A nonclonal outbreak of vancomycin-sensitive Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia in a neonatal intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an outbreak of bacteremia caused by vancomycin-sensitive Enterococcus faecalis (VSEfe). DESIGN: An investigation by retrospective case control and molecular typing by whole-genome sequencing (WGS). SETTING: A tertiary-care neonatal unit in Melbourne, Australia. METHODS: Risk factors for 30 consecutive neonates with VSEfe bacteremia from June 2011 to December 2014 were analyzed using a case control study. Controls were neonates matched for gestational age, birth weight, and year of birth. Isolates were typed using WGS, and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) was determined. RESULTS: Bacteremia for case patients occurred at a median time after delivery of 23.5 days (interquartile range, 14.9-35.8). Previous described risk factors for nosocomial bacteremia did not contribute to excess risk for VSEfe. WGS typing results designated 43% ST179 as well as 14 other sequence types, indicating a polyclonal outbreak. A multimodal intervention that included education, insertion checklists, guidelines on maintenance and access of central lines, adjustments to the late onset sepsis antibiotic treatment, and the introduction of diaper bags for disposal of soiled diapers after being handled inside the bed, led to termination of the outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Typing using WGS identified this outbreak as predominately nonclonal and therefore not due to cross transmission. A multimodal approach was then sought to reduce the incidence of VSEfe bacteremia.

A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line infection in neonates using checklists.

Central line associated blood stream infections (CLABSI) are the most common complication of central catheters in neonates. These infections increase length of hospital stay, hospital costs and impact on mortality and morbidities. We performed a quasi-experimental study, over 24 months, utilising a pre-post design to determine the impact checklists had on central line infections. We introduced checklists for insertion, daily maintenance and procedural access based on the existing clinical guideline. Infections and compliance were monitored and reported back to the unit each month. We utilised the interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of introduction of the checklists. Over the 24 months, 318 infants were included with a total of 509 central lines inserted. In the post intervention phase, definite CLABSI rates declined by 41%, from 13.8 definite CLABSIs per 1000 central-line days to 7.8 definite CLABSIs per 1000 central-line days. There was significant change in the mean levels in the post intervention phase (coefficient crude -0.01015; 95% CI -0.01980-0.00051, p value 0.039). Checklist compliance for insertion was 70%, and daily maintenance compliance overall mean was 66%. CONCLUSION: Our quality improvement initiative using checklists, supported with education and feedback, significantly reduced CLABSI in our neonatal unit. What is Known: • Central line associated blood stream infection (CLABSI) continue to cause mortality and morbidity in the neonatal population. • Bundles of intervention use quality improvement methodology to reduce CLABSI and checklists can assist with the introduction of these. What is New: • Checklists assist with reducing central line infection. • To ensure the success of checklists, robust education, leadership and continuous feedback are vital.

Skin antisepsis for reducing central venous catheter-related infections.

BACKGROUND: The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition. However, as a foreign object, it is susceptible to colonisation by micro-organisms, which may lead to catheter-related blood stream infection (BSI) and in turn, increased mortality, morbidities and health care costs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.

Antimicrobial dressings for the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants with central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) provide secured venous access in neonates. Antimicrobial dressings applied over the CVC sites have been proposed to reduce catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) by decreasing colonisation. However, there may be concerns on the local and systemic adverse effects of these dressings in neonates. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness and safety of antimicrobial (antiseptic or antibiotic) dressings in reducing CVC-related infections in newborn infants. Had there been relevant data, we would have evaluated the effects of antimicrobial dressings in different subgroups, including infants who received different types of CVCs, infants who required CVC for different durations, infants with CVCs with and without other antimicrobial modifications, and infants who received an antimicrobial dressing with and without a clearly defined co-intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (EBCHOST), CINAHL and references cited in our short-listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to September 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared an antimicrobial CVC dressing against no dressing or another dressing in newborn infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Out of 173 articles screened, three studies were included. There were two comparisons: chlorhexidine dressing following alcohol cleansing versus polyurethane dressing following povidone-iodine cleansing (one study); and silver-alginate patch versus control (two studies). A total of 855 infants from level III neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were evaluated, 705 of whom were from a single study. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of care personnel or unclear risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessors. There was moderate-quality evidence for all major outcomes.The single study comparing chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing against polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing showed no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.65; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence) and sepsis without a source (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.52; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). There was a significant reduction in the risk of catheter colonisation favouring chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86; RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.15 to -0.03; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 11, 95% CI 7 to 33; 655 infants, moderate-quality evidence). However, infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group were significantly more likely to develop contact dermatitis, with 19 infants in the chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing group having developed contact dermatitis compared to none in the polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing group (RR 43.06, 95% CI 2.61 to 710.44; RD 0.06, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.08; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 13 to 33; 705 infants, moderate-quality evidence). The roles of chlorhexidine dressing in the outcomes reported were unclear, as the two assigned groups received different co-interventions in the form of different skin cleansing agents prior to catheter insertion and during each dressing change.In the other comparison, silver-alginate patch versus control, the data for CRBSI were analysed separately in two subgroups as the two included studies reported the outcome using different denominators: one using infants and another using catheters. There were no significant differences between infants who received silver-alginate patch against infants who received standard line dressing in CRBSI, whether expressed as the number of infants (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.78; RD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; 1 study, 50 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or as the number of catheters (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.89; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.10; 1 study, 118 participants, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no significant difference between the two groups in mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.05; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.05; two studies, 150 infants, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). No adverse skin reaction was recorded in either group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on moderate-quality evidence, chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol skin cleansing reduced catheter colonisation, but made no significant difference in major outcomes like sepsis and CRBSI compared to polyurethane dressing/povidone-iodine cleansing. Chlorhexidine dressing/alcohol cleansing posed a substantial risk of contact dermatitis in preterm infants, although it was unclear whether this was contributed mainly by the dressing material or the cleansing agent. While silver-alginate patch appeared safe, evidence is still insufficient for a recommendation in practice. Future research that evaluates antimicrobial dressing should ensure blinding of caregivers and outcome assessors and ensure that all participants receive the same co-interventions, such as the skin cleansing agent. Major outcomes like sepsis, CRBSI and mortality should be assessed in infants of different gestation and birth weight.

Antibiotic lock for the prevention of catheter-related infection in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Use of a central venous catheter (CVC) in neonates is associated with an increase in nosocomial infection. Numerous strategies exist to prevent catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI); however, CRBSI continues to be a major problem. Antibiotic locking catheters is a new and promising treatment that potentially prevents this severe condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of antibiotic lock versus no antibiotic lock or alternative antibiotic lock in the prevention of catheter-related infections in newborn infants of any gestational age during their initial stay in the neonatal unit and to study any relevant adverse effects from antibiotic lock therapy. SEARCH METHODS: Methods followed those of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5); MEDLINE (via PubMed); EMBASE (hosted by EBCHOST); CINAHL; abstracts from Pediatric Academic Societies, European Society for Paediatric Research and trials registries; and references cited in our short listed articles using keywords and MeSH headings, up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all trials utilising random or quasi-random participant allocation. Participants included all newborn infants of any postmenstrual age who required any type of CVC. We compared an antibiotic lock technique with no antibiotic lock or placebo, such as heparinised saline, for any duration of time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of the CNRG. Two review authors independently assessed the relevance and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our dichotomous results using risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed for heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (271 infants) in this review. Two of the three included studies had an overall low risk of bias and the remaining study had high risk of selection and performance biases. The use of an antibiotic lock decreased the incidence of confirmed catheter-related infection (typical RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.40; 3 studies, 271 infants) (high-quality evidence). The typical absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 18.5% and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5. The effect of use of an antibiotic lock on suspected catheter infection was imprecise (typical RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.92) (moderate quality evidence). Confirmed and suspect infection rates combined were lower in the antibiotic lock group (absolute rates, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.49; rate per 1000 catheter days, RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.40). The ARR was 20.5% and the NNTB was 5. None of the studies report resistance to the antibiotic used during the lock treatment. There was no significant difference in the detectable serum levels of antibiotic. When the data from two studies were pooled, there were significantly fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia in the treatment arm (typical RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.92). There was no statistically significant difference for mortality due to sepsis between the control and intervention group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small number of trials and neonates, antibiotic lock solution appeared to be effective in preventing CRBSI in the neonatal population. However, as each included study used a different antibiotics and antibiotic resistance could not be reliably assessed, the evidence to-date is insufficient to determine the effects of antibiotic lock on infections in neonates.

Prevention of central venous catheter-related infection in the neonatal unit: a literature review.

Central venous catheter infections are the leading cause of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections and contribute significantly to mortality and morbidity in neonatal intensive care units. Moreover, infection poses significant economic consequence which increased hospital costs and increased length of hospital stay. Prevention strategies are detailed in guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States; nevertheless, recent surveys in neonatal units in the United States, and Australia and New Zealand demonstrate these are not always followed. This review discusses the numerous evidence-based strategies to prevent catheter infections including hand hygiene, maximal sterile barriers during insertion, skin disinfection, selection of insertion site, dressings, aseptic non-touch technique, disinfection of catheter hubs/ports, administration set management, prompt removal of catheter, antibiotic locks, systemic antibiotic prophylaxis and chlorhexidine bathing. Furthermore, it will describe different strategies that can be implemented into clinical practice to reduce infection rates. These include the use of care bundles including checklists, education and the use of CVC teams.

A survey of central venous catheter practices in Australian and New Zealand tertiary neonatal units.

BACKGROUND: Infection is the most common problem with central venous catheters (CVCs) in neonates. There are two published guidelines, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infection that describes evidence-based practice to reduce nosocomial infection. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to survey current medical and nursing management of central venous catheters in tertiary neonatal intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand and to compare with the CDC evidence-based practice guideline. METHODS: A cross sectional survey was performed across 27 Australian and New Zealand neonatal units in September 2012. Two web-based questionnaires were distributed, one to medical directors related to the insertion of CVCs while CVC "maintenance" surveys were sent to nurse unit managers. RESULTS: Seventy percent (19/27) medical management and 59% (16/27) on nursing management surveys were completed. In all neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) there were guidelines for CVC maintenance and for 18 out of 19 there were guidelines for insertion. In the seven units using femoral lines, three had a guideline on insertion and four for maintenance. CVC insertion was restricted to credentialed staff in 57.9% of neonatal units. Only 26.5% used full maximal sterile barriers for insertion. Skin disinfection practices widely varied. Dressing use and dressing change regimens were standardised; all using a semi-permeable dressing. Duration of cleaning time of the access point varied significantly; however, the majority used a chlorhexidine with alcohol solution (68.8%). Line and fluid changes varied from daily to 96 h. The majority used sterile gloves and a sterile dressing pack to access the CVC (68.8%). In the majority of NICUs stopcocks were used (62.5%) with a needle-less access point attached (87.5%). In less than 50% of NICUs education was provided on insertion and maintenance. CONCLUSION: There is diversity of current practices and some aspects vary from the CDC guideline. There is a need to review NICU current practices to align with evidence based guidelines. The introduction of a common guideline may reduce variations in practice.

Tracheal suctioning without disconnection in intubated ventilated neonates.

BACKGROUND: Assisted mechanical ventilation is a necessity in the neonatal population for a variety of respiratory and surgical conditions. However, there are a number of potential hazards associated with this life saving intervention. New suctioning techniques have been introduced into clinical practice which aim to prevent or reduce these untoward effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of endotracheal suctioning without disconnection in intubated ventilated neonates. SEARCH METHODS: The review has drawn on the search strategy for the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. A comprehensive search of Cochrane databases, MEDLINE and CINAHL, and the Society for Pediatric Research abstracts was undertaken by the review authors (July 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials that utilised random or quasi-random patient allocation and in which suctioning with or without disconnection from the ventilator was compared. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group were used. Each review author separately reviewed trials for eligibility and quality and extracted data; they then compared and resolved differences. Analysis was performed using the fixed-effect model and outcomes were reported using relative risk (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for outcomes measured on a continuous scale. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials (252 infants) were included in this review. The trials employed a cross-over design in which suctioning with or without disconnection was compared. Suctioning without disconnection resulted in a reduction in episodes of hypoxia (typical RR 0.48, CI 95% 0.31 to 0.74; 3 studies; 241 participants). There were also fewer infants who experienced episodes where the transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen (TcPO(2)) decreased by > 10% (typical RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; 1 study; 11 participants). Suctioning without disconnection resulted in a smaller percentage change in heart rate (weighted mean difference (WMD) 6.77, 95% CI 4.01 to 9.52; 4 studies; 239 participants) and a reduction in the number of infants experiencing a decrease in heart rate by > 10% (typical RR 0.61, CI 0.40 to 0.93; 3 studies; 52 participants).The number of infants having bradycardic episodes was also reduced during closed suctioning (typical RR 0.38, CI 95% 0.15 to 0.92; 3 studies; 241 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest suctioning without disconnection from the ventilator improves the short term outcomes; however the evidence is not strong enough to recommend this practice as the only method of endotracheal suctioning. Future research utilising larger trials needs to address the implications of the different techniques on ventilator associated pneumonia, pulmonary morbidities and neurodevelopment. Infants less than 28 weeks also need to be included in the trials.