Bennett & Brachman's Hospital Infections, 5th Edition

24A

The Intensive Care Unit: Part A. HAI Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Surveillance, Engineering and Administrative Infection Control Practices, and Impact

Didier Pittet

Stephan J. Harbarth

The care of critically ill patients in specialized high-technology units is a primary component of modern medicine, although the efficacy and long-term benefit of critical care has been established for only a few conditions. Invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are essential for the diagnosis and treatment of critically ill patients. However, life support systems often disrupt normal host defense mechanisms, affecting patients with already impaired immune response. Given the severity of the illnesses affecting patients in intensive care units (ICUs), it is not surprising that mortality rates can exceed 25%. In addition, more than one-third of the patients admitted to ICUs experience unexpected complications of medical care [1]. Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is one of the most common medical complications affecting ICU patients. Although ICUs make up only 5–10% of hospital beds, infections acquired in these units account for >20% of HAIs [2,3,4]. Fortunately, systematic studies of the determinants of HAIs, HAI surveillance, and adherence to protocols for preventing HAIs have been effective in reducing the risk for patients admitted to ICUs.

ICU-Acquired HAIs

Pathogenesis

The dynamics of ICU-acquired HAIs are complex and depend on the contribution of the host's underlying conditions, the infectious agents, and the unique environment of the ICU. The following discussion considers the role of each component in the development of HAIs.

P.374

Host Defenses

The ability of patients in ICUs to ward off infections is seriously compromised. Natural host defense mechanisms may be impaired by underlying diseases or as a result of medical or surgical interventions. All patients admitted to an ICU will have at least one, often several, indwelling devices that break the normal skin barriers and establish direct access between the external environment and normally sterile body sites. Natural chemical barriers in the stomach are neutralized by administering H2-blockers or antacids that reduce acidity and allow growth of enteric flora. Physiologic mechanisms for evacuating and cleansing hollow organs are disrupted and circumvented by insertion of endotracheal tubes, nasogastric tubes, or urinary catheters.

Specific host defense mechanisms also may be impaired by the underlying diseases. Patients with malignant disorders may have abnormal immune responses as a result of their disease or from therapies that diminish the number of effective phagocyte cells and blunt the normal immune response. ICU patients who are at the extremes of age exhibit selected impairments in natural and specific defense mechanisms that increase the HAI risk [5,6].

Because of the precarious condition of ICU patients, normal food intake often is suspended, leading to under- or malnutrition [7]. Injured tissue, perfusion deficits, and infection cause fever and tachycardia through mechanisms mediated by hormones and cytokines, such as endotoxin. The physiologic response to these mediators is an increase in oxygen consumption stemming from an increase in metabolic demand. This response results in breakdown of muscle to meet the body's demand for energy. The lean body mass declines, resulting in deficits in substrates necessary for recovery [8].

Although its clinical significance in hospitals is not well established, malnutrition has been associated with increased complication rates and delayed wound healing [9,10]. Several studies suggest that poor nutritional status is a predisposing factor for HAIs [11,12,13]. Recent studies have confirmed that the use of enteral nutrition vs. total parenteral nutrition (TPN), early initiation of enteral nutrition, and use of enteral and parenteral glutamine and intensive insulin therapy are all associated with reduced infectious morbidity in critically ill patients [14,15,16]. For instance, early or glutamine-enriched enteral nutrition in critically ill patients has been reported to decrease HAIs and other complications [17,18]. Conversely, a meta-analysis including 26 studies that examined the relationship between TPN and mortality rates in critically ill patients showed that TPN had no effect on mortality and only lowered complication rates in malnourished patients [19]. In a meta-analysis of trials comparing enteral nutrition to TPN in ICU patients, Simpson et al. reported that TPN was associated with an increase in infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.47; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.90 to 2.38) [20].

Important alterations in T- and B-cell function affecting host defense and resistance to infection are found in critically ill and traumatized patients [21]. Alterations in T-cell activation and cytokine production are frequently associated with trauma and hemorrhage. Injury and blood loss result in activation of CD8 T-cell populations capable of altering bacterial antigen-specific B-cell repertoires and suppressing the function of other T-cells.

Systemic hypoxia and hypovolemia also are significant contributors to the development of infection. However, significant changes in perioperative care have been suggested in recent years [22,23]. The maintenance or restoration of normal physiologic characteristics after surgery becomes the key to preventing complications [24].

Medical Devices

The results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) study [25] highlighted the relative importance of medical devices as risk factors for HAIs compared with other factors. Factors were collected from >10,000 ICU patients, of whom 2,064 had ICU-acquired HAIs. Among the seven independent risk factors identified, four were associated with medical devices commonly used in ICUs: central venous catheters (CVC) (OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.60 to 1.57), pulmonary artery catheters (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.43), urinary catheters (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.69), and mechanical ventilation (OR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.51 to 2.03). Other independent risk factors for ICU-acquired HAIs were stress ulcer prophylaxis (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.60), the presence of trauma on admission (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.75 to 2.44), and the length of ICU stay. The latter constituted the strongest predictor of HAIs and showed a linear increase in the odds for HAI with time spent in the ICU [25].

In a recently published study [26], McLaws and Berry analyzed the rate for CVC-associated bloodstream infection (BSI) in 1,375 patients who were monitored for 7,467 days of CVC use. They found significant differences in the BSI rate depending on the length of catheterization (Figure 24A-1). The probability of BSI with a CVC in place was 6% by day 15, 14% by day 25, 21% by day 30, and 53% by day 320. Thus, the risk of BSI is not homogenous and increases substantially after prolonged CVC-insertion (>2 wks).

Underlying Diseases

ICUs, by design, serve patients with severe illnesses that compromise host defense. Each patient must be assessed individually to determine how the underlying illness might interfere with host defense mechanisms. A simple assessment of the severity of underlying illness was developed by McCabe and Jackson [27], who stratified patients according to whether the underlying disease was fatal, ultimately fatal, or nonfatal. Subsequent studies by Britt et al. [28] demonstrated the utility of this simple assessment for estimating the risk of nosocomial BSI.

P.375


Numerous studies have found increasing rates of HAIs among patients with more severe illnesses [29].

Figure 24A-1 Kaplan–Meier survival curve of a nonuniform hazard for the development of bloodstream infection (BSI) beginning with all patients (cumulative survival, 1.00) free of BSI. By day 5, 99% of the patients remained free of BSI. By day 16, 94% remained free of BSI. CVL-central venous catheter. (Adapted from McLaws ML, Berry G. Nonuniform risk of bloodstream infection with increasing central venous catheter-days. Infect Control Hospital Epidemiol 2005; 26:715–719 with permission.)

Although McCabe's classification has been useful, it was not designed to assess ICU patients. Therefore, several severity-of-illness scoring systems have been proposed to estimate a patient's risk of death in ICUs objectively. Great progress has been observed in the last 10 years in the accuracy of statistical models to assess critically ill patients and predict survival [30,31]. Customized or modified versions of the most frequently used scoring systems (e.g., simplified acute physiology score [SAPS] III and Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] III) have been proposed to provide satisfactory estimates of the probability of death in ICU patients, which depends on the severity of illness, the number of acute organ failures, and the characteristics of underlying disease [32,33,34,35]. Nevertheless, limitations persist about the capacity of these scoring systems to integrate differences in overall quality of care [36]. Moreover, older versions of these scores, which were developed in the early 1990s, have shown a decline in predictive accuracy as the models age. Therefore, mortality tends to be overpredicted when older models are applied to more contemporary data, which, in turn, leads to biased benchmarking data of different ICUs [37]. Thus, care should be taken when using outdated severity scoring models to contemporary populations.

A group of critical care physicians developed, by consensus, the so-called “Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment” (SOFA) score in December 1994, a severity scoring system that targets septic patients [38]. Because the score is not specific for sepsis, it was later called “Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.” The SOFA score is composed of scores from six organ systems, graded from 0 to 4 according to the degree of dysfunction [39]. While primarily designed to describe morbidity, several analyses showed a relationship between the SOFA score and mortality [40,41]. These analyses indicated a good correlation of the score with survival and a good distribution of patients among the different score values.

Infectious Agents and Antimicrobial Resistance

In ICUs where antibiotics are used more frequently and in larger amounts than in almost any other hospital area, antimicrobial resistance ensures the survival of some HAI pathogens [42]. Moreover, the close proximity of patients facilitates transfer of resistant organisms from patient to patient [43,44]. It is noteworthy that trends in the pathogens responsible for HAIs in the ICU have shown an increase in infections due to multiply-resistant gram-positive bacteria (e.g., coagulase-negative staphylococci, S. aureus, E. faecium), gram-negative bacteria (GNB)(e.g., Enterobacter spp, Acinetobacter baumannii) and fungi such as Candida spp. [4,45,46]. The emergence of these pathogens is due, at least in part, to patterns of antibiotic use and selection pressure and to the development of antibiotic resistance among these isolates [47].

Recent data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system shows alarming trends in the nosocomial transmission rates of multiresistant organisms in the United States [48]. This voluntary surveillance system receives monthly reports of HAIs data from a nonrandom sample of >300 hospitals in 42 U.S. states. The microbiological data include antimicrobial susceptibility test results on all nonduplicate clinical isolates processed

P.376


by the microbiology laboratories during each month stratified by patients' hospital location. The most recent NNIS report [48] shows that in 2003, 60% of all Staphylococcus aureusisolates in the participating U.S. ICUs were methicillin resistant, 29% of all enterococci were vancomycin resistant, and 89% of all coagulase-negative staphylococci were methicillin resistant. More than 30% of all Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates from ICU patients were resistant to fluoroquinolones or ceftazidime. Of note, there has been a nearly 50% increase in nonsusceptible Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates to third-generation cephalosporins between 2002 and 2003. Likewise, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) account for ≥30% of S. aureus isolates in most European ICUs and are a growing problem, especially in southern Europe, where rates of antibiotic resistance are alarmingly high with a prevalence of methicillin resistance among S. aureus isolates of ≥50% [49,50].

Organisms such as Klebsiella spp. and Escherichia coli are important sources of transferable antibiotic resistance, and multiresistant Enterobacteriaceae are now endemic in many countries and settings [45,51,52,53,54]. Numerous reports have demonstrated spread of antibiotic resistance from ICUs to other hospital units and vice versa [55,56,57]. D'Agata et al. [56,58] prospectively examined sporadic and endemic colonization with resistant GNB in a Boston ICU. The study showed that most resistant GNB were imported from outside but detected within the ICU by intensive microbiologic surveillance. Routine clinical cultures would have detected multiresistant GNB in only 5% (3/60) of patients. The most important risk factor for colonization with resistant GNB except for severity of illness and previous hospitalization was the duration of exposure to antibiotic prophylaxis with first-generation cephalosporins [56]. The authors concluded that inappropriate antibiotic use outside the ICU increases the chances of developing resistant GNB for patients admitted to the ICU.

Another HAI pathogen that is increasingly colonizing and infecting patients is A. baumannii. Patients with debilitating conditions are at especially high risk of acquiring pneumonia or bacteremia with this pathogen [59,60,61,62]. Observational studies may help to identify modifiable risk factors for A. baumannii HAI so that preventive measures can be implemented. The wide use of broad-spectrum antibiotics may be one of the most important risk factors for A. baumannii colonization and infection [63,64]. Villers et al. [65] illustrated the complex relation between the use of fluoroquinolones and the occurrence of A. baumannii infections in a French ICU. They showed that epidemic infections coexisted with endemic infections favored by the selection pressure of intravenous fluoroquinolones.

Different types of epidemiological studies have been used to quantify the association between antibiotic exposure and resistance in critically ill patients [66,67,68,69,70]. These studies included outbreak reports, laboratory-based surveys, randomized trials, and prospective or retrospective cohort studies based on analyses of individual patient data or aggregated data. The different methodological approaches are not mutually transposable, and the lack of uniformity makes the comparison of different studies difficult. For instance, aggregated data may be limited by “ecologic bias,” which is the failure of group-level estimates to reflect the biological effect of antibiotic use at the individual-patient level. This bias is a result of the fact that, unlike individual-level studies, ecologic studies do not link individual outcome events to individual antibiotic exposure histories. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the majority of studies confirm that dramatic differences exist in the pattern of antimicrobial usage and antimicrobial resistance between different hospitals and ICUs. Use of antimicrobials may show important variations between institutions facing similar prevalences of highly resistant organisms, confirming that efforts to control resistance should focus on both antimicrobial use and infection control practices [71].

Sources of Colonization

Host colonization is a prerequisite for the development of infection. This process involves adherence of organisms to epithelial or mucosal cells, proliferation, and persistence at the site of attachment. Although the factors promoting the progression from colonization to infection are not well understood, almost 50% of ICU-acquired HAIs are preceded by host colonization with the same organism. Factors associated with microbial colonization are similar to those associated with development of infection. These risk factors include the duration of hospitalization and length of ICU stay, invasive devices, prolonged antibiotic therapy, and elimination of normal pharyngeal or bowel flora through the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents [72]. Other factors promoting colonization of patients in ICUs include disruption of normal mechanical defense mechanisms (i.e., the bronchial mucociliary “escalator”) by drugs or tracheal intubation, changes in protective antibacterial secretions (i.e., lysozyme, lactoferrin, saliva, and gastric acid) in response to stress and therapeutic agents, or disruption of “colonization resistance.”

A vast literature exists regarding the development of colonization and subsequent infection [73]. A few important studies are summarized. The classic article [74] of Johanson et al, written in 1969, showed that severe illness predisposes to oropharyngeal GNB colonization. In 1974, Schimpff et al. [75] suggested that in critically ill patients, the origin of infection usually is the endogenous flora. Several studies have subsequently confirmed that patients are rapidly colonized by GNB after ICU admission and later develop infection with the same organisms [76,77,78,79,80].

In a recently published landmark study, Grundmann et al. [44] prospectively studied HAIs in patients admitted to five ICUs in Germany. During 28,498 patient days, 431 ICU-acquired HAIs and 141 episodes of nosocomial transmission were identified. A total of 278 HAIs were

P.377


caused by the 10 species that were genotyped; only 41 (14.5%) could be associated with transmissions between patients. Thus, modern typing methods confirmed that the patients' endogenous flora is probably the most important source of HAI in the ICU setting.

The central role of gastric colonization in the pathogenesis of HAI and pneumonia has been called into question. Based on studying sequences of colonization in ICU patients, Bonten et al. [81] concluded that the stomach is unlikely to be an important source of pathogens leading to nosocomial pneumonia as diagnosed by bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) or protected specimen brush (PSB). Furthermore, the initial site and route of colonization might not be the same for all organisms [81]. These results were confirmed in a large, observational cohort study conducted in two medical ICUs where specimens for culture were taken daily from nares, oropharynx, trachea, and stomach from the time of admission to the first signs of nosocomial pneumonia [82]. The stomach was an uncommon source of organisms that cause pneumonia in ventilated patients. Preventive regimens should thus be mainly directed against colonization of the oropharynx and trachea [83].

Epidemiology

Infection Sites and Types of ICU

In 1992, a total of 1,417 ICUs in 17 countries in Western Europe participated in a one-day point prevalence study [25]. The prevalence of ICU-acquired HAIs was 20.6% (2,064/10,038) and markedly varied from country to country, ranging from 9.7–31.6%. Trends toward higher ICU-acquired HAI prevalence paralleled trends toward higher mortality [84]. These differences are likely to reflect differences in ICU care practice between countries and underline the importance of controlling for case mix when interpreting and comparing HAI rates between hospitals or countries [85,86].

Not only at a national or international level, the frequency differs with which HAIs occur but also at different sites in the ICU and within a hospital. The annual NNIS report and data from the German ICU surveillance system Krankenhaus Infections Surveillance System illustrate these differences in the incidence of HAIs in different types of wards and ICUs [48,87]. First, urinary tract infections (UTIs) predominate in general wards, whereas the most common HAIs in ICUs are lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). Second, rates of HAI tend to be higher in surgical than medical ICUs, and rates in the adult ICUs are generally higher than in pediatric ICUs (except neonatal ICUs) [88]. Third, in adult ICUs, the lower respiratory tract (LRT) is the most common site of infection, whereas in pediatric ICUs, BSIs predominate (Table 24A-1). High rates of pulmonary infections relative to other HAI sites are unique to adult ICUs where patients are frequently admitted because of respiratory distress and require mechanical ventilation. Although primary BSIs and infections stemming from the presence of vascular cannulas are less common than LRTIs, the morbidity and mortality associated with these infections are particularly high [89,90].

TABLE 24A-1
NOSOCOMIAL INFECTION RATES IN GERMAN INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; GERMAN KISS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, 1997 TO 2004, ACCORDING TO TYPE OF ICU AND INFECTION

Urinary Tract Infection

Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Type of ICU

Rates Per 1,000 Device-Days

Rates Per 1,000 Days of Mechanical Ventilation

www.nrz-hygiene.de.

Inter-disciplinary

2.2

1.6

7.1

Surgery

3.6

2.0

9.5

Neurosurgery

4.5

1.4

10.8

Medical

2.9

2.2

6.9

Pediatric

2.4

4.0

1.9

In 2000, the CDC briefly reported a decrease in HAI rates in the ICUs of participating NNIS hospitals from 1990 to 1999 [91]. Device exposure–adjusted HAI rates decreased for three body sites (LRTIs, UTIs, and BSIs). The greatest decrease was observed for BSI rates, which decreased in medical ICUs by 44%, in coronary ICUs by 43%, in pediatric ICUs by 32%, and in surgical ICUs by 31%. However, because of a progressively shorter ICU length of stay over the last 20 years, the overall, hospitalwide rate of HAIs per 1,000 patient-days has actually increased by 36%, from 7.2 in 1975 to 9.8 in 1995 [92]. The variable use of different denominators also may have an important effect on trend analyses and may bias benchmarking [93].

When HAI rates have been compared over shorter increments of time (i.e., by month) wide variations have been noted. Observations in different ICUs suggested that the level of skilled nursing care relative to patient census may be an important determinant of this variation [94,95]. Indeed, there are a large number of studies showing that overcrowding, understaffing, or a misbalance between workload and resources are important determinants of HAIs and cross-transmission of organisms in ICUs [96,97,98]. Importantly, not only the number of staff but also the level of their training affects outcomes. The causal pathway between understaffing and HAI is complex, and factors might include lack of time to comply with infection control recommendations, job dissatisfaction, job-related burnout, absenteeism, and a high staff turnover [95].

P.378

In summary, rates of HAIs vary considerably within hospitals by type of ICU. Rates are generally lower in cardiac ICUs and higher in neonatal, surgical, trauma, and burn units, reflecting the higher risk of HAI of patients admitted to these latter types of units [48].

Impact of Infections Acquired in the ICU

HAIs in the ICU are harmful for the patients and expensive for society. Several studies suggest that nosocomial LRTIs and BSIs are associated with a two- to threefold increased risk of death in ICU patients [99,100]. Thus, in contrast to a widespread theory, a significant proportion of patients in the ICU dies due to HAIs.

Crude mortality rates in patients who acquire HAIs in the ICU are estimated to vary between 10% and 80%. The term attributable (or excess) mortality defines the mortality directly associated with the infection rather than the mortality attributable to underlying conditions. In ICU patients, underlying conditions other than HAI that may affect the outcome mainly include pre-existing comorbidities, severity of acute physiologic disturbance, and complications arising from these conditions [101].

Assessment of mortality attributable to HAIs in the ICU setting is difficult and not straightforward because HAIs and mortality attributable to other causes share common risk factors that may confound the cause-and-effect relationship. Thus, it is sometimes difficult to estimate whether the critically ill patient would have survived in the absence of HAI. The most often used approach to estimate the attributable mortality of HAIs in ICU patients is to conduct a matched cohort study. In this type of study design, cases are defined as patients in whom HAIs develop during their ICU stay. These case-patients are subsequently compared with noninfected controls. Case- and control-patients usually are matched for age, time of the year, underlying diseases, and additional variables that may contribute to excessive mortality rates of ICU stay independent of the HAI itself. In brief, the attributable mortality due to HAI defines the excess mortality due to the infection. As an example, Table 24A-2 summarizes estimates of excess mortality attributable to nosocomial pneumonia in ICU populations.

TABLE 24A-2
ATTRIBUTABLE MORTALITY OF VENTILATOR-ASSOCIATED PNEUMONIA: MATCHED COHORT STUDIES, 1993–2005

First Author, Year, Reference

Cases/Controls

Mortality

Case

Control

Attributable

Fagon (1993) [242]

48/48

54.2

27.1

27.1

Papazian (1996) [243]

85/85

40.0

38.8

1.2

Baker (1996) [244]

29/58

24.0

24.0

0.0

Rello (1996) [245]

26/52

42.3

28.8

13.5

Heyland (1999) [246]

173/173

23.7

17.7

6.0

Bercault (2001) [247]

135/135

41.0

14.0

27.0

Rello (2002) [127]

816/2243

30.5

30.4

0.1

Hugonnet (2004) [126]

97/97

32.0

24.7

7.3

Rosenthal (2005) [248]

307/307

63.5

33.2

30.3

For the assessment of the economic burden associated with HAI in the ICU, matched cohort studies are not optimal. This study design has several limitations because of the time-varying nature of the exposure. One source of bias occurs when infected and uninfected patients are compared with regard to total hospital costs or total hospital length of stay [102]. For infected patients, only those costs incurred after the occurrence of the HAI are possibly secondary to infection. Before infection onset, patients are unexposed. The association between pre-infection outcome and HAI is entirely noncausal from the perspective of measuring the excess burden of infection. Therefore, combining pre-infection outcomes with postinfection outcomes dramatically amplifies confounding [103].

Several recent studies have demonstrated the effect of this bias. Outcome analyses that did not account for the time before the occurrence of the HAI yielded different results than studies that did account for the time before the HAI. Schulgen et al. [104] tested different methods and showed that the use of unmatched or matched comparisons between non-infected and infected patients led to an overestimation of the excess length of stay due to nosocomial pneumonia compared to analyses based on a structural formulation of transitions between different states. In a recent study, Beyersmann et al. have confirmed the validity of this statistical approach [105]. They showed that HAI significantly reduced the discharge hazard (HR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.63–0.82) (i.e., prolonged ICU stay). Prolongation of ICU length of stay due to HAI was estimated at 5.3 days (±1.6). Similarly, Asensio and Torres [106] found that regression models yielded lower estimates of the excess length of stay and cost due to HAI than a matched-pair comparison. Another approach to estimating cost and length of stay effects of adverse events is to apply survival models in which the adverse event is incorporated as a time-dependent variable. This strategy can be applied to costs and length of stay [103].

Even when the time-varying nature of the exposure is accounted for, it is still necessary to adequately adjust for traditional confounders, those factors that both increase the risk of HAI and affect the outcome of interest. For instance, Soufir et al. [107] investigated the excess risk of death due to catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) in a cohort of critically ill patients. The crude case-fatality ratio

P.379


was 50% and 21% in patients with and without CR-BSI, respectively. The statistical method of adjustment was based on Cox proportional hazards regression with inclusion of matching variables and prognostic factors for mortality. CR-BSI remained associated with mortality following adjustment for prognostic factors at ICU admission (HR = 2.0;P = 0.03). However, after controlling for severity scores calculated one week before CR-BSI, the increased mortality was no longer significant in the Cox model (HR = 1.4;P = 0.27).

In summary, HAIs in critically ill patients unquestionably have substantial impact on morbidity and mortality. However, the matched cohort study design may produce bias in the estimation of the effects of HAI on length of stay and costs. Cost effects or excess length of stay are likely to be overestimated if the interval to onset of HAI is not properly accounted for in the study design or analysis [103].

Causative Agents

Bacteria, fungi, and viruses have been reported as causative agents in HAIs, and many infections are polymicrobial. Data obtained from the NNIS System and the previously mentioned EPIC study (Table 24A-3) illustrate the trends in microbial etiology of HAIs responsible for disease in ICUs [25,108]. These data reflect a large geographic sample and are representative of ICUs in the industrialized world. Similar patterns of causative organisms have been noted in other studies [2,109,110,111]. For instance, recently reported data from the German KISS system identified the following as most commonly reported HAI pathogens [110]: S. aureus (16.5% of all HAIs), P. aeruginosa (14.2%), E. coli (13.9%), enterococci (13.4%), C. albicans (11.2%), Klebsiella spp. (9.1%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (9.1%), and Enterobacter spp. (7.4%). The recently published Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely ill Patients (SOAP) study [111] investigated a large cohort of septic patients in 198 ICUs in 24 European countries. Among the 279 patients with ICU-acquired HAIs, staphylococci, including MRSA, were most frequent (40%), followed by Pseudomonas spp. (21%), streptococci (19%), E. coli (17%), and C. albicans (16%). Patients with ICU-acquired HAIs had a higher incidence of mixed infections (23% vs. 16%) compared with those with non-ICU-acquired sepsis [111].

TABLE 24A-3
LEADING NOSOCOMIAL PATHOGENS BY SITE AND FREQUENCY

Sites

Pathogens

NNIS, ICUa (%)

EPIC, ICUb (%)

CNS, cosgulase-negative staphylococci. NR, not reported.
a [108]
b from Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe: results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) study. JAMA 1995;274:639–644, and from Suter PM, personal communication (date unknown).

Blood

CNS

43%

34%

S. aureus

14

22

Enterococci

14

11

Candida spp

NR

9

E. coli

3

7

Enterobacter spp

4

Surgical wound

S. aureus

23

27

Enterococci

14

18

CNS

16

14

E. coli

7

13

P. aeruginosa

9

22

Enterobacter spp

9

8

Respiratory tract

P. aeruginosa

18

30

S. aureus

28

32

Enterobacter spp

10

7

Acinetobacter spp

7

10

K. pneumoniae

7

8

Urinary tract

E. coli

26

22

Enterococci

17

15

P. aeruginosa

16

19

Candida spp

NR

21

K. pneumoniae

10

Enterobacter spp

7

Table 24A-3 lists the most common HAI pathogens by infection site from U.S. or Western European ICUs. The leading pathogens causing nosocomial BSI and surgical site infections (SSIs) were staphylococci and enterococci. P. aeruginosa was the most common pathogen causing LRTI. Candida spp and E. coli were the most prevalent pathogens from UTIs. Overall, in contrast to the 1970s, major shifts in the etiology of HAIs occurred in the decades between 1980 and 2000 [29]. Gram-positive bacterial or fungal infections are becoming more common, and GNB such as Klebsiella spp. are becoming increasingly resistant to available antibiotics. Taken as a whole, the shifts are away from more easily treated pathogens toward more resistant pathogens with fewer options for therapy [108].

Clusters of Infections in the ICU

Although <10% of hospitalized patients are treated in ICUs, many outbreaks of HAIs occur in these units, frequently related to breaks in technique or noncompliance with infection control guidelines. Other epidemics are associated with specific strains of bacteria, usually related to a contaminated inanimate or animate reservoir from which the organism may be transmitted to the patients [112].

A literature search in the Web-based repository www.outbreak-database.com for outbreaks occurring in ICUs identified more than 800 hits. Table 24A-4 summarizes important features of selected outbreaks [113,114,115,116]. Leading pathogens of outbreaks in the ICU setting were MRSA and GNB.

Although there were unique factors in each epidemic, several generalizations can be made. Epidemics associated with specific pathogens often were associated with bacteria that were relatively resistant to antibiotics, relatively

P.380


virulent when compared with normal endogenous and environmental flora, capable of withstanding variations in environmental conditions, and transmitted by hand from patient to patient [63]. Pathogens that exemplify these characteristics include S. aureus and Serratia, Klebsiella, and Enterobacter spp. Epidemics caused by unusual organisms, such asAcinetobacter spp, often were associated with contaminated equipment or with changes in the environment [117]. HAI outbreaks were more frequently reported from neonatal ICUs than from other types of ICUs [96]. It is important to remember that new equipment or a new procedure may introduce a new reservoir or mode of transmission into the ICU [118]. Finally, transplanted organs from infected donors also can serve as source of unusual HAIs in the critical care setting [119,120].

TABLE 24A-4
SELECTED OUTBREAKS IN DIFFERENT ICUs

Unit

Organism

Sites of Infection or Colonization

Transmission

Number of Patients

Duration

Reference

ICU, intensive care unit.

Medical ICU

Glycopeptide intermediate MRSA

Multiple sites

Cross-contamination

21

10 mo

[116]

Surgical ICU

Acinetobacter baumannii

Multiple sites

Respiratory equipment

10

4 mo

[115]

Surgical ICU

Arenavirus

Choriomeningitis

Transplanted organs from an infected donor

4

1 mo

[119]

Neonatal ICU

Pantoea spp

Sepsis

Contaminated parenteral nutrition

8

3 days

[249]

Pediatric ICU

Pneumocystis jirovecci

Pneumonia

Direct patient to patient

4

9 mo

[250]

Neonatal ICU

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Bloodstream infection

Nurse with chronic otitis externa

5

7 mo

[114]

Neonatal ICU

MRSA

Multiple sites

Breast milk

3

1 mo

[113]

Mixed ICU

SARS

Pneumonia

Inhalation

51

3 mo

[251]

Mixed ICU

Serratia liquefaciens

Bloodstream infection

Pressure-monitoring equipment

16

3 mo

[252]

Neonatal ICU

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Multiple sites

Artificial fingernails

46

15 mo

[253]

Neonatal ICU

Enterobacter cloacae

Multiple sites

Cross-contamination and multidose vials

8

2 mo

[96]

Neonatal ICU

Malassezia pachydermatis

Multiple sites

Health care workers' pet dogs

15

15 mo

[254]

Surgical ICU

Bacillus stearothermophilus

Sepsis

Contamination of plasma expanders

8

1 mo

[255]

Neonatal ICU

Hepatitis A

Hepatitis

Vertical transmission

10

1 mo

[256]

General ICU

Enterococcus faecium

Bacteremia

Electronic thermometer

9

3 mo

[257]

Clinical Aspects of Infections in the ICU

Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to HAIs. The importance of medical devices in catheter-associated UTIs, intravascular device–associated infections, and ventilator-associated pneumonia is discussed elsewhere. Only selected aspects of infections seen predominantly in ICU patients will be discussed in the following section.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

Pneumonia is the most common ICU-acquired HAI, accounting for 25–50% of all HAIs in ICU patients [121]. In mechanically ventilated patients, pneumonia is associated with an excess mortality ranging between 0 and 30% (Table 24A-2) [104,122]. The attributable mortality varies according to underlying disease, type of pathogen, and adequacy of initial empiric antibiotic treatment [123,124,125]. For instance, in a matched cohort study conducted at Geneva University Hospitals, we analyzed 97 patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and observed an excess mortality rate of 7.3% (P = 0.26) [126]. Considering the studies shown in Table 24A-4 and the data generated by a recently published systematic review, critically ill patients who develop VAP appear to be 1.4–2.0 times as likely to die compared to patients without VAP [99]. In surviving patients, VAP causes substantial morbidity and extends hospital length of stay by at least 4 days.

Patients who have suffered severe trauma and those who have had major surgery are at particularly increased risk of subsequent LRTIs [127]. Exogenous infection is rare, but, on occasion, medication nebulizers, the endotracheal tube lumen, and other respiratory therapy equipment or

P.381


contaminated hospital water can serve as sources for the inoculation of organisms into the lung [115].

Although mechanical ventilation is not a necessary prerequisite for the development of ICU-acquired pneumonia, it substantially increases the LRTI risk. Cook et al. found that the daily risk of pneumonia was not linear: It was highest during the first week (3% per day) and decreased thereafter [128]. In the third week of mechanical ventilation, pneumonia developed in ~1% of patients with each additional day of mechanical ventilation (Figure 24A-2).

Figure 24A-2 Hazard rate for ventilator-associated pneumonia during the stay in the ICU. The hazard function presents the conditional probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the next day, given that a patient is event free. Estimation of the hazard function shows the event rate per day over the duration of ventilation. (Adapted from Cook et al. Incidence of and risk factors for ventillator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129:433–440 with permission.)

Cultures of the LRT are important in the diagnosis of ICU-acquired pneumonia [129]. Because the oropharynx of critically ill patients is frequently colonized with potentially pathogenic bacteria, care must be taken to avoid contaminating cultures of the lower airways. Retrieval of culture specimens by bronchoscope using either a PSB or BAL has been helpful for this purpose [130]. Although numerous studies have evaluated the performance of bronchoscopic and nonbronchoscopic procedures for the diagnosis of VAP, controversy persists about the optimal diagnostic strategy [131]. Fever, leukocytosis, and lung consolidation, hallmarks of pneumonia in otherwise healthy patients, can result from other pathogenic mechanisms in intubated patients (e.g., pulmonary edema, contusion, atelectasis, pleural effusion, or acute respiratory distress syndrome) [132]. Therefore, several authorities encourage the use of invasive techniques to diagnose VAP, including BAL, nonbronchoscopic (“blind”) BAL, and “blind” PSB, to increase diagnostic accuracy and guide clinicians in their decision making [133]. Although diagnosis by invasive methods requires a considerable commitment of resources, it can potentially reduce cost of care and may even lower mortality due to VAP [134,135]. Whatever method chosen, the interpretation of the sensitivity and specificity of any given sampling technique may be severely hampered by the distorting effect of previous antibiotic exposure on the yield of bacterial cultures [136].

Early Onset Pneumonia

Early onset VAP accounts for at least one-third of pneumonias in the ICU. This entity should be distinguished from late-onset episodes because of their different microbiologic spectrum, risk factors, and outcome. Because the pathogens causing aspiration pneumonia reflect the oropharyngeal microbial flora at time of aspiration, the pathogens that bring about early onset pneumonia are more likely to reflect normal oral flora or pathogens responsible for community-acquired pneumonia (S. aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, orHemophilus influenzae). Nevertheless, antimicrobial-resistant pathogens also may be involved in early onset pneumonia, especially in settings with high prevalence of antibiotic overuse [137,138].

In a prospective cohort study of 747 critically ill patients, Bornstain et al. [139] reported that 80 patients (11%) experienced early onset pneumonia in their ICU. Aspiration of oropharyngeal flora was the presumed mode of inoculation. Male gender, impairment of reflexes that protect the airways, sucralfate use, or unplanned extubation were the most important risk factors. Use of certain antibiotics protected against early onset pneumonia. Other potentially modifiable risk factors for early onset and late-onset pneumonia have been summarized recently [140].

Nosocomial Sinusitis

Sinusitis frequently complicates nasotracheal or nasogastric intubation (2–25%) [141,142]. Mechanical obstruction of the maxillary sinuses usually initiates the process with subsequent spread to the ethmoid and sphenoid sinuses. Fever, leukocytosis, and purulent nasal discharge suggest the diagnosis, but their absence does not exclude it [143]. Conventional sinus radiographs and computed tomography scans are useful, but sinus aspirate allows confirmation of the diagnosis and identification of the causative agents [144]. In contrast to community-acquired sinusitis, GNB have predominated in this context. Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacteriaceae, and anaerobic bacteria have been the pathogens most commonly recovered [145,146]. In addition, S. aureus and Candida spp. also have been encountered, and polymicrobial infection has been documented in 40–100% of episodes. Nasotracheal intubation is associated with a significantly higher risk of infection than orotracheal intubation [147]. Complications include pansinusitis, orbital cellulitis, brain abscess, osteomyelitis, secondary BSI, and nosocomial pneumonia [142]. Treatment requires the removal of the device and adequate intravenous antibiotic therapy.

P.382

In summary, the existing studies establish that sinusitis joins pneumonia, catheter sepsis, SSIs, and UTIs as one of the “five horsemen” of clinically important HAIs in ICU patients. Therefore, a sinus computed tomography scan is a necessary component of the evaluation of intubated patients with fever or signs of sepsis from unknown origin [148]. Sinus aspiration is essential to confirm the diagnosis, direct antimicrobial therapy, and help drainage.

Other ICU-Specific Infectious Problems

Acalculous cholecystitis, also called postoperative cholecystitis, commonly complicates both abdominal and nonabdominal surgery in critically ill patients [149,150]. P. aeruginosa, E. coli, and Enterobacter spp. are the most commonly isolated pathogens. Severe complications can occur, including gangrene of the gallbladder, perforation, secondary peritonitis, intrahepatic abscesses, and ipsilateral empyema. Abdominal ultrasound has been found to be a reliable method of early detection of acalculous cholecystitis and for follow-up of possible complications. Diagnostic laparoscopy might be another accurate method to establish the early diagnosis. Treatment of acalculous cholecystitis requires surgery and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Other important ICU–specific problems include Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, meningitis, and antibiotic-associated colitis, which are discussed in other chapters of this textbook.

The differentiation of the causes of fever in ICU patients is a daily challenge for physicians. Not all fevers result from infection; nosocomial fever often does not signal HAI and may augur a wide variety of other conditions. The most common causes of noninfectious fever are listed in Table 24A-5.

TABLE 24A-5
NONINFECTIOUS FEVER IN ICU PATIENTS

Atelectasis

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Central fever in head trauma patients

Chemical aspiration

Congestive heart failure

Deep venous thrombosis

Drug fever

Pancreatitis

Postoperative fever (during the first 72 hr after surgery)

Pulmonary embolism

Resorption of hematomas

Control and Prevention of HAIs

Surveillance

Two types of measures are needed to control HAIs. Engineering controls are those controls that are incorporated into the structural design of the unit or equipment and over which there is limited human control. Administrative controls are guidelines that must be learned and executed by healthcare workers (HCWs). The latter are effective only if appropriate changes in behavior are incorporated into the routine activities of HCWs. For instance, we experienced a cluster of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nonimmunocompromised patients associated with room air filter replacement [151]. Such fatal infection could have been prevented by the establishment and application of guidelines for this procedure.

Engineering Controls

The contribution of the design of ICUs to the control of HAI is difficult to evaluate. However, it seems prudent to consider several issues when remodeling or designing new units [152]:

  1. Adequate space around beds is important for placement of support and monitoring equipment, allowing staff access to both the patient and the equipment.
  2. Individualized cubicles for each patient also may be important in reducing transmission of pathogens in the unit; the nurse-to-patient ratio should, however, not be affected by geographical distribution.
  3. Alcohol-based hand rub dispensers should be located in convenient places within <2m from the point of care to facilitate hand hygiene by HCWs and to interrupt the most important mode of microbial transmission in the ICU [153].
  4. Separate, designated sinks should be provided for cleaning equipment.
  5. All ICUs should be equipped with one or more class A isolation rooms [154]. Class A isolation rooms include an anteroom for gowning and hand hygiene and should provide both positive or negative air pressure. Additional rooms for isolation precautions are necessary in units where patients are located in large open rooms [155].
  6. Consideration also should be given to functional activities in the unit. Attention to traffic patterns and the location of clean and dirty utilities and janitors' closets may reduce opportunities for cross-contamination. Clean function and storage should be physically separated from dirty function and waste disposal. Housekeeping facilities and equipment should be designated for the specific unit and stored separately from clean and dirty utilities.

Administrative Controls for Medical Equipment

Medical technology is changing rapidly, and new diagnostic and therapeutic devices are constantly being introduced into ICUs. In many instances, the efficacy of the devices has not been adequately evaluated, and their effect on the HAI incidence is unknown. For example, vendors seeking to introduce new urinary catheters alleged to have antimicrobial activity should be challenged to provide data on the efficacy of their product [156].

P.383


Cleaning protocols for invasive devices should be provided by the industry and be reviewed by infection control professionals or hospital epidemiologists to ensure the adequacy of the recommendations. Sufficient numbers of frequently used instruments should be available to allow time for cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization, when recommended. An increase in the initial outlay for equipment may reduce costs and morbidity in the long term. The routine application of guidelines for the appropriate use of medical devices contributes significantly to the control of HAIs. Guidelines for the use and control of urinary tract catheters, intravascular devices, respiratory devices, and other products have been published by the CDC.

The Role of the Environment

For more than two decades, infection control has focused on patients rather than the patients' environment as the most important source of HAI pathogens. This attitude was based on studies that failed to find improvement in the HAI rates after the units were moved into new, “clean” structures [157,158]. However, there is a growing body of literature emphasizing that some HAI pathogens are ubiquitous in the environment of patient-care areas, waiting to be cross-transmitted on HCWs' hands [159]. Therefore, the widespread transmission of antibiotic-resistant pathogens that survive for considerable periods in the environment (VRE, MRSA, A. baumannii, C. diffcile) and recent advances in our knowledge of the transmission of HAI pathogens requires a change in hospital hygiene practices [160]. Appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedures are essential to decrease microbial burden in the close patient environment and minimize the likelihood of cross-infection of multiresistant pathogens in this high-risk area [161].

Oelberg et al. published a spectacular experimental study using non-infectious DNA markers designed from a cauliflower mosaic virus as surrogate markers to illustrate microbial transmission pathways [162]. These investigators demonstrated the rapid spread of the DNA markers via the hands of HCWs in a neonatal ICU. The most consistently positive sites within all pods were the blood-gas analyzers, computer mouse, telephone handles, medical charts, ventilator knobs, door handles, radiant warmer control buttons, patient monitors, and, of course, personnel hands [162]. These experimental findings were extended by Foca et al. [163], who conducted an epidemiological and molecular investigation of endemic P. aeruginosa transmission among infants in a neonatal ICU that was associated with widespread environmental contamination and carriage of the organisms on the hands of HCWs. A history of the use of artificial fingernails or nail wraps was an additional risk factor for colonization of the hands. Transmission of P. aeruginosa was stopped after re-emphasis of good hand-hygiene practices, the importance of reliable cleaning techniques of inanimate surfaces and equipment, and the complete withdrawal of jewelry, cosmetic nail treatments, water baths, and unnecessary supplies kept by the patients' bedsides [163]. A recent investigation by Carling et al. corroborated the hypothesis that cleaning of the patients' close environment is suboptimal in most ICUs, which may play an important role as reservoir for transmitting HAI pathogens [164].

Administrative Controls for Healthcare Personnel

Staffing and Training

For the patient to benefit from technologic advances in medical care, HCWs must be well trained in state-of-the-art intensive care. Studies have documented that cooperation among critical care personnel can directly influence outcomes from intensive care, suggesting that the use of invasive technologies is important but not sufficient for optimal patient care [165,166]. Therefore, HCWs in ICUs should be involved in continuous postgraduate medical education to learn new technologies and the proper use of new medical devices and procedures [167]. They also need periodic updates on new disease entities peculiar to patients in ICUs, including psychologic problems and end-of-life issues associated with ICU hospitalization. Finally, the level of stress in ICUs exceeds that of most other areas of the hospital. As a result, rates of employee turnover are high. Loss of highly skilled healthcare workers requires extensive training of replacement workers, including in-depth training on infection control procedures. Changes in staff and unrecognized modifications in infection control procedures might contribute to HAI epidemics.

The extent and severity of illnesses afflicting ICU patients demand a high level of nursing care, and the high rate of HAIs mandate strict application of rigid barrier nursing techniques to control transmission. Breakdown in these techniques during periods of understaffing or overcrowding has been associated with HAI outbreaks [95]. A nurse-to-patient staffing ratio of 1:1 has been recommended to reduce lapses in techniques that lead to person-to-person transmission of pathogens within ICUs. A study from Geneva University Hospitals underlines the importance of an adequate nurse-to-patient ratio [96]. In this study, a low nurse-to-patient ratio was found to be an independent risk factor for transmission and acquisition ofEnterobacter cloacae in neonates (Figure 24A-3). Thus, reductions in nursing staff below a critical level may cause an increase in HAIs in ICUs by making adequate patient care difficult [168].

It is important that HCWs in ICUs understand their responsibility in preventing transmission of infectious agents. This responsibility includes prevention of spread of pathogens from patient to patient and from the healthcare worker to the patient. Therefore, it is important that the hospital provide adequate staffing to cover medical absences and personal benefits that will not punish employees who are responsible enough to avoid working when ill.

P.384

Monitoring Quality of Care

The effectiveness of administrative controls will depend on compliance with established guidelines. Therefore, the performance and behavior of HCWs should be monitored [169]. Failure to comply with guidelines, whether on the part of physicians, nurses, or other support personnel, should be addressed promptly to prevent the establishment of bad habits that impose unnecessary risks on patients [170,171]. Monitoring the quality of medical care in ICUs is important, albeit controversial, given the complexity of the conditions of the patients and the procedures performed in these units [172].

Figure 24A-3 Outbreak of Enterobacter cloacae at the neonatal ICU of Geneva University Hospitals, December 1996 to January 1997. Arrows indicate Enterobacter cloacaeisolates. The horizontal line indicates the supposed maximum capacity (15 infants) of the unit.

Administrative Controls for Patients

Because of the risk of infection and other complications in ICUs, only patients who will benefit from high-intensity, high-risk care should be admitted to ICUs, and patients should be discharged from the ICU as soon as possible to lower the HAI risk. Unfortunately, there is little published information to assist the physician in making those important decisions. Surveillance for HAIs, monitoring HAI rates, and reporting results to personnel are important to ensure the quality of medical care in ICUs [173]. Properly conducted surveillance can identify behavioral, environmental, or treatment factors that, when corrected, will diminish endemic HAI rates in the unit [174]. Additional benefits of concurrent surveillance include early identification and intervention in epidemics [175].

Practical Aspects of Infection Control in the ICU

Methods for preventing HAIs are numerous. The principles are the same throughout the hospital, and many are discussed elsewhere in the text. Only selected measures of prime importance in the ICU will be discussed in this section.

Patient Screening

Screening on ICU admission should be considered for control of highly transmissible HAI pathogens [176]. Patients colonized with multiresistant bacteria, such as MRSA or VRE, serve as a reservoir for spread within the healthcare environment, mainly through the hands of HCWs. Active surveillance by patient screening and intensive control measures attempt to decrease this reservoir with the ultimate goal of reducing infection rates [177]. Guidelines published by the CDC and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) are useful in this respect [178].

Nevertheless, the most efficient approach to control endemic MRSA in the ICU setting remains controversial [179,180,181]. Several authorities have suggested that screening on admission to ICUs and subsequent patient isolation may decrease the risk of cross-infection [182,183]. This may be particularly true when using a rapid screening test. We recently investigated the clinical usefulness of a rapid on-admission screening test for MRSA [184]. A substantial decrease in MRSA infections was seen in a medical ICU after increasing compliance with on-admission screening and implementing a strategy that linked the rapid test to pre-emptive isolation of MRSA patients. However, no effect on MRSA rates was observed in the surgical ICU, although a large number of unnecessary pre-emptive isolation-days could be saved by using the rapid MRSA test [184].

Despite the fact that culture-based MRSA screening techniques have proven inexpensive and sensitive if collected from several body sites, the time to report the results remains a major issue. Definitive identification and testing results are usually available only 48 to 96 hours after sample collection, a time delay that could allow MRSA cross-transmission if patients are not presumptively placed

P.385


under contact precautions. This may be one of the reasons (besides low hand hygiene compliance) why the recently published study by Cepeda et al. did not show a significant effect of contact isolation for MRSA carriers identified by conventional methods [180].

Frequent transfers of patients through various units and levels of care increase the risk of transmission of resistant organisms throughout the hospital [54]. As mentioned earlier, colonized patients are important animate reservoirs of resistant organisms during interinstitutional or international transfers and probably account for the spread of multiresistant bacteria [61,185,186]. To control the spread of resistant organisms, it is important to document information regarding carriage of antibiotic-resistant microflora in the patient's medical record and to report it to receiving units and facilities. On-admission screening should be performed for any patient transferred from settings and institutions with endemic multiresistant pathogens.

Patient Isolation

More than 50% of patients admitted to ICUs are colonized at the time of admission with the organism responsible for subsequent infections. Patients who are readmitted to the hospital may carry and transmit resistant organisms acquired during previous hospitalizations [187]. Not infrequently, unrecognized infection contributes to the decision for entry into the unit. The early diagnosis of potentially transmissible disease requires vigilance on the part of ICU physicians. Patients with suspected infections should be appropriately screened and segregated at the time of admission [188]. The level of isolation should account for each of the following factors: the site of infection, the mode of transmission, the amount of secretions or excretions, and the virulence and antimicrobial susceptibilities of the causative agent.

Discussion of specific isolation techniques are beyond the scope of this chapter. It should be recognized that as the duration of stay increases, the frequency of colonization with resistant microflora also grows. Patients become animate reservoirs that facilitate transmission to susceptible incoming patients [44]. It may be wise, therefore, to separate long-stay patients from the short-stay patients who make up the major portion of the population in the unit. This segregation may be accomplished by moving chronically ill patients to single rooms or relocating groups of patients to a physically separate part of the unit. A dedicated nursing staff for the long-term patients would provide an added barrier to transmission, but this is frequently impossible to implement. Adequate hand antisepsis certainly constitutes the most appropriate, least expensive, and highly effective measure, but lack of compliance is an issue [189,190].

Hand Hygiene

Routine hand hygiene before and between contact with patients is the most important feature of infection control. Virtually all healthcare workers are aware of and agree with this concept [191]. It is dismaying, therefore, to see repeated reports of low levels of compliance with this simple and inexpensive technique. In ICUs, compliance usually does not exceed 40% and is frequently much lower [192]. Several reasons have been suggested to account for this low level of compliance, including lack of priority over other required procedures, insufficient time to accomplish hand hygiene, inconvenient placement of hand-hygiene tools, allergy or intolerance to the hand cleansing solutions, lack of leadership on the part of the senior medical staff, and lack of personal commitment to the routine of hand hygiene.

Grossly misleading impressions about the value of alcohol-based hand rubbing persisted widely during the 20th century [193]. Alcohol-based hand rubbing for HCWs has rarely been promoted systematically, and, consequently, sink-based handwashing with soap and water remained the predominant tool for reducing transient hand carriage of HAI pathogens in most ICUs. Only in the last five years has the strength of evidence in favor of alcohol-based hand rubbing become simply overwhelming so that infection-control experts around the world including the CDC and the World Health Organization (WHO) [153,192], have rewritten recommendations for hand hygiene in healthcare.

This breakthrough is due to the following important insights:

  1. The time required for fully effective handwashing with soap and water is too long and, therefore, full compliance with handwashing recommendations is illusory, especially in ICUs [194].
  2. If actively promoted, alcohol-based hand rubbing can improve compliance with hand-hygiene recommendations and can reduce HAI and transmission rates [195]. In high-demand settings, such as ICUs, an alcohol-based hand rub solution appears to be the only method that might allow reasonable compliance [190].
  3. Various studies clearly demonstrate the improved antimicrobial efficacy of alcohol products relative to antiseptic soaps containing chlorhexidine or other antiseptics [196]. A few studies even raise doubts as to the efficacy of handwashing with soap and water in preventing the spread of multiresistant, gram-positive pathogens [197].
  4. Alcohol-based hand rubbing with gels or liquid formulations containing emollients are less harmful to the skin than regular handwashing with soap and water [198,199].
  5. Previous studies promoting handwashing with antimicrobial soap and water did not properly assess the independent value of alcohol-based hand rubbing [200].

Barrier Precautions

There is currently little evidence that the addition of gloves in the routine intensive care setting has any benefit over

P.386


regular hand hygiene in controlling HAIs. Major arguments against the routine use of gloves in ICUs rely on the fact that HCWs frequently do not remove gloves when moving from patient to patient and forget to clean their hands after glove removal.

Whereas a number of studies have investigated the role of sophisticated forms of protective isolation in reducing high HAI rates in patients with profound granulocytopenia or full-thickness burns, only a few have evaluated whether simple protective isolation would be beneficial for ICU patients. Klein et al. [201] conducted a prospective, randomized trial in a pediatric ICU, assessing the benefit of simple barrier precautions (disposable gown and gloves) on both colonization and subsequent infection. Colonization with ICU-acquired bacterial strains occurred an average of 5 days later in isolated patients. The daily HAI rate for isolated patients was 2.2 times lower than among patients provided standard care.

Although previous studies have reported conflicting results concerning the value of protective isolation in ICU patients, gowns and gloves may be effective in dealing with selected high-risk patients [202]. The recent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic has shown that hospitals with high compliance with barrier precautions had a lower impact and less viral transmission compared to institutions that lacked this response [203]. Further studies are necessary to determine the cost effectiveness of this approach in the general ICU population. To draw definitive conclusions, compliance with isolation precautions also should be evaluated. Only a few studies have analyzed compliance with isolation precautions, and most reported low compliance and insufficient knowledge of precautions for pathogens [204,205,206].

Controversies Specific to the ICU Setting

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Because many HAIs are believed to arise from endogenous flora in the oropharyngeal tract, innovations in prevention have focused on the control (decontamination) of potential pathogens with oral antimicrobial therapy. The aim of selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is to prevent overgrowth of pathogenic GNB and yeasts. It involves the use of topical oral and intestinal antibiotics, often with a systemic antibiotic added for the first few days of the regimen, with the goal being the elimination of potential pathogens from the gastrointestinal tract. With eradication of endogenous bacterial sources, infection may be avoided [207,208].

The role of SDD in preventing ICU-acquired HAI and mortality remains one of the most controversial issues in critical care medicine [209,210]. More than 30 randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of SDD in preventing VAP and reducing mortality have been published. Several meta-analyses of these studies showed a positive treatment effect, although the effect appeared to be smaller when considering only high-quality studies [211,212]. The crucial concern associated with the use of SDD is the development and spread of antibiotic resistance; whether SDD contributes to or reduces antibiotic selection pressures by reducing the incidence of infection remains an open question. Nevertheless, some evidence supports the use of SDD as an effective strategy that may reduce morbidity and mortality in selected groups of critically ill patients hospitalized in those units where cross-transmission of multiresistant organisms (e.g., MRSA or Acinetobacter spp.) is not a predominant problem [213,214,215,216].

In spite of the data from many clinical trials and systematic reviews, it seems difficult to recommend that SDD be either abandoned or used routinely in the ICU setting. It may be premature to ignore the potential benefits of SDD because the results of most clinical trials have been encouraging in terms of reducing infection rates. Additional studies are clearly needed, especially about the overall mortality benefit of SDD [217]. It may be more practical to administer oropharyngeal decontamination without systematic antibiotic treatment; however, whether this approach has an impact on ICU-mortality remains to be shown [83,218,219,220]. Recently, a multicenter study investigated the potential preventive efficacy of an antimicrobial peptide (Iseganan) [221]. Although preliminary studies with this new agent were promising, the overall results of the clinical trial showed that the study drug was not effective in improving outcome in patients on prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Another potential role for SDD may be in the control of HAI outbreaks. Brun-Buisson et al. [222] reported that intestinal decontamination by oral nonabsorbable antibiotics was important in resolving an outbreak of multiresistant Enterobacteriaceae infections in a medical ICU. In units where routine infection control measures fail to control outbreaks, careful application of SDD, including the selection of appropriate oral antimicrobial agents and diligent monitoring for the emergence of new resistant strains, might be an important adjunct to conventional infection control procedures.

In summary, the use of SDD is more a question of philosophy and art rather than an exact science. We believe that SDD should be restricted to subgroups of patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia or to situations in which efficacy and cost effectiveness have been established. If used, surveillance for antimicrobial resistance must be done. Table 24A-6summarizes situations and high-risk patients in which SDD may be beneficial.

Other Measures to Prevent VAP

Coma, prolonged mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube, repeated intubation, micro-aspiration events, and permanent supine position increase the risk of VAP [140]. A variety of strategies is recommended to prevent aspiration associated with enteral feeding:

P.387


discontinuation of enteral-tube feeding; removal of endotracheal devices as soon as possible; routine verification of the placement of the feeding tube and the patient's intestinal motility; and elevation of the head at an angle of 30°–45° [223,224]. The latter preventive measure has recently been questioned by a well-performed study by van Nieuwenhoven et al. [225] who showed that placing a patient into a semirecumbent position may be more difficult to achieve than previously thought. In that multicenter study, a 45° patient position did not appear to be achievable, and only a mean position of about 30° was achieved, which was not associated with a reduced VAP incidence [225].

TABLE 24A-6
POSSIBLE INDICATIONS FOR SELECTIVE DECONTAMINATION IN PATIENTS ADMITTED TO ICUs

· Prolonged neutropenia

· Multiple trauma

· Severe burns

· Outbreak of multiresistant gram-negative bacilli

· Esophageal resection

· Hepatic, renal, and pancreatic transplantation

· Prolonged ICU stay

Installation of effective drainage of subglottic secretions may reduce the risk for aspiration and VAP, as shown in several randomized trials [226,227]. Aspiration of subglottic secretions requires the use of specially designed endotracheal tubes containing a separate dorsal lumen that opens into the subglottic region. It is a promising new strategy for VAP prevention and should be considered in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. However, these specialized endotracheal tubes should be part of an organized VAP prevention strategy and should not be used in place of such efforts. In any case, the pressure of the endotracheal tube cuff should be adequate to prevent the leakage of colonized subglottic secretions into the lower airway.

Additional controversial issues surrounding VAP prevention, such as stress ulcer prophylaxis, postpyloric feeding, noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation, and ventilator circuit changes have been addressed in recently published reviews and position papers [140,223,224].

Preemptive Treatment of Fungal Infections

Candida spp infections in ICU patients have become increasingly important, particularly among surgical patients [4,228]. Infections mainly evolve from endogenous colonization facilitated by the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics [229,230]. It has been confirmed that sequential spread of candida spp. colonization from the abdominal cavity to other body sites takes place before candidemia occurs [231]. In heavily colonized surgical ICU patients, Candida spp. colonization was patient specific and always preceded infection with a genotypically identical strain [232]. The intensity of Candida spp. colonization constitutes a strong predictor of subsequent infection [233]. In recognition of the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with those infections [100], an aggressive approach to suspected Candida spp. infections seems justified. Pre-emptive therapy in patients at high risk of infection has been tested in controlled clinical trials [234,235,236].

Multimodal Interventions Under Routine Working Conditions

It is unclear what proportion of ICU-associated HAIs is potentially preventable under routine working conditions. We recently performed a systematic review to describe multimodal intervention studies to provide a crude estimate of the proportion of potentially preventable HAIs [237]. The evaluation of 30 reports suggests that great potential exists to decrease HAI rates from a minimum reduction effect of 10% to a maximum effect of 70%, depending on the study design, baseline infection rates, and type of infection. The most important reduction effect was identified for CR-BSIs, whereas a smaller but still substantial potential for prevention seems to exist for other types of infections.

Although the optimal approach to reducing HAIs in critically ill patients is unclear, recent studies and quality improvement initiatives have shown that education-based programs with multiple interventions can substantially decrease infection rates in different ICUs and settings [238]. For instance, Berenholtz et al. [239] have shown that multifaceted interventions that helped to ensure adherence with evidence-based guidelines nearly eliminated CR-BSIs in a surgical ICU in Baltimore. Education, process control, and feedback also were associated with significant reductions in rates of catheter-related infections in an ICU in Mexico [240]. Use of maximal barrier precautions during CVC insertion is a central part of these interventions and has been shown to be cost effective [241].

The “Bundle Approach”: New Fashion or an Approach for Sustained HAI Prevention?

Approximately 50% of all U.S. hospitals have now joined the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) initiative, which is a nationwide quality improvement initiative to decrease HAIs and increase patient safety. As defined by IHI (www.ihi.org),

care bundles, in general, are groupings of best practices with respect to a disease process that individually improve care, but when applied together result in substantially greater improvement. The science supporting the bundle components is sufficiently established to be considered standard of care.

Preliminary results posted on the IHI Web site indicate that this initiative has been successful in reducing infection and mortality rates in U.S. hospitals and ICUs.

P.388

Conclusions

Considerable progress has been made in providing intensive care and life support to patients who are acutely ill. Unfortunately, each new technologic advance is accompanied by potential risks for the patient, including HAIs. Clinical research is needed to address the benefits and risks associated with these new interventions. To achieve these objectives, collaboration is needed among critical care physicians, nursing staff, epidemiologists, and infection control professionals to design appropriate studies, interventions, and policies. Administrative and peer support is critical to the success of interventions to reduce HAI rates and improve patient safety. The challenge is to avoid undoing the benefits of intensive care by minimizing risk of complications.

References

  1. Buckley TA, Short TG, Rowbottom YM, Oh TE. Critical incident reporting in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesia1997;52:403–409.
  2. Legras A, Malvy D, Quinioux AI, et al. Nosocomial infections: prospective survey of incidence in five French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med1998;24:1040–1046.
  3. Laupland KB, Zygun DA, Davies HD, et al. Population-based assessment of intensive care unit-acquired bloodstream infections in adults: incidence, risk factors, and associated mortality rate. Crit Care Med2002;30:2462–2467.
  4. Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent SM, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in U.S. hospitals: analysis of 24,179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study.Clin Infect Dis2004;39:309–317.
  5. Gavazzi G, Krause KH. Ageing and infection. Lancet Infect Dis2002;2:659–666.
  6. Kaye KS, Schmit K, Pieper C, et al. The effect of increasing age on the risk of surgical site infection. J Infect Dis2005;191:1056–1062.
  7. De Jonghe B, Appere-De-Vechi C, Fournier M, et al. A prospective survey of nutritional support practices in intensive care unit patients: what is prescribed? What is delivered?Crit Care Med2001;29:8–12.
  8. Weissman C. Nutrition in the intensive care unit. Crit Care1999;3:R67–R75.
  9. Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, et al. Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after colectomy for colon cancer. Dis Colon Rectum2000;43:83–91.
  10. Rapp-Kesek D, Stahle E, Karlsson TT. Body mass index and albumin in the preoperative evaluation of cardiac surgery patients. Clin Nutr2004;23:1398–1404.
  11. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Medina-Cuadros M, Gomez-Ortega A, et al. Cholesterol and serum albumin levels as predictors of cross infection, death, and length of hospital stay.Arch Surg2002;137:805–812.
  12. Rubinson L, Diette GB, Song X, et al. Low caloric intake is associated with nosocomial bloodstream infections in patients in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med2004;32:350–357.
  13. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Troche G, Azoulay E, et al. Body mass index. An additional prognostic factor in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med2004;30:437–443.
  14. Heys SD, Schofield AC, Wahle KW. Immunonutrition in clinical practice: what is the current evidence? Nutr Hosp2004;19:325–332.
  15. Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, et al. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? a systematic review of the literature. Nutrition2004;20:843–848.
  16. Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK. Nutrition and infection in the intensive care unit: what does the evidence show? Curr Opin Crit Care2005;11:461–467.
  17. Houdijk AP, Rijnsburger ER, Jansen J, et al. Randomised trial of glutamine-enriched enteral nutrition on infectious morbidity in patients with multiple trauma. Lancet1998;352:772–776.
  18. Caparros T, Lopez J, Grau T. Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with a high-protein diet enriched with arginine, fiber, and antioxidants compared with a standard high-protein diet: the effect on nosocomial infections and outcome. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr2001;25:299–308.
  19. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW. Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis. JAMA1998;280:2013–2019.
  20. Simpson F, Doig GS. Parenteral vs. enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis of trials using the intention to treat principle. Intensive Care Med2005;31:12–23.
  21. Abraham E. T- and B-cell function and their roles in resistance to infection. New Horiz. 1993;1:28–36.
  22. Greif R, Akca O, Horn EP, et al. Supplemental perioperative oxygen to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med2000;342:161–167.
  23. Belda FJ, Aguilera L, Garcia de la Asuncion J, et al. Supplemental perioperative oxygen and the risk of surgical wound infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2005;294:2035–2042.
  24. Heinzelmann M, Scott M, Lam T. Factors predisposing to bacterial invasion and infection. Am J Surg2002;183:179–190.
  25. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe: results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) study. JAMA1995;274:639–644.
  26. McLaws ML, Berry G. Nonuniform risk of bloodstream infection with increasing central venous catheter-days. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:715–719.
  27. McCabe WR, Jackson GG. Gram-negative bacteremia I. Etiology and ecology. Arch Intern Med1962;110:847–855.
  28. Britt MR, Schleupner CJ, Matsumiya S. Severity of underlying disease as a predictor of nosocomial infection. JAMA1978;239:1047–1051.
  29. Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Ferriere K, et al. Bacteremic sepsis in intensive care: temporal trends in incidence, organ dysfunction, and prognosis. Crit Care Med2003;31:390–394.
  30. Timsit JF, Fosse JP, Troche G, et al. Accuracy of a composite score using daily SAPS II and LOD scores for predicting hospital mortality in ICU patients hospitalized for more than 72 h. Intensive Care Med2001;27:1012–1021.
  31. Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A, et al. Validation of the paediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score: prospective, observational, multicentre study. Lancet2003;362:192–197.
  32. Beck DH, Smith GB, Pappachan JV, Millar B. External validation of the SAPS II, APACHE II and APACHE III prognostic models in South England: a multicentre study. Intensive Care Med2003;29:249–256.
  33. Le Gall JR, Neumann A, Hemery F, et al. Mortality prediction using SAPS II: an update for French intensive care units. Crit Care2005;9:R645–R652.
  34. Metnitz PG, Moreno RP, Almeida E, et al. SAPS 3—from evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit, part 1. Intensive Care Med2005;31:1336–1344.
  35. Moreno RP, Metnitz PG, Almeida E, et al. SAPS 3—from evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit, part 2. Intensive Care Med2005;31:1345–1355.
  36. Metnitz PG, Lang T, Vesely H, et al. Ratios of observed to expected mortality are affected by differences in case mix and quality of care. Intensive Care Med2000;26:1466–1472.
  37. Kramer AA. Predictive mortality models are not like fine wine. Crit Care2005;9:636–637.
  38. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med1996;22:707–710.
  39. Vincent JL, de Mendonca A, Cantraine F, et al. Use of the SOFA score to assess the incidence of organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care units: results of a multicenter, prospective study. Crit Care Med1998;26:1793–1800.

P.389

  1. Timsit JF, Fosse JP, Troche G, et al. Calibration and discrimination by daily Logistic Organ Dysfunction scoring comparatively with daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scoring for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med2002;30:2003–2013.
  2. Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral AC, Andrade FM, Moreno R, et al. Use of the sequential organ failure assessment score as a severity score. Intensive Care Med2005;31:243–249.
  3. Kollef MH, Fraser VJ. Antibiotic resistance in the intensive care unit. Ann Intern Med2001;134:298–314.
  4. Harbarth S. Nosocomial transmission of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms. Curr Opin Infect Dis2001;14:437–442.
  5. Grundmann H, Barwolff S, Tami A, et al. How many infections are caused by patient-to-patient transmission in intensive care units? Crit Care Med2005;33:946–951.
  6. Hanberger H, Garcia-Rodriguez JA, Gobernado M, et al. Antibiotic susceptibility among aerobic gram-negative bacilli in intensive care units in 5 European countries. JAMA1999;281:67–71.
  7. Fridkin SK, Steward CD, Edwards JR, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in United States hospitals: project ICARE Project Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) hospitals. phase 2. Clin Infect Dis1999;29:245–252.
  8. Harbarth S, Albrich W, Goldmann DA, Huebner J. Control of multiply resistant cocci: do international comparisons help? Lancet Infect Dis2001;1:251–261.
  9. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control2004;32:470–485.
  10. Tiemersma EW, Bronzwaer SL, Lyytikainen O, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusin Europe, 1999–2002. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:1627–1634.
  11. Orsi GB, Raponi M, Franchi C, et al. Surveillance and infection control in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:321–325.
  12. Wiener J, Quinn JP, Bradford PA, et al. Multiple antibiotic-resistant Klebsiellaand Escherichia coli in nursing homes. JAMA 1999;281:517–523.
  13. Hyle EP, Lipworth AD, Zaoutis TE, et al. Risk factors for increasing multidrug resistance among extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coliand Klebsiellaspecies. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1317–1324.
  14. Zaoutis TE, Goyal M, Chu JH, et al. Risk factors for and outcomes of bloodstream infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coliandKlebsiella species in children. Pediatrics 2005;115:942–949.
  15. Troche G, Joly LM, Guibert M, Zazzo JF. Detection and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial carriage in a surgical intensive care unit: a 6-year prospective survey. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:161–165.
  16. Price DJ, Sleigh J. Control of infection due to Klebsiella aerogenesin a neurosurgical unit by withdrawal of all antibiotics. Lancet 1970;2:1213–1215.
  17. D'Agata E, Venkataraman L, DeGirolami P, et al. Colonization with broad-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant gram-negative bacilli in intensive care units during a non-outbreak period: prevalence, risk factors, and rate of infection. Crit Care Med1998;27:1090–1095.
  18. Lucet JC, Decre D, Fichelle A, et al. Control of a prolonged outbreak of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae in a university hospital. Clin Infect Dis1999;29:1411–1418.
  19. D'Agata E, Venkataraman L, DeGirolami P, Samore M. Molecular epidemiology of acquisition of ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacilli in a nonoutbreak setting. J Clin Microbiol1997;35:2602–2605.
  20. Maniatis AN, Pournaras S, Orkopoulou S, et al. Multiresistant acinetobacter baumannii isolates in intensive care units in Greece. Clin Microbiol Infect2003;9:547–553.
  21. Villegas MV, Hartstein AI. Acinetobacter outbreaks, 1977–2000. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2003;24:284–295.
  22. Marais E, de Jong G, Ferraz V, et al. Interhospital transfer of pan-resistant Acinetobacter strains in Johannesburg, South Africa. Am J Infect Control2004;32:278–281.
  23. Van Looveren M, Goossens H. Antimicrobial resistance of Acinetobacter spp in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect2004;10:684–704.
  24. Husni RN, Goldstein LS, Arroliga AC, et al. Risk factors for an outbreak of multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter nosocomial pneumonia among intubated patients. Chest1999;115:1378–1382.
  25. Hsueh PR, Teng LJ, Chen CY, et al. Pandrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii causing nosocomial infections in a university hospital, Taiwan. Emerg Infect Dis2002;8:827–832.
  26. Villers D, Espaze E, Coste-Burel M, et al. Nosocomial Acinetobacter baumannii infections: microbiological and clinical epidemiology. Ann Intern Med1998;129:182–189.
  27. Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Courval JM, et al. The effect of vancomycin and third-generation cephalosporins on prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in 126 U.S. adult intensive care units. Ann Intern Med2001;135:175–183.
  28. Harbarth S, Harris AD, Carmeli Y, Samore MH. Parallel analysis of individual and aggregated data on antibiotic exposure and resistance in gram-negative bacilli. Clin Infect Dis2001;33:1462–1468.
  29. Loeffler JM, Garbino J, Lew D, et al. Antibiotic consumption, bacterial resistance and their correlation in a Swiss university hospital and its adult intensive care units. Scand J Infect Dis2003;35:843–850.
  30. Neuhauser MM, Weinstein RA, Rydman R, et al. Antibiotic resistance among gram-negative bacilli in US intensive care units: implications for fluoroquinolone use. JAMA2003;289:885–888.
  31. Chastre J, Wolff M, Fagon JY, et al. Comparison of 8 vs 15 days of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults: a randomized trial. JAMA2003;290:2588–2598.
  32. Fridkin SK, Gaynes RP. Antimicrobial resistance in intensive care units. Clin Chest Med1999;20:303–316.
  33. Safdar N, Maki DG. The commonality of risk factors for nosocomial colonization and infection with antimicrobial-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, enterococcus, gram-negative bacilli, Clostridium difficile, and Candida. Ann Intern Med2002;136:834–844.
  34. Safdar N, Crnich CJ, Maki DG. The pathogenesis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: its relevance to developing effective strategies for prevention. Respir Care2005;50:725–739.
  35. Johanson WG, Pierce AK, Sanford J. Changing pharyngeal bacterial flora of hospitalized patients: emergence of gram-negative bacilli. N Engl J Med1969;281:1137–1140.
  36. Schimpff SC, Miller RM, Polkavetz S, Hornick R. Infection in the severely traumatized patient. Ann Surg1974;179:352–357.
  37. Atherton ST, White D. Stomach as source of bacteria colonising respiratory tract during artificial ventilation. Lancet1978;2:968–969.
  38. Garrouste-Orgeas M, Chevret S, Arlet G, et al. Oropharyngeal or gastric colonization and nosocomial pneumonia in adult intensive care unit patients: a prospective study based on genomic DNA analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997;156:1647–1655.
  39. Dent A, Toltzis P. Descriptive and molecular epidemiology of gram-negative bacilli infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Curr Opin Infect Dis2003;16:279–283.
  40. Donskey CJ. The role of the intestinal tract as a reservoir and source for transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Clin Infect Dis2004;39:219–226.
  41. Blot S, Depuydt P, Vogelaers D, et al. Colonization status and appropriate antibiotic therapy for nosocomial bacteremia caused by antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria in an intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:575–579.
  42. Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, van Tiel FH, et al. The stomach is not a source for colonization of the upper respiratory tract and pneumonia in ICU patients. Chest1994;105:878–884.
  43. George DL, Falk PS, Wunderink RG, et al. Epidemiology of ventilator-acquired pneumonia based on protected bronchoscopic sampling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1998;158:1839–1847.
  44. Bergmans DC, Bonten MJ, Gaillard CA, et al. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001;164:382–388.
  45. Vincent JL. Nosocomial infections in adult intensive-care units. Lancet2003;361:2068–2077.

P.390

  1. Gastmeier P, Sohr D, Geffers C, et al. Are nosocomial infection rates in intensive care units useful benchmark parameters? Infection2000;28:346–350.
  2. Sax H, Pittet D. Interhospital differences in nosocomial infection rates: importance of case-mix adjustment. Arch Intern Med2002;162:2437–2442.
  3. Gastmeier P, Geffers C, Sohr D, et al. Surveillance of nosocomial infections in intensive care units: current data and interpretations. Wien Klin Wochenschr2003;115:99–103.
  4. Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Nosocomial infections in pediatric intensive care units in the United States. Pediatrics1999;103:e39.
  5. Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients: excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA1994;271:1598–1601.
  6. Digiovine B, Chenoweth C, Watts C, Higgins M. The attributable mortality and costs of primary nosocomial bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1999;160:976–981.
  7. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Monitoring hospital-acquired infections to promote patient safety—United States, 1990–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2000;49:149–153.
  8. Weinstein RA. Nosocomial infection update. Emerg Infect Dis1998;4:416–420.
  9. Eggimann P, Hugonnet S, Sax H, et al. Ventilator-associated pneumonia: caveats for benchmarking. Intensive Care Med2003;29:2086–2089.
  10. Tucker J. Patient volume, staffing, and workload in relation to risk-adjusted outcomes in a random stratified sample of UK neonatal intensive care units: a prospective evaluation. Lancet2002;359:99–107.
  11. Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, Sax H, et al. Nursing resources: a major determinant of nosocomial infection? Curr Opin Infect Dis2004;17:329–333.
  12. Harbarth S, Sudre P, Dharan S, et al. Outbreak of Enterobacter cloacaerelated to understaffing, overcrowding, and poor hygiene practices. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1999;20:598–603.
  13. Andersen BM, Lindemann R, Bergh K, et al. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusin a neonatal intensive unit associated with understaffing, overcrowding and mixing of patients. J Hosp Infect 2002;50:18–24.
  14. Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Cheung RB, et al. Educational levels of hospital nurses and surgical patient mortality. JAMA2003;290:1617–1623.
  15. Safdar N, Dezfulian C, Collard HR, Saint S. Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med2005;33:2184–2193.
  16. Zaoutis TE, Argon J, Chu J, et al. The epidemiology and attributable outcomes of candidemia in adults and children hospitalized in the United States: a propensity analysis.Clin Infect Dis2005;41:1232–1239.
  17. Freeman J, Goldmann DA, McGowan JE. Methodologic issues in hospital epidemiology. IV. Risk ratios, confounding, effect modification, and the analysis of multiple variables. Rev Infect Dis1988;10:1118–1141.
  18. Whitehouse JD, Friedman ND, Kirkland KB, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay, and extra cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2002;23:183–189.
  19. Samore MH, Harbarth S. A methodologically focused review of the literature in hospital epidemiology and infection control. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital epidemiology and infection control. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004:1645–1657.
  20. Schulgen G, Kropec A, Kappstein I, et al. Estimation of extra hospital stay attributable to nosocomial infections: heterogeneity and timing of events. J Clin Epidemiol2000;53:409–417.
  21. Beyersmann J, Gastmeier P, Grundmann H, et al. Assessment of prolongation of intensive care unit stay due to nosocomial infections, using multistate models. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2006; Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2006;27:493–9.
  22. Asensio A, Torres J. Quantifying excess length of postoperative stay attributable to infections: a comparison of methods. J Clin Epidemiol1999;52:1249–1256.
  23. Soufir L, Timsit JF, Mahe C, et al. Attributable morbidity and mortality of catheter-related septicemia in critically ill patients: a matched, risk-adjusted, cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1999;20:396–401.
  24. Gaynes R, Edwards JR. Overview of nosocomial infections caused by gram-negative bacilli. Clin Infect Dis2005;41:848–854.
  25. Alberti C, Brun-Buisson C, Burchardi H, et al. Epidemiology of sepsis and infection in ICU patients from an international multicentre cohort study. Intensive Care Med2002;28:108–121.
  26. Geffers C, Zuschneid I, Sohr D, et al. Microbiological isolates associated with nosocomial infections in intensive care units: data of 274 intensive care units participating in the German Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (KISS). Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther2004;39:15–19.
  27. Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Sprung CL, et al. Sepsis in European intensive care units: results of the SOAP study. Crit Care Med2006;34:344–353.
  28. Harbarth S, Pittet D. Identification and management of infectious outbreaks in the critical care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care1996;2:352–360.
  29. Behari P, Englund J, Alcasid G, et al. Transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusto preterm infants through breast milk. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2004;25:778–780.
  30. Zawacki A, O'Rourke E, Potter-Bynoe G, et al. An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosapneumonia and bloodstream infection associated with intermittent otitis externa in a healthcare worker. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:1083–1089.
  31. Pimentel JD, Low J, Styles K, et al. Control of an outbreak of multi-drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumanniiin an intensive care unit and a surgical ward. J Hosp Infect2005;59:249–253.
  32. de Lassence A, Hidri N, Timsit JF, et al. Control and outcome of a large outbreak of colonization and infection with glycopeptide-intermediate Staphylococcus aureusin an intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:170–178.
  33. Zanetti G, Blanc DS, Federli I, et al. Acinetobacter baumanniiepidemic in a burn unit: usefulness of improved culture medium to assess environmental contamination. In: IDSA, ed. IDSA. Boston: Infectious Disease Society of America. 2004:73.
  34. Hamill RJ, Houston ED, Georghiou PR, et al. An outbreak of Burkholderia(formerly Pseudomonas) cepacia respiratory tract colonization and infection associated with nebulized albuterol therapy. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:762–766.
  35. Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection in organ transplant recipients—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2005;54:537–539.
  36. Srinivasan A, Burton EC, Kuehnert MJ, et al. Transmission of rabies virus from an organ donor to four transplant recipients. N Engl J Med2005;352:1103–1111.
  37. Vincent JL. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. J Hosp Infect2004;57:272–280.
  38. Warren DK, Shukla SJ, Olsen MA, et al. Outcome and attributable cost of ventilator-associated pneumonia among intensive care unit patients in a suburban medical center.Crit Care Med2003;31:1312–1317.
  39. Moine P, Timsit JF, De Lassence A, et al. Mortality associated with late-onset pneumonia in the intensive care unit: results of a multi-center cohort study. Intensive Care Med2002;28:154–163.
  40. Garnacho J, Sole-Violan J, Sa-Borges M, et al. Clinical impact of pneumonia caused by Acinetobacter baumanniiin intubated patients: a matched cohort study. Crit Care Med2003;31:2478–2482.
  41. Leroy O, Meybeck A, d'Escrivan T, et al. Impact of adequacy of initial antimicrobial therapy on the prognosis of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med2003;29:2170–2173.
  42. Hugonnet S, Eggimann P, Borst F, et al. Impact of ventilator-associated pneumonia on resource utilization and patient outcome. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2004;25:1090–1096.
  43. Rello J, Ollendorf DA, Oster G, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large U.S. database. Chest2002;122:2115–2121.
  44. Cook D, Walter S, Cook R, et al. Incidence of and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med1998;129:433–440.

P.391

  1. Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2005;171:388–416.
  2. Shorr AF, Sherner JH, Jackson WL, Kollef MH. Invasive approaches to the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med2005;33:46–53.
  3. Torres A, Ewig S. Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia. N Engl J Med2004;350:433–435.
  4. Meduri GU, Mauldin GL, Wunderink RG, et al. Causes of fever and pulmonary densities in patients with clinical manifestations of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Chest1994;106:221–235.
  5. Chastre J, Fagon JY. Ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2002;165:867–903.
  6. Fagon JY, Chastre J, Wolff M, et al. Invasive and noninvasive strategies for management of suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med2000;132:621–630.
  7. Ost DE, Hall CS, Joseph G, et al. Decision analysis of antibiotic and diagnostic strategies in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2003;168:1060–1067.
  8. Michaud S, Suzuki S, Harbarth S. Effect of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests for ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2002;166:1320–1325.
  9. Montravers P, Veber B, Auboyer C, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic management of nosocomial pneumonia in surgical patients: results of the Eole study. Crit Care Med2002;30:368–375.
  10. Giantsou E, Liratzopoulos N, Efraimidou E, et al. Both early-onset and late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia are caused mainly by potentially multiresistant bacteria.Intensive Care Med2005;31:1488–1494.
  11. Bornstain C, Azoulay E, De Lassence A, et al. Sedation, sucralfate, and antibiotic use are potential means for protection against early-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia.Clin Infect Dis2004;38:1401–1408.
  12. Bonten MJ, Kollef MH, Hall JB. Risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia: from epidemiology to patient management. Clin Infect Dis2004;38:1141–1149.
  13. Seiden AM. Sinusitis in the critical care patient. New Horiz1993;1:261–270.
  14. Stein M, Caplan ES. Nosocomial sinusitis: a unique subset of sinusitis. Curr Opin Infect Dis2005;18:147–150.
  15. Rouby JJ, Laurent P, Gosnach M, et al. Risk factors and clinical relevance of nosocomial maxillary sinusitis in the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1994;150:776–783.
  16. Holzapfel L, Chastang C, Demingeon G, et al. A randomized study assessing the systematic search for maxillary sinusitis in nasotracheally mechanically ventilated patients. Influence of nosocomial maxillary sinusitis on the occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1999;159:695–701.
  17. George DL, Falk PS, Umberto Meduri G, et al. Nosocomial sinusitis in patients in the medical intensive care unit: a prospective epidemiological study. Clin Infect Dis1998;27:463–470.
  18. Le Moal G, Lemerre D, Grollier G, et al. Nosocomial sinusitis with isolation of anaerobic bacteria in ICU patients. Intensive Care Med1999;25:1066–1071.
  19. Bach A, Boehrer H, Schmidt H, Geiss HK. Nosocomial sinusitis in ventilated patients. Nasotracheal versus orotracheal intubation. Anaesthesia1992;47:335–339.
  20. Heffner JE. Nosocomial sinusitis. Den of multiresistant thieves? Am J Respir Crit Care Med1994;150:608–609.
  21. Boland G, Lee MJ, Mueller PR. Acute cholecystitis in the intensive care unit. New Horiz1993;1:246–260.
  22. Laurila J, Syrjala H, Laurila PA, et al. Acute acalculous cholecystitis in critically ill patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand2004;48:986–991.
  23. Pittet D, Huguenin T, Dharan S, et al. Unusual cause of lethal pulmonary aspergillosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1996;154:541–544.
  24. Harvey MA. Critical-care-unit bedside design and furnishing: impact on nosocomial infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1998;19:597–601.
  25. WHO. Global Safety Challenge. (www.who.int/patientsafety/challenge/en/) accessed March 6, 2006.
  26. Preston GA, Larson EL, Stamm W. The effect of private isolation rooms on patient care practices, colonization and infection in an intensive care unit. Am J Med1981;70:641–645.
  27. Ben-Abraham R, Keller N, Szold O, et al. Do isolation rooms reduce the rate of nosocomial infections in the pediatric intensive care unit? J Crit Care2002;17:176–180.
  28. Johnson JR, Kuskowski MA, Wilt TJ. Systematic review: antimicrobial urinary catheters to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection in hospitalized patients. Ann Intern Med2006;144:116–126.
  29. Maki DG, Alvarado CJ, Hassemer CA, Zilz MA. Relation of the inanimate hospital environment to endemic nosocomial infection. N Engl J Med1982;307:1562–1566.
  30. Huebner J, Frank U, Kappstein I, et al. Influence of architectural design on nosocomial infections in intensive care units—a prospective 2-year analysis. Intensive Care Med1989;15:179–183.
  31. Duckro AN, Blom DW, Lyle EA, et al. Transfer of vancomycin-resistant enterococci via health care worker hands. Arch Intern Med2005;165:302–307.
  32. Wendt C, Wiesenthal B, Dietz E, Ruden H. Survival of vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococci on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol1998;36:3734–3736.
  33. O'Connell NH, Humphreys H. Intensive care unit design and environmental factors in the acquisition of infection. J Hosp Infect2000;45:255–262.
  34. Oelberg DG, Joyner SE, Jiang X, et al. Detection of pathogen transmission in neonatal nurseries using DNA markers as surrogate indicators. Pediatrics2000;105:311–315.
  35. Foca M, Jakob K, Whittier S, et al. Endemic Pseudomonas aeruginosainfection in a neonatal intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2000;343:695–700.
  36. Carling PC, Briggs JL, Perkins J, Highlander D. Improved cleaning of patient rooms using a new targeting method. Clin Infect Dis2006;42:385–388.
  37. Pronovost PJ, Jenckes MW, Dorman T, et al. Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery. JAMA1999;281:1310–1317.
  38. Sherwood G, Thomas E, Bennett DS, Lewis P. A teamwork model to promote patient safety in critical care. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am2002;14:333–340.
  39. Sherertz RJ, Ely EW, Westbrook DM, et al. Education of physicians-in-training can decrease the risk for vascular catheter infection. Ann Intern Med2000;132:641–648.
  40. Hugonnet S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. The effect of workload on infection risk in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35:76–81.
  41. Leape LL, Fromson JA. Problem doctors: is there a system-level solution? Ann Intern Med2006;144:107–115.
  42. Garland A. Improving the ICU, part 1. Chest2005;127:2151–2164.
  43. Garland A. Improving the ICU, part 2. Chest2005;127:2165–2179.
  44. Duke G, Santamaria J, Shann E, Stow P. Outcome-based clinical indicators for intensive care medicine. Anaesth Intensive Care2005;33:303–310.
  45. Zuschneid I, Schwab F, Geffers C, et al. Reducing central venous catheter-associated primary bloodstream infections in intensive care units is possible: data from the German nosocomial infection surveillance system. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2003;24:501–505.
  46. Eggimann P, Pittet D. Infection control in the ICU. Chest2001;120:2059–2093.
  47. Hugonnet S, Eggimann P, Sax H, et al. Intensive care unit-acquired infections: is postdischarge surveillance useful? Crit Care Med2002;30:2636–2638.
  48. Salgado CD, O'Grady N, Farr BM. Prevention and control of antimicrobial-resistant infections in intensive care patients. Crit Care Med2005;33:2373–2382.
  49. Harbarth S, Pittet D. MRSA—a European currency of infection control. QJM1998;91:519–521.
  50. Muto CA, Jernigan JA, Ostrowsky BE, et al. Guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureusand Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:362–386.

P.392

  1. Marshall C, Wesselingh S, McDonald M, Spelman D. Control of endemic MRSA—what is the evidence? a personal view. J Hosp Infect2004;56:253–268.
  2. Cepeda JA, Whitehouse T, Cooper B, et al. Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study.Lancet2005;365:295–304.
  3. Wernitz MH, Swidsinski S, Weist K, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide selective screening programme for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) carriers at hospital admission to prevent hospital-acquired MRSA infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2005;11:457–465.
  4. Rubinovitch B, Pittet D. Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusin the endemic hospital: what have we learned? J Hosp Infect 2001;47:9–18.
  5. Lucet JC, Paoletti X, Lolom I, et al. Successful long-term program for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusin intensive care units. Intensive Care Med2005;31:1051–1057.
  6. Harbarth S, Masuet-Aumatell C, Schrenzel J, et al. Evaluation of rapid screening and pre-emptive contact isolation for detecting and controlling methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureusin critical care: an interventional cohort study. Crit Care 2006;10:R25.
  7. Harbarth S, Romand J, Frei R, et al. Inter- and intrahospital transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Schweiz Med Wochenschr1997;127:471–478.
  8. Kassis-Chikhani N, Decre D, Gautier V, et al. First outbreak of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniaecarrying blaVIM-1 and blaSHV-5 in a French university hospital. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006;57:142–145.
  9. Harbarth S, Sax H, Fankhauser-Rodriguez C, et al. Evaluating the probability of previously unknown carriage of MRSA at hospital admission. Am J Med2006;119:275.e:15–23.
  10. Bonten MJ, Slaughter S, Hayden MK, et al. External sources of vancomycin-resistant enterococci for intensive care units. Crit Care Med1998;26:2001–2004.
  11. Harbarth S, Pittet D, Grady L, et al. Interventional study to evaluate the impact of an alcohol-based hand gel in improving hand hygiene compliance. Pediatr Infect Dis J2002;21:489–495.
  12. Hugonnet S, Perneger TV, Pittet D. Alcohol-based handrub improves compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med2002;162:1037–1043.
  13. Pittet D, Simon A, Hugonnet S, et al. Hand hygiene among physicians: performance, beliefs, and perceptions. Ann Intern Med2004;141:1–8.
  14. Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2002;23:S3–S40.
  15. Harbarth S. Handwashing—the Semmelweis lesson misunderstood? Clin Infect Dis2000;30:990–991.
  16. Pittet D, Mourouga P, Perneger TV. Compliance with handwashing in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med1999;130:126–130.
  17. Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, et al. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet2000;356:1307–1312.
  18. Pittet D, Boyce JM. Hand hygiene and patient care: pursuing the Semmelweis legacy. Lancet Infect Dis2001;1:9–20.
  19. Goroncy-Bermes P, Schouten MA, Voss A. Effectiveness of a non-medicated handwash product, chlorhexidine, and an alcohol-based hand disinfectant against multiple-resistant Gram-positive microorganisms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2001;22:194–196.
  20. Winnefeld M, Richard MA, Drancourt M, Grob JJ. Skin tolerance and effectiveness of two hand decontamination procedures in everyday hospital use. Br J Dermatol2000;143:546–550.
  21. Boyce JM, Kelliher S, Vallande N. Skin irritation and dryness associated with two hand-hygiene regimens: soap-and-water hand washing versus hand antisepsis with an alcoholic hand gel. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2000;21:442–448.
  22. Doebbeling BN, Stanley GL, Sheetz CT, et al. Comparative efficacy of alternative hand-washing agents in reducing nosocomial infections in intensive care units. N Engl J Med1992;327:88–93.
  23. Klein BS, Perloff WH, Maki D. Reduction of nosocomial infection during pediatric intensive care by protective isolation. N Engl J Med1989;320:1714–1721.
  24. Slota M, Green M, Farley A, et al. The role of gown and glove isolation and strict handwashing in the reduction of nosocomial infection in children with solid organ transplantation. Crit Care Med2001;29:405–412.
  25. Bell DM. Public health interventions and SARS spread, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis2004;10:1900–1906.
  26. Sax H, Perneger T, Hugonnet S, et al. Knowledge of standard and isolation precautions in a large teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:298–304.
  27. Askarian M, Shiraly R, McLaws ML. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of contact precautions among Iranian nurses. Am J Infect Control2005;33:486–488.
  28. Pessoa-Silva CL, Posfay-Barbe K, Pfister R, et al. Attitudes and perceptions toward hand hygiene among healthcare workers caring for critically ill neonates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol2005;26:305–311.
  29. Bonten MJ, Kullberg BJ, van Dalen R, et al. Selective digestive decontamination in patients in intensive care. J Antimicrob Chemother2000;46:351–362.
  30. Krueger WA, Unertl KE. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Curr Opin Crit Care2002;8:139–144.
  31. Vincent JL. Selective digestive decontamination: for everyone, everywhere? Lancet2003;362:1006–1007.
  32. van Saene HK, Petros AJ, Ramsay G, Baxby D. All great truths are iconoclastic: selective decontamination of the digestive tract moves from heresy to level 1 truth. Intensive Care Med2003;29:677–690.
  33. Liberati A, D'Amico R, Pifferi S, et al. Antibiotics for preventing respiratory tract infections in adults receiving intensive care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2000(2):CD000022.
  34. van Nieuwenhoven CA, Buskens E, van Tiel FH, Bonten MJ. Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA2001;286:335–340.
  35. Krueger WA, Lenhart FP, Neeser G, et al. Influence of combined intravenous and topical antibiotic prophylaxis on the incidence of infections, organ dysfunctions, and mortality in critically ill surgical patients: a prospective, stratified, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2002;166:1029–1037.
  36. de Jonge E, Schultz MJ, Spanjaard L, et al. Effects of selective decontamination of digestive tract on mortality and acquisition of resistant bacteria in intensive care: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2003;362:1011–1016.
  37. Acquarolo A, Urli T, Perone G, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis of early onset pneumonia in critically ill comatose patients: a randomized study. Intensive Care Med2005;31:510–516.
  38. de La Cal MA, Cerda E, Garcia-Hierro P, et al. Survival benefit in critically ill burned patients receiving selective decontamination of the digestive tract: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Ann Surg2005;241:424–430.
  39. Bonten MJ. Strategies for prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia: oral and selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract. Semin Respir Crit Care Med2002;23:481–488.
  40. Pittet D, Eggimann P, Rubinovitch B. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia by oral decontamination: just another SDD study? Am J Respir Crit Care Med2001;164:338–339.
  41. Fourrier F, Dubois D, Pronnier P, et al. Effect of gingival and dental plaque antiseptic decontamination on nosocomial infections acquired in the intensive care unit: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter study. Crit Care Med2005;33:1728–1735.
  42. Garcia R. A review of the possible role of oral and dental colonization on the occurrence of health care-associated pneumonia: underappreciated risk and a call for interventions. Am J Infect Control2005;33:527–541.
  43. Kollef M, Pittet D, Sanchez Garcia M, et al. A randomized double-blind trial of Iseganan in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2006;173:91–97.
  44. Brun-Buisson C, Legrand P, Rauss A. Intestinal decontamination for control of nosocomial multiresistant gram-negative bacilli: study of an outbreak in an intensive care unit.Ann Intern Med1989;110:873–881.

P.393

  1. Collard HR, Saint S, Matthay MA. Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: an evidence-based systematic review. Ann Intern Med2003;138:494–501.
  2. Dodek P, Keenan S, Cook D, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ann Intern Med2004;141:305–313.
  3. Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C, van Tiel FH, et al. Feasibility and effects of the semirecumbent position to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized study. Crit Care Med2006;34:396–402.
  4. Kollef MH, Skubas NJ, Sundt TM. A randomized clinical trial of continuous aspiration of subglottic secretions in cardiac surgery patients. Chest1999;116:1339–1346.
  5. Smulders K, van der Hoeven H, Weers-Pothoff I, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C. A randomized clinical trial of intermittent subglottic secretion drainage in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Chest2002;121:858–862.
  6. Marchetti O, Bille J, Fluckiger U, et al. Epidemiology of candidemia in Swiss tertiary care hospitals: secular trends, 1991–2000. Clin Infect Dis2004;38:311–320.
  7. Eggimann P, Garbino J, Pittet D. Management of Candida species infections in critically ill patients. Lancet Infect Dis2003;3:772–785.
  8. Eggimann P, Garbino J, Pittet D. Epidemiology of Candida species infections in critically ill non-immunosuppressed patients. Lancet Infect Dis2003;3:685–702.
  9. Solomkin JS. Pathogenesis and management of Candida infection syndromes in non-neutropenic patients. New Horiz1993;1:202–213.
  10. Pittet D, Monod M, Filthuth I, et al. Contour-clamped homogeneous electric field gel electrophoresis as a powerful epidemiologic tool in yeast infections. Am J Med1991;91:256S–263S.
  11. Charles PE, Dalle F, Aube H, et al. Candida spp colonization significance in critically ill medical patients: a prospective study. Intensive Care Med2005;31:393–400.
  12. Pelz RK, Hendrix CW, Swoboda SM, et al. Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of fluconazole to prevent candidal infections in critically ill surgical patients. Ann Surg2001;233:542–548.
  13. Garbino J, Lew DP, Romand JA, et al. Prevention of severe Candida infections in nonneutropenic, high-risk, critically ill patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients treated by selective digestive decontamination. Intensive Care Med2002;28:1708–1717.
  14. Shorr AF, Chung K, Jackson WL, et al. Fluconazole prophylaxis in critically ill surgical patients: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med2005;33:1928–35.
  15. Harbarth S, Sax H, Gastmeier P. The preventable proportion of nosocomial infections: an overview of published reports. J Hosp Infect2003;54:258–266.
  16. Larson E. State-of-the-science—2004: time for a “No Excuses/No Tolerance” (NET) strategy. Am J Infect Control2005;33:548–557.
  17. Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, et al. Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med2004;32:2014–2020.
  18. Higuera F, Rosenthal VD, Duarte P, et al. The effect of process control on the incidence of central venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections and mortality in intensive care units in Mexico. Crit Care Med2005;33:2022–2027.
  19. Hu KK, Veenstra DL, Lipsky BA, Saint S. Use of maximal sterile barriers during central venous catheter insertion: clinical and economic outcomes. Clin Infect Dis2004;39:1441–1445.
  20. Fagon JY, Chastre J, Hance AJ, et al. Nosocomial pneumonia in ventilated patients: a cohort study evaluating attributable mortality and hospital stay. Am J Med1993;94:281–288.
  21. Papazian L, Bregeon F, Thirion X, et al. Effect of ventilator-associated pneumonia on mortality and morbidity. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1996;154:91–97.
  22. Baker AM, Meredith JW, Haponik EF. Pneumonia in intubated trauma patients: microbiology and outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1996;153:343–349.
  23. Rello J, Jubert P, Valles J, et al. Evaluation of outcome for intubated patients with pneumonia due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clin Infect Dis1996;23:973–978.
  24. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, et al. The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1999;159:1249–1256.
  25. Bercault N, Boulain T. Mortality rate attributable to ventilator-associated nosocomial pneumonia in an adult intensive care unit: a prospective case-control study. Crit Care Med2001;29:2303–2309.
  26. Rosenthal VD, Guzman S, Migone O, Safdar N. The attributable cost and length of hospital stay because of nosocomial pneumonia in intensive care units in 3 hospitals in Argentina: a prospective, matched analysis. Am J Infect Control2005;33:157–161.
  27. Habsah H, Zeehaida M, Van Rostenberghe H, et al. An outbreak of Pantoea sppin a neonatal intensive care unit secondary to contaminated parenteral nutrition. J Hosp Infect 2005;61:213–218.
  28. Hocker B, Wendt C, Nahimana A, et al. Molecular evidence of Pneumocystis transmission in pediatric transplant unit. Emerg Infect Dis2005;11:330–332.
  29. Ho AS, Sung JJ, Chan-Yeung M. An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome among hospital workers in a community hospital in Hong Kong. Ann Intern Med2003;139:564–567.
  30. Harnett SJ, Allen KD, Macmillan RR. Critical care unit outbreak of Serratia liquefaciensfrom contaminated pressure monitoring equipment. J Hosp Infect 2001;47:301–307.
  31. Moolenaar RL, Crutcher JM, San Joaquin VH, et al. A prolonged outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosain a neonatal intensive care unit: did staff fingernails play a role in disease transmission? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:80–85.
  32. Chang HJ, Miller HL, Watkins N, et al. An epidemic of Malassezia pachydermatisin an intensive care nursery associated with colonization of health care workers' pet dogs. N Engl J Med 1998;338:706–711.
  33. Trilla A, Codina C, Salles M, et al. A cluster of fever and hypotension on a surgical ICU related to the contamination of plasma expanders by cell wall products of Bacillus stearothermophilus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol1995;16:335–339.
  34. Watson JC, Fleming DW, Borella AJ, et al. Vertical transmission of hepatitis A resulting in an outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Infect Dis1993;167:567–571.
  35. Livornese LL Jr., Dias S, Samel C, et al. Hospital-acquired infection with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faeciumtransmitted by electronic thermometers. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:112–116.


If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at admin@doctorlib.org. Thank you!