assessed using mixed-effects logistic models to adjust for baseline characteristics and severity of illness.The cohort included 6,715,286 hospitalizations; 375,479 (5.6%) had sepsis, 130,399 (1.9%) had opioid-related hospitalizations, and 8,764 (0.1%) had both. Compared with sepsis patients without opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 366,715), sepsis patients with opioid-related hospitalizations (n = 8,764) were younger (mean 52.3 vs 66.9 yr) and healthier (mean Elixhauser score 5.4 vs 10.5), had more bloodstream infections from Gram-positive and fungal pathogens (68.9% vs 47.0% and 10.6% vs 6.4%, respectively), and had lower in-hospital mortality rates (10.6% vs 16.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Of 1,803 patients with opioid-related hospitalizations who died in-hospital, 928 (51.5%) had sepsis. Opioid-related hospitalizations accounted for 1.5% of all sepsis-associated deaths, including 5.7% of sepsis deaths among patients less than 50 years old. From 2009 to 2015, the proportion of sepsis hospitalizations that were opioid-related increased by 77% (95% CI, 40.7-123.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with opioid-related hospitalizations, and opioid-related hospitalizations contribute disproportionately to sepsis-associated deaths among younger patients. In addition to ongoing efforts to combat the opioid crisis, public health agencies should focus on raising awareness about sepsis among patients who use opioids and their providers.
Asunto(s)
Hospitalización/tendencias , Sobredosis de Opiáceos/complicaciones , Sepsis/complicaciones , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios de Cohortes , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oportunidad Relativa , Sobredosis de Opiáceos/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sepsis/epidemiología , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Universal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units. METHODS: The ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867. FINDINGS: There were 189â081 patients in the baseline period and 339â902 patients (156â889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73-0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79-0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (<1%) adverse events, all involving chlorhexidine, among 183â013 patients in units assigned to chlorhexidine, and none were reported for mupirocin. INTERPRETATION: Decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine bathing and targeted mupirocin for MRSA carriers did not significantly reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in non-critical-care patients. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.
Asunto(s)
Bacteriemia/prevención & control , Baños/métodos , Clorhexidina/administración & dosificación , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana Múltiple/efectos de los fármacos , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/efectos de los fármacos , Administración Intranasal , Anciano , Antiinfecciosos Locales/administración & dosificación , Portador Sano/sangre , Portador Sano/epidemiología , Femenino , Humanos , Control de Infecciones , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Mupirocina/administración & dosificación , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/prevención & control , Staphylococcus aureus/efectos de los fármacos , Staphylococcus aureus/patogenicidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Administrative claims data are commonly used for sepsis surveillance, research, and quality improvement. However, variations in diagnosis, documentation, and coding practices for sepsis and organ dysfunction may confound efforts to estimate sepsis rates, compare outcomes, and perform risk adjustment. We evaluated hospital variation in the sensitivity of claims data relative to clinical data from electronic health records and its impact on outcome comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 4.3 million adult encounters at 193 U.S. hospitals in 2013-2014. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis was defined using electronic health record-derived clinical indicators of presumed infection (blood culture draws and antibiotic administrations) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, doubling in creatinine, doubling in bilirubin to ≥ 2.0 mg/dL, decrease in platelets to < 100 cells/µL, or lactate ≥ 2.0 mmol/L). We compared claims for sepsis prevalence and mortality rates between both methods. All estimates were reliability adjusted to account for random variation using hierarchical logistic regression modeling. The sensitivity of hospitals' claims data was low and variable: median 30% (range, 5-54%) for sepsis, 66% (range, 26-84%) for acute kidney injury, 39% (range, 16-60%) for thrombocytopenia, 36% (range, 29-44%) for hepatic injury, and 66% (range, 29-84%) for shock. Correlation between claims and clinical data was moderate for sepsis prevalence (Pearson coefficient, 0.64) and mortality (0.61). Among hospitals in the lowest sepsis mortality quartile by claims, 46% shifted to higher mortality quartiles using clinical data. Using implicit sepsis criteria based on infection and organ dysfunction codes also yielded major differences versus clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in the accuracy of claims data for identifying sepsis and organ dysfunction limits their use for comparing hospitals' sepsis rates and outcomes. Using objective clinical data may facilitate more meaningful hospital comparisons.
Asunto(s)
Registros Electrónicos de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/epidemiología , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Sepsis/diagnóstico , Sepsis/epidemiología , Adulto , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/mortalidad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Sepsis/mortalidad , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
While conducting a set of large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials involving high-impact public health issues such as end-stage renal disease, opioid use, and colorectal cancer, there were substantial changes to both policies and guidelines relevant to the trials. These external changes gave rise to unexpected challenges for the trials, including decisions regarding how to respond to new clinical practice guidelines, increased difficulty in implementing trial interventions, achieving separation between treatment groups, and differential responses across sites. In this article, we describe these challenges and the approaches used to address them. When deliberating appropriate action in the face of external changes during a pragmatic clinical trial, we recommend considering the well-being of the participants, clinical equipoise, and the strength and quality of the evidence associated with the change; involving those charged with data and safety monitoring; and where possible, planning for potential external changes as the trial is being designed. Any solution must balance the primary obligation to protect the well-being of participants with the secondary obligation to protect the integrity of the trial in order to gain meaningful answers to important public health questions.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales/terapia , Fallo Renal Crónico/terapia , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/terapia , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto/métodos , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud , Salud Pública , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
In this multicenter retrospective cohort study of over 1 million patients at 150 US hospitals, proton pump inhibitors increased the odds of a patient having hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection as did third and fourth generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and piperacillin/tazobactam. These findings support appropriate prescribing of acid-suppression therapy and high-risk antibiotics.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Carbapenémicos/efectos adversos , Infecciones por Clostridium/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/efectos adversos , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Carbapenémicos/uso terapéutico , Clostridioides difficile/aislamiento & purificación , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Femenino , Hospitales , Humanos , Masculino , Oportunidad Relativa , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Colonization with health care-associated pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus, enterococci, Gram-negative organisms, and Clostridium difficile is associated with increased risk of infection. Decolonization is an evidence-based intervention that can be used to prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs). This review evaluates agents used for nasal topical decolonization, topical (e.g., skin) decolonization, oral decolonization, and selective digestive or oropharyngeal decontamination. Although the majority of studies performed to date have focused on S. aureus decolonization, there is increasing interest in how to apply decolonization strategies to reduce infections due to Gram-negative organisms, especially those that are multidrug resistant. Nasal topical decolonization agents reviewed include mupirocin, bacitracin, retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, photodynamic therapy, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Mupirocin is still the gold standard agent for S. aureus nasal decolonization, but there is concern about mupirocin resistance, and alternative agents are needed. Of the other nasal decolonization agents, large clinical trials are still needed to evaluate the effectiveness of retapamulin, povidone-iodine, alcohol-based nasal antiseptic, tea tree oil, omiganan pentahydrochloride, and lysostaphin. Given inferior outcomes and increased risk of allergic dermatitis, the use of bacitracin-containing compounds cannot be recommended as a decolonization strategy. Topical decolonization agents reviewed included chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), hexachlorophane, povidone-iodine, triclosan, and sodium hypochlorite. Of these, CHG is the skin decolonization agent that has the strongest evidence base, and sodium hypochlorite can also be recommended. CHG is associated with prevention of infections due to Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms as well as Candida. Conversely, triclosan use is discouraged, and topical decolonization with hexachlorophane and povidone-iodine cannot be recommended at this time. There is also evidence to support use of selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination, but additional studies are needed to assess resistance to these agents, especially selection for resistance among Gram-negative organisms. The strongest evidence for decolonization is for use among surgical patients as a strategy to prevent surgical site infections.
Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Bacterias/efectos de los fármacos , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Hongos/efectos de los fármacos , Administración Tópica , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Farmacorresistencia Bacteriana/efectos de los fármacos , Tracto Gastrointestinal/efectos de los fármacos , Tracto Gastrointestinal/microbiología , Humanos , Nariz/efectos de los fármacos , Nariz/microbiología , Piel/efectos de los fármacos , Piel/microbiologíaRESUMEN
Data from the National Inpatient Sample show that the decrease in hospitalizations related to methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections between 2010 and 2014 primarily reflected declines in skin and soft tissue infections. Hospitalizations related to invasive MRSA remained largely unchanged.
Asunto(s)
Hospitalización/tendencias , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Antibacterianos/farmacología , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/epidemiología , Infecciones Comunitarias Adquiridas/microbiología , Hospitalización/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Neumonía/epidemiología , Neumonía/microbiología , Infecciones de los Tejidos Blandos/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones de los Tejidos Blandos/epidemiología , Infecciones de los Tejidos Blandos/microbiología , Infecciones Cutáneas Estafilocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Cutáneas Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Staphylococcus aureus/efectos de los fármacos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services adopted the Early Management Bundle, Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock (SEP-1) performance measure to the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program in July 2015 to help address the high mortality and high cost associated with sepsis. The SEP-1 performance measure requires, among other critical interventions, timely administration of antibiotics to patients with sepsis or septic shock. The multistakeholder workgroup recognizes the need for SEP-1 but strongly believes that multiple antibiotics listed in the antibiotic tables for SEP-1 are not appropriate and the use of these antibiotics, as called for in the SEP-1 measure, is not in alignment with prudent antimicrobial stewardship. To promote the appropriate use of antimicrobials and combat antimicrobial resistance, the workgroup provides recommendations for appropriate antibiotics for the treatment of sepsis.