Search

Little is known regarding SARS-CoV-2 infection risk following SARS-CoV-2 exposures in hospitalized patients. Amongst 11,997 patients in 14 hospitals exposed 2020-2023, 6.5% tested positive (median 3d after exposure). Positivity rates were 6.7% vs 5.8% for Omicron vs pre-Omicron exposures ( P = 0.07) and 7.6% vs 4.6% for exposures before vs after admission ( P < 0.001).

Objective: To assess trends in antibiotic prescribing for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with and without sepsis., Design: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health record (EHR) data., Setting: Five hospitals in eastern Massachusetts., Patients: Adults (≥18 years) hospitalized with community-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections between March 2020 and November 2022., Methods: We assessed quarterly trends in the use of prolonged initial antibiotic therapy (≥4 antibiotic days within one week of admission, including discharge antibiotics) amongst COVID-19 patients with and without sepsis, defined using clinical signs of organ dysfunction before hospital day 3. Poisson regression models were used to adjust for baseline characteristics and severity of illness., Results: Of 431,017 hospitalizations in the study period, 21,563 (5.0%) had community-onset COVID-19. 4,769/21,563 (20.5%) presented with sepsis. Prolonged antibiotics were prescribed in 2,323/4,769 (48.7%) COVID-19 patients with sepsis and 2,866/16,794 (17.1%) without sepsis despite low rates of positive bacterial cultures on admission (15.0% vs 6.3%, respectively). Quarterly rates of prolonged antibiotics declined between the first and second pandemic quarters for both sepsis (66.8% to 43.9%) and no-sepsis (31.8% to 24.4%) groups. However, there was no significant change thereafter through November 2022 in either group (quarterly aORs 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.05 and 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.03, respectively)., Conclusions: Prolonged antibiotics were common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with and without sepsis during the first 33 months of the pandemic despite low rates of proven bacterial infection. Decreases in antibiotic utilization occurred primarily between the first and second pandemic quarter with no further reduction thereafter., Competing Interests: Dr Klompas reports personal fees from UpToDate outside the submitted work. Dr Rhee reports personal fees from UpToDate and Cytovale outside the submitted work. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to the submitted work were reported., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that surveillance metrics for invasive device-associated infections (ie, central-line-associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonias, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections) do not capture all harms; they capture only a subset of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Although prevention of device-associated infections remains critical, we need to address the full spectrum of potential harms from device use and non-device-associated infections. These include complications associated with additional devices, such as peripheral venous and arterial catheters, non-device-associated infections such as nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, and noninfectious device complications such as trauma, thrombosis, and acute lung injury. As authors of the device-associated infection sections in the SHEA/IDSA/APIC Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals , we highlight catheter-associated urinary tract infection as an example of the strengths and limitations of the current emphasis on device-associated infection surveillance, suggest performance metrics that present a more comprehensive picture of patient harm, and provide a high-level overview of similar issues with other infection surveillance measures.

Objective: Many providers use severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cycle thresholds (Ct values) as approximate measures of viral burden in association with other clinical data to inform decisions about treatment and isolation. We characterized temporal changes in Ct values for non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses as a first step to determine whether cycle thresholds could play a similar role in the management of non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston., Methods: We retrospectively identified all adult patients with positive nasopharyngeal PCRs for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), parainfluenza, human metapneumovirus (HMPV), rhinovirus, or adenovirus between January 2022 and March 2023. We plotted Ct distributions relative to days since symptom onset, and we assessed whether distributions varied by immunosuppression and other comorbidities., Results: We analyzed 1,863 positive samples: 506 influenza, 502 rhinovirus, 430 RSV, 219 HMPV, 180 parainfluenza, 26 adenovirus. Ct values were generally 25-30 on the day of symptom onset, lower over the ensuing 1-3 days, and progressively higher thereafter with Ct values ≥30 after 1 week for most viruses. Ct values were generally higher and more stable over time for rhinovirus. There was no association between immunocompromised status and median intervals from symptom onset until Ct values were ≥30., Conclusions: Ct values relative to symptom onset for influenza, RSV, and other non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses generally mirror patterns seen with SARS-CoV-2. Further data on associations between Ct values and viral viability, transmissibility, host characteristics, and response to treatment for non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory viruses are needed to determine how clinicians and infection preventionists might integrate Ct values into treatment and isolation decisions.

Hospital-acquired Aspergillus rates among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients were initially higher at a hospital with high negative-pressure room utilization compared to a similar hospital with low utilization but with otherwise identical infection control policies. After the index hospital decreased negative-pressure utilization, hospital-acquired Aspergillus case rates at the 2 hospitals converged.

Objective: To examine the impact of commonly used case definitions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations on case counts and outcomes., Design, Patients, and Setting: Retrospective analysis of all adults hospitalized between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022, at 5 Massachusetts acute-care hospitals., Interventions: We applied 6 commonly used definitions of COVID-19 hospitalization: positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay within 14 days of admission, PCR plus dexamethasone administration, PCR plus remdesivir, PCR plus hypoxemia, institutional COVID-19 flag, or COVID-19 International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Outcomes included case counts and in-hospital mortality. Overall, 100 PCR-positive cases were reviewed to determine each definition's accuracy for distinguishing primary or contributing versus incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations., Results: Of 306,387 hospital encounters, 15,436 (5.0%) met the PCR-based definition. COVID-19 hospitalization counts varied substantially between definitions: 4,628 (1.5% of all encounters) for PCR plus dexamethasone, 5,757 (1.9%) for PCR plus remdesivir, 11,801 (3.9%) for PCR plus hypoxemia, 15,673 (5.1%) for institutional flags, and 15,868 (5.2%) for ICD-10 codes. Definitions requiring dexamethasone, hypoxemia, or remdesivir selected sicker patients compared to PCR alone (mortality rates 12.2%, 10.7%, and 8.8% vs 8.3%, respectively). Definitions requiring PCR plus remdesivir or dexamethasone did not detect a reduction in in-hospital mortality associated with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. ICD-10 codes had the highest sensitivity (98.4%) but low specificity (39.5%) for distinguishing primary or contributing versus incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. PCR plus dexamethasone had the highest specificity (92.1%) but low sensitivity (35.5%)., Conclusions: Commonly used definitions for COVID-19 hospitalizations generate variable case counts and outcomes and differentiate poorly between primary or contributing versus incidental COVID-19 hospitalizations. Surveillance definitions that better capture and delineate COVID-19-associated hospitalizations are needed.

Objective: To determine change in rates of postoperative pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia among patients hospitalized in the United States during 2009-2019., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Patients: Patients hospitalized for major surgical procedures, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of data from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System, a chart-abstraction-derived database including 21 adverse-event measures among patients hospitalized in the United States. Changes in observed and risk-adjusted rates of postoperative pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia were derived., Results: Among 58,618 patients undergoing major surgical procedures between 2009 and 2019, the observed rate of postoperative pneumonia from 2009-2011 was 1.9% and decreased to 1.3% during 2017-2019. The adjusted annual risk each year, compared to the prior year, was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96). Among 4,007 patients hospitalized for any of these 4 conditions at risk for ventilator-associated pneumonia during 2009-2019, we did not detect a significant change in observed or adjusted rates. Observed rates clustered around 10%, and adjusted annual risk compared to the prior year was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.95-1.02)., Conclusions: During 2009-2019, the rate of postoperative pneumonia decreased statistically and clinically significantly in among patients hospitalized for major surgical procedures in the United States, but rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia among patients hospitalized for major surgical procedures, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia did not change.

Objective: To assess coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection policies at leading US medical centers in the context of the initial wave of the severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) omicron variant., Design: Electronic survey study eliciting hospital policies on masking, personal protective equipment, cohorting, airborne-infection isolation rooms (AIIRs), portable HEPA filters, and patient and employee testing., Setting and Participants: "Hospital epidemiologists from U.S. News top 20 hospitals and 10 hospitals in the CDC Prevention Epicenters program."  As it is currently written, it implies all 30 hospitals are from the CDC Prevention Epicenters program, but that only applies to 10 hospitals.  Alternatively, we could just say "Hospital epidemiologists from 30 leading US hospitals.", Methods: Survey results were reported using descriptive statistics., Results: Of 30 hospital epidemiologists surveyed, 23 (77%) completed the survey between February 15 and March 3, 2022. Among the responding hospitals, 18 (78%) used medical masks for universal masking and 5 (22%) used N95 respirators. 16 hospitals (70%) required universal eye protection. 22 hospitals (96%) used N95s for routine COVID-19 care and 1 (4%) reserved N95s for aerosol-generating procedures. 2 responding hospitals (9%) utilized dedicated COVID-19 wards; 8 (35%) used mixed COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units; and 13 (57%) used both dedicated and mixed units. 4 hospitals (17%) used AIIRs for all COVID-19 patients, 10 (43%) prioritized AIIRs for aerosol-generating procedures, 3 (13%) used alternate risk-stratification criteria (not based on aerosol-generating procedures), and 6 (26%) did not routinely use AIIRs. 9 hospitals (39%) did not use portable HEPA filters, but 14 (61%) used them for various indications, most commonly as substitutes for AIIRs when unavailable or for specific high-risk areas or situations. 21 hospitals (91%) tested asymptomatic patients on admission, but postadmission testing strategies and preferred specimen sites varied substantially. 5 hospitals (22%) required regular testing of unvaccinated employees and 1 hospital (4%) reported mandatory weekly testing even for vaccinated employees during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron surge., Conclusions: COVID-19 infection control practices in leading hospitals vary substantially. Clearer public health guidance and transparency around hospital policies may facilitate more consistent national standards.

Objective: Surveillance of non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) is complicated by subjectivity and variability in diagnosing pneumonia. We compared a fully automatable surveillance definition using routine electronic health record data to manual determinations of NV-HAP according to surveillance criteria and clinical diagnoses., Methods: We retrospectively applied an electronic surveillance definition for NV-HAP to all adults admitted to Veterans' Affairs (VA) hospitals from January 1, 2015, to November 30, 2020. We randomly selected 250 hospitalizations meeting NV-HAP surveillance criteria for independent review by 2 clinicians and calculated the percent of hospitalizations with (1) clinical deterioration, (2) CDC National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) criteria, (3) NV-HAP according to a reviewer, (4) NV-HAP according to a treating clinician, (5) pneumonia diagnosis in discharge summary; and (6) discharge diagnosis codes for HAP. We assessed interrater reliability by calculating simple agreement and the Cohen κ (kappa)., Results: Among 3.1 million hospitalizations, 14,023 met NV-HAP electronic surveillance criteria. Among reviewed cases, 98% had a confirmed clinical deterioration; 67% met CDC-NHSN criteria; 71% had NV-HAP according to a reviewer; 60% had NV-HAP according to a treating clinician; 49% had a discharge summary diagnosis of pneumonia; and 82% had NV-HAP according to any definition according to at least 1 reviewer. Only 8% had diagnosis codes for HAP. Interrater agreement was 75% (κ = 0.50) for CDC-NHSN criteria and 78% (κ = 0.55) for reviewer diagnosis of NV-HAP., Conclusions: Electronic NV-HAP surveillance criteria correlated moderately with existing manual surveillance criteria. Reviewer variability for all manual assessments was high. Electronic surveillance using clinical data may therefore allow for more consistent and efficient surveillance with similar accuracy compared to manual assessments or diagnosis codes.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the lack of agreement regarding the definition of aerosol-generating procedures and potential risk to healthcare personnel. We convened a group of Massachusetts healthcare epidemiologists to develop consensus through expert opinion in an area where broader guidance was lacking at the time., Competing Interests: All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Management of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has evolved considerably during the pandemic. We investigated rates and causes of ventilator-associated events (VAEs) in COVID-19 patients in the late versus early waves in 4 Massachusetts hospitals. VAE rates per episode decreased, rates per ventilator day were stable, and most cases were caused by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

We assessed the extent to which healthcare workers report more favorable hand hygiene rates when observing members of their own professional group versus other groups' observations of them. Healthcare workers consistently reported higher compliance rates for their own group compared to others' observations of them (97 vs 92%; P ≤ .001).

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a daily attestation system used by employees of a multi-institutional academic medical center, which comprised of symptom-screening, self-referrals to the Occupational Health Services team, and/or a severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test., Design: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all employee attestations and SARS-CoV-2 tests performed between March and June 2020., Setting: A large multi-institutional academic medical center, including both inpatient and ambulatory settings., Participants: All employees who worked at the study site., Methods: Data were combined from the attestation system (COVIDPass), the employee database, and the electronic health records and were analyzed using descriptive statistics including χ 2 , Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. We investigated whether an association existed between symptomatic attestations by the employees and the employee testing positive for SARS-CoV-2., Results: After data linkage and cleaning, there were 2,117,298 attestations submitted by 65,422 employees between March and June 2020. Most attestations were asymptomatic (99.9%). The most commonly reported symptoms were sore throat (n = 910), runny nose (n = 637), and cough (n = 570). Among the 2,026 employees who ever attested that they were symptomatic, 905 employees were tested within 14 days of a symptomatic attestation, and 114 (13%) of these tests were positive. The most common symptoms associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were anosmia (23% vs 4%) and fever (46% vs 19%)., Conclusions: Daily symptom attestations among healthcare workers identified a handful of employees with COVID-19. Although the number of positive tests was low, attestations may help keep unwell employees off campus to prevent transmissions.

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute care hospitals to prioritize and implement strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated events (VAE), and non-ventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) in adults, children, and neonates. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA), and is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Hospital Association, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

Background: Evidence from pandemics suggests that influenza is often associated with bacterial coinfection. Among patients hospitalized for influenza pneumonia, we report the rate of coinfection and distribution of pathogens, and we compare outcomes of patients with and without bacterial coinfection., Methods: We included adults admitted with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and tested for influenza from 2010 to 2015 at 179 US hospitals participating in the Premier database. Pneumonia was identified using an International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) algorithm. We used multiple logistic and gamma-generalized linear mixed models to assess the relationships between coinfection and inpatient mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, and cost., Results: Among 38,665 patients hospitalized with CAP and tested for influenza, 4,313 (11.2%) were positive. In the first 3 hospital days, patients with influenza were less likely than those without to have a positive culture (10.3% vs 16.2%; P < .001), and cultures were more likely to contain Staphylococcus aureus (34.2% vs 28.2%; P = .007) and less likely to contain Streptococcus pneumoniae (24.9% vs 31.0%; P = .008). Of S. aureus isolates, 42.8% were methicillin resistant among influenza patients versus 53.2% among those without influenza (P = .01). After hospital day 3, pathogens for both groups were similar. Bacterial coinfection was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.17-4.16), late ICU transfer (aOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.98-4.04), and higher cost (risk-adjusted mean multiplier, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.59-1.96)., Conclusions: In a large US inpatient sample hospitalized with influenza and CAP, S. aureus was the most frequent cause of bacterial coinfection. Coinfection was associated with worse outcomes and higher costs.

We interviewed 1,208 healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests between October 2020 and June 2021 to determine likely exposure sources. Overall, 689 (57.0%) had community exposures (479 from household members), 76 (6.3%) had hospital exposures (64 from other employees including 49 despite masking), 11 (0.9%) had community and hospital exposures, and 432 (35.8%) had no identifiable source of exposure., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Early administration of antibiotics in sepsis is associated with improved patient outcomes, but safe and generalizable approaches to de-escalate or discontinue antibiotics after suspected sepsis events are unknown., Methods: We used a modified Delphi approach to identify safety criteria for an opt-out protocol to guide de-escalation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy after 72 hours in non-ICU patients with suspected sepsis. An expert panel with expertise in antimicrobial stewardship and hospital epidemiology rated 48 unique criteria across 3 electronic survey rating tools. Criteria were rated primarily based on their impact on patient safety and feasibility for extraction from electronic health record review. The 48 unique criteria were rated by anonymous electronic survey tools, and the results were fed back to the expert panel participants. Consensus was achieved to either retain or remove each criterion., Results: After 3 rounds, 22 unique criteria remained as part of the opt-out safety checklist. These criteria included high-risk comorbidities, signs of severe illness, lack of cultures during sepsis work-up or antibiotic use prior to blood cultures, or ongoing signs and symptoms of infection., Conclusions: The modified Delphi approach is a useful method to achieve expert-level consensus in the absence of evidence suifficient to provide validated guidance. The Delphi approach allowed for flexibility in development of an opt-out trial protocol for sepsis antibiotic de-escalation. The utility of this protocol should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

In 2020 a group of U.S. healthcare leaders formed the National Organization to Prevent Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia (NOHAP) to issue a call to action to address non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (NVHAP). NVHAP is one of the most common and morbid healthcare-associated infections, but it is not tracked, reported, or actively prevented by most hospitals. This national call to action includes (1) launching a national healthcare conversation about NVHAP prevention; (2) adding NVHAP prevention measures to education for patients, healthcare professionals, and students; (3) challenging healthcare systems and insurers to implement and support NVHAP prevention; and (4) encouraging researchers to develop new strategies for NVHAP surveillance and prevention. The purpose of this document is to outline research needs to support the NVHAP call to action. Primary needs include the development of better models to estimate the economic cost of NVHAP, to elucidate the pathophysiology of NVHAP and identify the most promising pathways for prevention, to develop objective and efficient surveillance methods to track NVHAP, to rigorously test the impact of prevention strategies proposed to prevent NVHAP, and to identify the policy levers that will best engage hospitals in NVHAP surveillance and prevention. A joint task force developed this document including stakeholders from the Veterans' Health Administration (VHA), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The Joint Commission, the American Dental Association, the Patient Safety Movement Foundation, Oral Health Nursing Education and Practice (OHNEP), Teaching Oral-Systemic Health (TOSH), industry partners and academia.

Objective: Viruses are more common than bacteria in patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Little is known, however, about the frequency of respiratory viral testing and its associations with antimicrobial utilization., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: The study included 179 US hospitals., Patients: Adults admitted with pneumonia between July 2010 and June 2015., Methods: We assessed the frequency of respiratory virus testing and compared antimicrobial utilization, mortality, length of stay, and costs between tested versus untested patients, and between virus-positive versus virus-negative patients., Results: Among 166,273 patients with pneumonia on admission, 40,787 patients (24.5%) were tested for respiratory viruses, 94.8% were tested for influenza, and 20.7% were tested for other viruses. Viral assays were positive in 5,133 of 40,787 tested patients (12.6%), typically for influenza and rhinovirus. Tested patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities than untested patients, but patients with positive viral assays were older and had more comorbidities than those with negative assays. Blood cultures were positive for bacterial pathogens in 2.7% of patients with positive viral assays versus 5.3% of patients with negative viral tests (P < .001). Antibacterial courses were shorter for virus-positive versus -negative patients overall (mean 5.5 vs 6.4 days; P < .001) but varied by bacterial testing: 8.1 versus 8.0 days (P = .60) if bacterial tests were positive; 5.3 versus 6.1 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were negative; and 3.3 versus 5.2 days (P < .001) if bacterial tests were not obtained (interaction P < .001)., Conclusions: A minority of patients hospitalized with pneumonia were tested for respiratory viruses; only a fraction of potential viral pathogens were assayed; and patients with positive viral tests often received long antibacterial courses.

US hospitals are engaged in an infection control arms race. Hospitals, specialties, and professional groups are spurring one another on to adopt progressively more aggressive measures in response to COVID-19 that often exceed federal and international standards. Examples include universal masking of providers and patients; decreasing thresholds to test asymptomatic patients; using face shields and N95 respirators regardless of symptoms and test results; novel additions to the list of aerosol-generating procedures; and more comprehensive personal protective equipment including hair, shoe, and leg covers. Here, we review the factors underlying this arms race, including fears about personal safety, ongoing uncertainty around how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, confusion about what constitutes an aerosol-generating procedure, increasing recognition of the importance of asymptomatic infection, and the limited accuracy of diagnostic tests. We consider the detrimental effects of a maximal infection control approach and the research studies that are needed to eventually de-escalate hospitals and to inform more evidence-based and measured strategies.

We report on COVID-19 risk among HCWs exposed to a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 on day 13 of hospitalization. There were 44 HCWs exposed to the patient before contact and droplet precautions were implemented: of these, 2 of 44 (5%) developed COVID-19 potentially attributable to the exposure.

Objective: To estimate the effects of continuous daily treatment with different acid suppressants on the risk of ventilator-associated events in critically ill patients., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Patients: Adult critically ill patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for ≥3 days during an inpatient admission between January 2006 and December 2014., Methods: We estimated the 30-day cumulative risk ratios (RRs) for ventilator-associated events comparing daily proton pump inhibitor (PPI) versus daily histamine-2-receptor antagonist (H2RA) strategies while controlling for time-fixed and time-varying confounding and accounting for competing events., Results: Of 6,133 patients, on ventilation day 3, 58.8% received H2RAs, 26.1% received PPIs, and 4.1% received sucralfate. Patients frequently changed treatment throughout follow-up. Among 4,595 patients receiving PPIs or H2RAs on day 3, we found no differences in risk estimates for ventilator mortality and extubation alive comparing daily PPI versus daily H2RA strategies: RR, mortality, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.89-1.22); extubation alive, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96-1.03). We found similar results after accounting for PPI dose. For possible ventilator-associated pneumonia (PVAP) and infection-related ventilator-associated complication (IVAC), point estimates were larger, but the 95% CIs crossed 1.0: RR PVAP, 1.25 (95% CI, 0.80-1.94); IVAC, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.64-1.17). The magnitude of effect estimates depended on PPI dose. The RR for PVAP, high-dose PPI versus H2RA, was 1.53 (95% CI, 0.82-2.51), and for low-dose PPI versus H2RA, the RR was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.47-1.63). For IVAC, high-dose PPI versus H2RA, the RR was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.66-1.42), and for low-dose PPI versus H2RA, the RR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.50-1.11)., Conclusions: We estimated no effect of daily PPI versus daily H2RA on risk of mortality or extubation alive in critically ill patients. Further investigation with larger samples is warranted for PVAP and IVAC.

Nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia (NV-HAP) is one of the most common healthcare-associated infections, but most hospitals do not track it. We created a pilot electronic definition for NV-HAP and compared its accuracy to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria. Kappa values for the electronic definition and CDC criteria versus "true" pneumonia were similar: 0.40 and 0.47, respectively.

Objective: To update current estimates of non-device-associated pneumonia (ND pneumonia) rates and their frequency relative to ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), and identify risk factors for ND pneumonia., Design: Cohort study., Setting: Academic teaching hospital., Patients: All adult hospitalizations between 2013 and 2017 were included. Pneumonia (device associated and non-device associated) were captured through comprehensive, hospital-wide active surveillance using CDC definitions and methodology., Results: From 2013 to 2017, there were 163,386 hospitalizations (97,485 unique patients) and 771 pneumonia cases (520 ND pneumonia and 191 VAP). The rate of ND pneumonia remained stable, with 4.15 and 4.54 ND pneumonia cases per 10,000 hospitalization days in 2013 and 2017 respectively (P = .65). In 2017, 74% of pneumonia cases were ND pneumonia. Male sex and increasing age we both associated with increased risk of ND pneumonia. Additionally, patients with chronic bronchitis or emphysema (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-3.06), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.07-2.05), or paralysis (HR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09-2.73) were also at increased risk, as were those who were immunosuppressed (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.18-2.00) or in the ICU (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.09). We did not detect a change in ND pneumonia risk with use of chlorhexidine mouthwash, total parenteral nutrition, all medications of interest, and prior ventilation., Conclusion: The incidence rate of ND pneumonia did not change from 2013 to 2017, and 3 of 4 nosocomial pneumonia cases were non-device associated. Hospital infection prevention programs should consider expanding the scope of surveillance to include non-ventilated patients. Future research should continue to look for modifiable risk factors and should assess potential prevention strategies.

Objective: To update current estimates of non-device-associated urinary tract infection (ND-UTI) rates and their frequency relative to catheter-associated UTIs (CA-UTIs) and to identify risk factors for ND-UTIs., Design: Cohort study., Setting: Academic teaching hospital., Patients: All adult hospitalizations between 2013 and 2017 were included. UTIs (device and non-device associated) were captured through comprehensive, hospital-wide active surveillance using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definitions and methodology., Results: From 2013 to 2017 there were 163,386 hospitalizations (97,485 unique patients) and 1,273 UTIs (715 ND-UTIs and 558 CA-UTIs). The rate of ND-UTIs remained stable, decreasing slightly from 6.14 to 5.57 ND-UTIs per 10,000 hospitalization days during the study period (P = .15). However, the proportion of UTIs that were non-device related increased from 52% to 72% (P < .0001). Female sex (hazard ratio [HR], 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.50) and increasing age were associated with increased ND-UTI risk. Additionally, the following conditions were associated with increased risk: peptic ulcer disease (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.04-4.86), immunosuppression (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.15-1.91), trauma admissions (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.81), total parenteral nutrition (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.35-2.94) and opioid use (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.32). Urinary retention (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.96-2.07), suprapubic catheterization (HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.88-5.91), and nephrostomy tubes (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 0.83-4.93) may also increase risk, but estimates were imprecise., Conclusion: Greater than 70% of UTIs are now non-device associated. Current targeted surveillance practices should be reconsidered in light of this changing landscape. We identified several modifiable risk factors for ND-UTIs, and future research should explore the impact of prevention strategies that target these factors.

Objective: To determine whether oral vancomycin prophylaxis accompanying systemic antibiotics reduces the risk of relapse in patients with history of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI)., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Patients: Adult inpatients with a history of CDI who received systemic antibiotics in either of 2 hospitals between January 2009 and June 2015., Methods: We compared relapse rates in patients who started oral vancomycin concurrently with systemic antibiotics (exposed group) versus those who did not. We assessed for CDI relapse by toxin or nucleic acid testing at 90 days. We used inverse probability weighting and machine learning to adjust for confounders, to estimate propensity for treatment, and to calculate odds ratios for CDI relapse. We performed secondary analyses limited to toxin-positive relapses, patients with 1 versus &gt;1 prior CDI episodes, and patients who received oral vancomycin on each antibiotic day., Results: CDI relapse occurred within 90 days in 19 of 193 exposed patients (9.8%) versus 53 of 567 unexposed patients (9.4%; unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.81; adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.35-1.14). CDI relapses at 90 days were less frequent in exposed patients with only 1 prior episode of CDI (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.19-0.93) but not in those with &gt;1 prior episode (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.42-3.33). Our findings were consistent with a lack of benefit of oral vancomycin when restricting results to toxin-positive relapses and to patients who received vancomycin each antibiotic day., Conclusions: Prophylactic oral vancomycin was not consistently associated with reduced risk of CDI relapse among hospitalized patients receiving systemic antibiotics. However, patients with only 1 prior CDI episode may benefit.

We examined annual outpatient antibiotic dispensings within a health insurance plan covering ∼970,000 members per year during 2000-2016. The proportion of members with antibiotic dispensings decreased from 33.3% in 2000 to 25.9% in 2016. This trend was consistent in all stratifications of age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities.

Objective: To assess variability in antimicrobial use and associations with infection testing in pediatric ventilator-associated events (VAEs)., Design: Descriptive retrospective cohort with nested case-control study., Setting: Pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), cardiac intensive care units (CICUs), and neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in 6 US hospitals.PatientsChildren≤18 years ventilated for≥1 calendar day., Methods: We identified patients with pediatric ventilator-associated conditions (VACs), pediatric VACs with antimicrobial use for≥4 days (AVACs), and possible ventilator-associated pneumonia (PVAP, defined as pediatric AVAC with a positive respiratory diagnostic test) according to previously proposed criteria., Results: Among 9,025 ventilated children, we identified 192 VAC cases, 43 in CICUs, 70 in PICUs, and 79 in NICUs. AVAC criteria were met in 79 VAC cases (41%) (58% CICU; 51% PICU; and 23% NICU), and varied by hospital (CICU, 20-67%; PICU, 0-70%; and NICU, 0-43%). Type and duration of AVAC antimicrobials varied by ICU type. AVAC cases in CICUs and PICUs received broad-spectrum antimicrobials more often than those in NICUs. Among AVAC cases, 39% had respiratory infection diagnostic testing performed; PVAP was identified in 15 VAC cases. Also, among AVAC cases, 73% had no associated positive respiratory or nonrespiratory diagnostic test., Conclusions: Antimicrobial use is common in pediatric VAC, with variability in spectrum and duration of antimicrobials within hospitals and across ICU types, while PVAP is uncommon. Prolonged antimicrobial use despite low rates of PVAP or positive laboratory testing for infection suggests that AVAC may provide a lever for antimicrobial stewardship programs to improve utilization.

We compared sepsis "time zero" and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) SEP-1 pass rates among 3 abstractors in 3 hospitals. Abstractors agreed on time zero in 29 of 80 (36%) cases. Perceived pass rates ranged from 9 of 80 cases (11%) to 19 of 80 cases (23%). Variability in time zero and perceived pass rates limits the utility of SEP-1 for measuring quality.

OBJECTIVE Adult ventilator-associated event (VAE) definitions include ventilator-associated conditions (VAC) and subcategories for infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVAC) and possible ventilator-associated pneumonia (PVAP). We explored these definitions for children. DESIGN Retrospective cohort SETTING Pediatric, cardiac, or neonatal intensive care units (ICUs) in 6 US hospitals PATIENTS Patients ≤18 years old ventilated for ≥1 day METHODS We identified patients with pediatric VAC based on previously proposed criteria. We applied adult temperature, white blood cell count, antibiotic, and culture criteria for IVAC and PVAP to these patients. We matched pediatric VAC patients with controls and evaluated associations with adverse outcomes using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS In total, 233 pediatric VACs (12,167 ventilation episodes) were identified. In the cardiac ICU (CICU), 62.5% of VACs met adult IVAC criteria; in the pediatric ICU (PICU), 54.2% of VACs met adult IVAC criteria; and in the neonatal ICU (NICU), 20.2% of VACs met adult IVAC criteria. Most patients had abnormal white blood cell counts and temperatures; we therefore recommend simplifying surveillance by focusing on "pediatric VAC with antimicrobial use" (pediatric AVAC). Pediatric AVAC with a positive respiratory diagnostic test ("pediatric PVAP") occurred in 8.9% of VACs in the CICU, 13.3% of VACs in the PICU, and 4.3% of VACs in the NICU. Hospital mortality was increased, and hospital and ICU length of stay and duration of ventilation were prolonged among all pediatric VAE subsets compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS We propose pediatric AVAC for surveillance related to antimicrobial use, with pediatric PVAP as a subset of AVAC. Studies on generalizability and responsiveness of these metrics to quality improvement initiatives are needed, as are studies to determine whether lower pediatric VAE rates are associated with improvements in other outcomes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:327-333.

OBJECTIVE To compare interrater reliabilities for ventilator-associated event (VAE) surveillance, traditional ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance, and clinical diagnosis of VAP by intensivists. DESIGN A retrospective study nested within a prospective multicenter quality improvement study. SETTING Intensive care units (ICUs) within 5 hospitals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Epicenters. PATIENTS Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation. METHODS We selected 150 charts for review, including all VAEs and traditionally defined VAPs identified during the primary study and randomly selected charts of patients without VAEs or VAPs. Each chart was independently reviewed by 2 research assistants (RAs) for VAEs, 2 hospital infection preventionists (IPs) for traditionally defined VAP, and 2 intensivists for any episodes of pulmonary deterioration. We calculated interrater agreement using κ estimates. RESULTS The 150 selected episodes spanned 2,500 ventilator days. In total, 93-96 VAEs were identified by RAs; 31-49 VAPs were identified by IPs, and 29-35 VAPs were diagnosed by intensivists. Interrater reliability between RAs for VAEs was high (κ, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.81). Agreement between IPs using traditional VAP criteria was slight (κ, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.05-0.29). Agreement between intensivists was slight regarding episodes of pulmonary deterioration (κ 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39) and was fair regarding whether episodes of deterioration were attributable to clinically defined VAP (κ, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.51). The clinical correlation between VAE surveillance and intensivists' clinical assessments was poor. CONCLUSIONS Prospective surveillance using VAE criteria is more reliable than traditional VAP surveillance and clinical VAP diagnosis; the correlation between VAEs and clinically recognized pulmonary deterioration is poor. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:172-178.

BACKGROUND Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) cause significant morbidity in critically ill patients. An underappreciated but potentially modifiable risk factor for infection is sedation strategy. Recent trials suggest that choice of sedative agent, depth of sedation, and sedative management can influence HAI risk in mechanically ventilated patients. OBJECTIVE To better characterize the relationships between sedation strategies and infection. METHODS Systematic literature review. RESULTS We found 500 articles and accepted 70 for review. The 3 most common sedatives for mechanically ventilated patients (benzodiazepines, propofol, and dexmedetomidine) have different pharmacologic and immunomodulatory effects that may impact infection risk. Clinical data are limited but retrospective observational series have found associations between sedative use and pneumonia whereas prospective studies of sedative interruptions have reported possible decreases in bloodstream infections, pneumonia, and ventilator-associated events. CONCLUSION Infection rates appear to be highest with benzodiazepines, intermediate with propofol, and lowest with dexmedetomidine. More data are needed but studies thus far suggest that a better understanding of sedation practices and infection risk may help hospital epidemiologists and critical care practitioners find new ways to mitigate infection risk in critically ill patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1-9.

BACKGROUND Measuring processes of care performance rates is an invaluable tool for quality improvement; however, collecting daily process measure data is time-consuming and burdensome. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the accuracy of sampling strategies to estimate monthly compliance rates with ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention measures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS A total of 37 intensive care units affiliated with 29 hospitals participating in a 2-state 35-month ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention collaborative. Analysis was limited to 325 unit-months with complete data entry rates. METHODS We calculated unit-month level actual and sample monthly compliance rates for 6 ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention measures, using 4 sampling strategies: sample 1 day per month, sample 1 day per week, sample 7 consecutive days per month, and sample 7 consecutive days per month plus additional consecutive days as necessary to obtain at least 30 ventilator-days for that month whenever possible. We compared sample versus actual rates using paired t test and χ2 test. RESULTS Mean sampling accuracy ranged 84%-97% for 1 day per month, 91%-98% for 1 day per week, 92%-98% for 7 consecutive days per month, and 96%-99% for 7 consecutive days with at least 30 days per month if possible. The most accurate sampling strategy was to sample 7 consecutive days with at least 30 ventilator-days per month if possible. With this strategy, sample rates were within 10% of actual rates in 88%-99% of unit-months and within 5% of actual rates in 74%-97% of unit-months. CONCLUSION Sampling process measures intermittently rather than continually can yield accurate estimates of process measure performance rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:1037-1043.

OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of graft choice (allograft, bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft, or hamstring autograft) on deep tissue infections following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND POPULATION Patients from 6 US health plans who underwent ACL reconstruction from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2008. METHODS We identified ACL reconstructions and potential postoperative infections using claims data. A hierarchical stratified sampling strategy was used to identify patients for medical record review to confirm ACL reconstructions and to determine allograft vs autograft tissue implanted, clinical characteristics, and infection status. We estimated infection rates overall and by graft type. We used logistic regression to assess the association between infections and patients' demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and choice of graft. RESULTS On review of 1,452 medical records, we found 55 deep wound infections. With correction for sampling weights, infection rates varied by graft type: 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.8%) with allografts, 0.6% (0.1%-1.5%) with bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, and 2.5% (1.9%-3.1%) with hamstring autograft. After adjusting for potential confounders, we found an increased infection risk with hamstring autografts compared with allografts (odds ratio, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.8-12.8). However, there was no difference in infection risk among bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts vs allografts (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.3-4.8). CONCLUSIONS The overall risk for deep wound infections following ACL reconstruction is low but it does vary by graft type. Infection risk was highest in hamstring autograft recipients compared with allograft recipients and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft recipients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:827-833.

Objective: To compare the accuracy of surveillance of severe sepsis using electronic health record clinical data vs claims and to compare incidence and mortality trends using both methods., Design: We created an electronic health record-based surveillance definition for severe sepsis using clinical indicators of infection (blood culture and antibiotic orders) and concurrent organ dysfunction (vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and/or abnormal laboratory values). We reviewed 1,000 randomly selected medical charts to characterize the definition's accuracy and stability over time compared with a claims-based definition requiring infection and organ dysfunction codes. We compared incidence and mortality trends from 2003-2012 using both methods., Setting: Two US academic hospitals., Patients: Adult inpatients., Results: The electronic health record-based clinical surveillance definition had stable and high sensitivity over time (77% in 2003-2009 vs 80% in 2012, P=.58) whereas the sensitivity of claims increased (52% in 2003-2009 vs 67% in 2012, P=.02). Positive predictive values for claims and clinical surveillance definitions were comparable (55% vs 53%, P=.65) and stable over time. From 2003 to 2012, severe sepsis incidence imputed from claims rose by 72% (95% CI, 57%-88%) and absolute mortality declined by 5.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-6.7%). In contrast, incidence using the clinical surveillance definition increased by 7.7% (95% CI, -1.1% to 17%) and mortality declined by 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1%-2.3%)., Conclusions: Sepsis surveillance using clinical data is more sensitive and more stable over time compared with claims and can be done electronically. This may enable more reliable estimates of sepsis burden and trends.

BACKGROUND Valid comparison between hospitals for benchmarking or pay-for-performance incentives requires accurate correction for underlying disease severity (case-mix). However, existing models are either very simplistic or require extensive manual data collection. OBJECTIVE To develop a disease severity prediction model based solely on data routinely available in electronic health records for risk-adjustment in mechanically ventilated patients. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS Mechanically ventilated patients from a single tertiary medical center (2006-2012). METHODS Predictors were extracted from electronic data repositories (demographic characteristics, laboratory tests, medications, microbiology results, procedure codes, and comorbidities) and assessed for feasibility and generalizability of data collection. Models for in-hospital mortality of increasing complexity were built using logistic regression. Estimated disease severity from these models was linked to rates of ventilator-associated events. RESULTS A total of 20,028 patients were initiated on mechanical ventilation, of whom 3,027 deceased in hospital. For models of incremental complexity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.83 to 0.88. A simple model including demographic characteristics, type of intensive care unit, time to intubation, blood culture sampling, 8 common laboratory tests, and surgical status achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.86-0.88) with adequate calibration. The estimated disease severity was associated with occurrence of ventilator-associated events. CONCLUSIONS Accurate estimation of disease severity in ventilated patients using electronic, routine care data was feasible using simple models. These estimates may be useful for risk-adjustment in ventilated patients. Additional research is necessary to validate and refine these models.

Since the publication of "A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals" in 2008, prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has become a national priority. Despite improvements, preventable HAIs continue to occur. The 2014 updates to the Compendium were created to provide acute care hospitals with up-to-date, practical, expert guidance to assist in prioritizing and implementing their HAI prevention efforts. It is the product of a highly collaborative effort led by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM), and the Surgical Infection Society (SIS).