Search

Background:Prophylactic antibiotics are commonly prescribed at discharge for mastectomy, despite guidelines recommending against this practice. We investigated factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use after mastectomy with and without immediate reconstruction and the impact on surgical-site infection (SSI).Study design:We studied a cohort of women aged 18–64 years undergoing mastectomy between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015, using the MarketScan commercial database. Patients with nonsurgical perioperative infections were excluded. Postdischarge oral antibiotics were identified from outpatient drug claims. SSI was defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Generalized linear models were used to determine factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use and SSI.Results:The cohort included 38,793 procedures; 24,818 (64%) with immediate reconstruction. Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed after discharge after 2,688 mastectomy-only procedures (19.2%) and 17,807 mastectomies with immediate reconstruction (71.8%). The 90-day incidence of SSI was 3.5% after mastectomy only and 8.8% after mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. Antibiotics with anti–methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) activity were associated with decreased SSI risk after mastectomy only (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55–0.99) and mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.88), respectively. The numbers needed to treat to prevent 1 additional SSI were 107 and 48, respectively.Conclusions:Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were common after mastectomy. Anti-MSSA antibiotics were associated with decreased risk of SSI for patients who had mastectomy only and those who had mastectomy with immediate reconstruction. The high numbers needed to treat suggest that potential benefits of postdischarge antibiotics should be weighed against potential harms associated with antibiotic overuse.

Objective:Alteration of the colonic microbiota following antimicrobial exposure allows colonization by antimicrobial-resistant organisms (AROs). Ingestion of a probiotic, such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), could prevent colonization or infection with AROs by promoting healthy colonic microbiota. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of LGG administration on ARO colonization in hospitalized patients receiving antibiotics.Design:Prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of LGG versus placebo among patients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics.Setting:Tertiary care center.Patients:In total, 88 inpatients receiving broad-spectrum antibiotics were enrolled.Intervention:Patients were randomized to receive 1 capsule containing 1×1010 cells of LGG twice daily (n = 44) or placebo (n = 44), stratified by ward type. Stool or rectal-swab specimens were collected for culture at enrollment, during admission, and at discharge. Using selective media, specimens were cultured for Clostridioides difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE), and antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria. The primary outcome was any ARO acquisition. Secondary outcomes included loss of any ARO if colonized at enrollment, and acquisition or loss of individual ARO.Results:ARO colonization prevalence at study enrollment was similar (LGG 39% vs placebo 39%). We detected no difference in any ARO acquisition (LGG 30% vs placebo 33%; OR,1.19; 95% CI, 0.38–3.75) nor for any individual ARO acquisition. There was no difference in the loss of any ARO (LGG 18% vs placebo 24%; OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.27–7.68) nor for any individual ARO.Conclusion:LGG administration neither prevented acquisition of ARO nor accelerated loss of ARO colonization.

We analyzed the impact of a 7-day recurring asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol for all patients hospitalized at a large academic center. Overall, 40 new cases were identified, and 1 of 3 occurred after 14 days of hospitalization. Recurring testing can identify unrecognized infections, especially during periods of elevated community transmission.

Multiple guidelines recommend discontinuation of prophylactic antibiotics

Objective:Despite recommendations to discontinue prophylactic antibiotics after incision closure or Design:Multicenter retrospective cohort study.Patients:This study included patients aged ≥18 years undergoing spinal fusion or refusion between July 2011 and June 2015 at 3 sites. Patients with an infection during the surgical admission were excluded.Methods:Prophylactic antibiotics were identified at discharge. Factors associated with postdischarge prophylactic antibiotic use were identified using hierarchical generalized linear models.Results:In total, 8,652 spinal fusion admissions were included. Antibiotics were prescribed at discharge in 289 admissions (3.3%). The most commonly prescribed antibiotics were trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (22.1%), cephalexin (18.8%), and ciprofloxacin (17.1%). Adjusted for study site, significant factors associated with prophylactic discharge antibiotics included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3 (odds ratio [OR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00–1.70), lymphoma (OR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.11–5.98), solid tumor (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.62–8.14), morbid obesity (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.09–2.47), paralysis (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.30–4.37), hematoma/seroma (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.17–7.33), thoracic surgery (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.93), longer length of stay, and intraoperative antibiotics.Conclusions:Postdischarge prophylactic antibiotics were uncommon after spinal fusion. Patient and perioperative factors were associated with continuation of prophylactic antibiotics after hospital discharge.

ObjectiveTo systematically assess enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) doffing safety risks.DesignWe employed a 3-part approach to this study: (1) hierarchical task analysis (HTA) of the PPE doffing process; (2) human factors-informed failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA); and (3) focus group sessions with a convenience sample of infection prevention (IP) subject matter experts.SettingA large academic US hospital with a regional Special Pathogens Treatment Center and enhanced PPE doffing protocol experience.ParticipantsEight IP experts.MethodsThe HTA was conducted jointly by 2 human-factors experts based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention PPE guidelines. The findings were used as a guide in 7 focus group sessions with IP experts to assess PPE doffing safety risks. For each HTA task step, IP experts identified failure mode(s), assigned priority risk scores, identified contributing factors and potential consequences, and identified potential risk mitigation strategies. Data were recorded in a tabular format during the sessions.ResultsOf 103 identified failure modes, the highest priority scores were associated with team members moving between clean and contaminated areas, glove removal, apron removal, and self-inspection while preparing to doff. Contributing factors related to the individual (eg, technical/ teamwork competency), task (eg, undetected PPE contamination), tools/technology (eg, PPE design characteristics), environment (eg, inadequate space), and organizational aspects (eg, training) were identified. Participants identified 86 types of risk mitigation strategies targeting the failure modes.ConclusionsDespite detailed guidelines, our study revealed 103 enhanced PPE doffing failure modes. Analysis of the failure modes suggests potential mitigation strategies to decrease self-contamination risk during enhanced PPE doffing.

In this 2-phase real-world evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) skin concentrations in intensive care unit patients, we found lower skin CHG concentrations when rinsing with water after CHG solution bath (compared with no rinse), but no significant difference in concentrations between the use of CHG solution without rinse and preimpregnated CHG wipes. CHG concentration audits could be useful in assessing the quality of bathing practice, and CHG solution without rinsing may be an alternative to preimpregnated CHG wipes.

Background Little is known about the effect of meteorological conditions and geographical location on bacterial colonization rates particularly of antibiotic-resistant Gram-positive bacteria. We aimed to evaluate the effect of season, meteorological factors, and geographic location on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) colonization. Methods The prospective cohort included all adults admitted to 20 geographically-dispersed ICUs across the US from September 1, 2011 to October 4, 2012. Nasal and perianal swabs were collected at admission and tested for MRSA and VRE colonization respectively. Poisson regression models using monthly aggregated colonization counts as the outcome and mean temperature, relative humidity, total precipitation, season, and/or latitude as predictors were constructed for each pathogen. Results A total of 24,704 ICU-admitted patients were tested for MRSA and 24,468 for VRE. On admission, 10% of patients were colonized with MRSA and 12% with VRE. For MRSA and VRE, a 10% increase in relative humidity was associated with approximately a 9% increase in prevalence rate. Southerly latitudes in the US were associated with higher MRSA colonization, while northerly latitudes were associated with higher VRE colonization. In contrast to MRSA, the association between VRE colonization and latitude was observed only after adjusting for relative humidity, which demonstrates how this effect is highly driven by this meteorological factor. Conclusions To our knowledge, we are the first to study the effect of meteorological factors and geographical location/latitude on MRSA and VRE colonization in adults. Increasing humidity was associated with greater MRSA and VRE colonization. Southerly latitudes in the US were associated with greater MRSA and less VRE. The effect of these factors on MRSA and VRE rates has the potential not only to inform patient management and treatment, but also infection prevention interventions.

OBJECTIVE. Prevalence of bla(KPC)-encoding Enterobacteriaceae (KPC) in Chicago long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs) rose rapidly after the first recognition in 2007. We studied the epidemiology and transmission capacity of KPC in LTACHs and the effect of patient cohorting. METHODS. Data were available from 4 Chicago LTACHs from June 2012 to June 2013 during a period of bundled interventions. These consisted of screening for KPC rectal carriage, daily chlorhexidine bathing, medical staff education, and 3 cohort strategies: a pure cohort (all KPC-positive patients on 1 floor), single rooms for KPC-positive patients, and a mixed cohort (all KPC-positive patients on 1 floor, supplemented with KPC-negative patients). A data-augmented Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method was used to model the transmission process. RESULTS. Average prevalence of KPC colonization was 29.3%. On admission, 18% of patients were colonized; the sensitivity of the screening process was 81%. The per admission reproduction number was 0.40. The number of acquisitions per 1,000 patient days was lowest in LTACHs with a pure cohort ward or single rooms for colonized patients compared with mixed-cohort wards, but 95% credible intervals overlapped. CONCLUSIONS. Prevalence of KPC in LTACHs is high, primarily due to high admission prevalence and the resultant impact of high colonization pressure on cross transmission. In this setting, with an intervention in place, patient-to-patient transmission is insufficient to maintain endemicity. Inclusion of a pure cohort or single rooms for KPC-positive patients in an intervention bundle seemed to limit transmission compared to use of a mixed cohort.

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (BSI) rates, determined by infection preventionists using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) surveillance definitions, are increasingly published to compare the quality of patient care delivered by hospitals. However, such comparisons are valid only if surveillance is performed consistently across institutions.To assess institutional variation in performance of traditional central line-associated BSI surveillance.We performed a retrospective cohort study of 20 intensive care units among 4 medical centers (2004-2007). Unit-specific central line-associated BSI rates were calculated for 12-month periods. Infection preventionists, blinded to study participation, performed routine prospective surveillance using CDC definitions. A computer algorithm reference standard was applied retrospectively using criteria that adapted the same CDC surveillance definitions.Correlation of central line-associated BSI rates as determined by infection preventionist vs the computer algorithm reference standard. Variation in performance was assessed by testing for institution-dependent heterogeneity in a linear regression model.Forty-one unit-periods among 20 intensive care units were analyzed, representing 241,518 patient-days and 165,963 central line-days. The median infection preventionist and computer algorithm central line-associated BSI rates were 3.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 2.0-4.5) and 9.0 (IQR, 6.3-11.3) infections per 1000 central line-days, respectively. Overall correlation between computer algorithm and infection preventionist rates was weak (ρ = 0.34), and when stratified by medical center, point estimates for institution-specific correlations ranged widely: medical center A: 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.05 to 0.98; P = .04; medical center B: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.93; P = .003; medical center C: 0.50, 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.83; P = .10; and medical center D: 0.10; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.66; P = .77. Regression modeling demonstrated significant heterogeneity among medical centers in the relationship between computer algorithm and expected infection preventionist rates (P.001). The medical center that had the lowest rate by traditional surveillance (2.4 infections per 1000 central line-days) had the highest rate by computer algorithm (12.6 infections per 1000 central line-days).Institutional variability of infection preventionist rates relative to a computer algorithm reference standard suggests that there is significant variation in the application of standard central line-associated BSI surveillance definitions across medical centers. Variation in central line-associated BSI surveillance practice may complicate interinstitutional comparisons of publicly reported central line-associated BSI rates.