Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection.
By Susan S. Huang, E. Septimus, K. Kleinman, J. Moody, J. Hickok, Taliser R. Avery, J. Lankiewicz, Adrijana Gombosev, L. Terpstra, Fallon Hartford and 10 more. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013
753 citations recorded by the source corpus.
BACKGROUND Both targeted decolonization and universal decolonization of patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are candidate strategies to prevent health care-associated infections, particularly those caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial. Hospitals were randomly assigned to one of three strategies, with all adult ICUs in a given hospital assigned to the same strategy. Group 1 implemented MRSA screening and isolation; group 2, targeted decolonization (i.e., screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers); and group 3, universal decolonization (i.e., no screening, and decolonization of all patients). Proportional-hazards models were used to assess differences in infection reductions across the study groups, with clustering according to hospital. RESULTS A total of 43 hospitals (including 74 ICUs and 74,256 patients during the intervention period) underwent randomization. In the intervention period versus the baseline period, modeled hazard ratios for MRSA clinical isolates were 0.92 for screening and isolation (crude rate, 3.2 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days), 0.75 for targeted decolonization (3.2 vs. 4.3 isolates per 1000 days), and 0.63 for universal decolonization (2.1 vs. 3.4 isolates per 1000 days) (P=0.01 for test of all groups being equal). In the intervention versus baseline periods, hazard ratios for bloodstream infection with any pathogen in the three groups were 0.99 (crude rate, 4.1 vs. 4.2 infections per 1000 days), 0.78 (3.7 vs. 4.8 infections per 1000 days), and 0.56 (3.6 vs. 6.1 infections per 1000 days), respectively (P<0.001 for test of all groups being equal). Universal decolonization resulted in a significantly greater reduction in the rate of all bloodstream infections than either targeted decolonization or screening and isolation. One bloodstream infection was prevented per 54 patients who underwent decolonization. The reductions in rates of MRSA bloodstream infection were similar to those of all bloodstream infections, but the difference was not significant. Adverse events, which occurred in 7 patients, were mild and related to chlorhexidine. CONCLUSIONS In routine ICU practice, universal decolonization was more effective than targeted decolonization or screening and isolation in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates and bloodstream infection from any pathogen. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; REDUCE MRSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00980980).
Subfields: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Infectious Diseases
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4cb3ce5b9172948985cb185d28ab03ec26233f86
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Citations in the corpus
- Prosthetic Joint Infection (2014, background): “A universal decolonization strategy in which screening is not performed and all patients undergo chlorhexidine bathing is another approach that avoids the logistical challenges of a targeted decolonization protocol and appears to be more successful in other settings (451).”
- ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. (2014, background): “Two recently published cluster-randomized studies assessed the impact of strategies involving daily cleansing of ICU patients with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated bathing cloths [258,259].”