Back to Search
Start Over
Randomized comparison of 2 protocols to prevent acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: results of a 2-center study involving 500 patients
- Source :
- Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 2011, 32 (11), pp.1064-1072. ⟨10.1086/662180⟩, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, University of Chicago Press, 2011, 32 (11), pp.1064-1072. ⟨10.1086/662180⟩
- Publication Year :
- 2011
- Publisher :
- HAL CCSD, 2011.
-
Abstract
- Objective.To compare an interventional protocol with a standard protocol for preventing the acquisition of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in the intensive care unit (ICU).Design.Prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, nonblinded clinical trial.Setting.Medical ICUs of 2 French university hospitals.Participants.Five hundred adults with an expected length of stay in the ICU greater than 48 hours.Interventions.For the intervention group, the protocol required repeated MRSA screening, contact and droplet isolation precautions for patients at risk for MRSA at ICU admission and for MRSA-positive patients, and decontamination with nasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine body wash for MRSA-positive patients. For the standard group, the standard precautions protocol was used, and the results of repeated MRSA screening in the standard group were not communicated to investigators.Main Outcome Measure.MRSA acquisition rate in the ICU. An audit was conducted to assess compliance with hygiene and isolation precautions.Results.In the intent-to-treat analysis (n= 488), the MRSA acquisition rate in the ICU was similar in the standard (13 [5.3%] of 243) and intervention (16 [6.5%] of 245) groups (P=.58). The audit showed that the overall compliance rate was 85.5% in the standard group and 84.1% in the intervention group (P=.63), although compliance was higher when isolation precautions were absent than when they were in place (88.2% vs 79.1%;PP=.01).Conclusions.Individual allocation to MRSA screening, isolation precautions, and decontamination do not provide individual benefit in reducing MRSA acquisition, compared with standard precautions, although the collective risk was lower during the periods of isolation.Trial Registration.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00151606.
- Subjects :
- Male
Pediatrics
Epidemiology
medicine.disease_cause
law.invention
Patient Isolation
chemistry.chemical_compound
MESH: Infection Control
Randomized controlled trial
law
Hygiene
media_common
MESH: Aged
Cross Infection
MESH: Middle Aged
Chlorhexidine
MESH: Mupirocin
MESH: Nose
Middle Aged
Staphylococcal Infections
Intensive care unit
Anti-Bacterial Agents
3. Good health
MESH: Chlorhexidine
Intensive Care Units
Mupirocin
Infectious Diseases
[SDV.MP]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Microbiology and Parasitology
MESH: Guideline Adherence
Female
France
Guideline Adherence
Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Microbiology (medical)
medicine.medical_specialty
Isolation (health care)
media_common.quotation_subject
MESH: Staphylococcal Infections
MESH: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Nose
MESH: Anti-Infective Agents, Local
MESH: Anti-Bacterial Agents
medicine
Humans
Hospitals, Teaching
[SDV.MP] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Microbiology and Parasitology
Aged
Protocol (science)
Infection Control
MESH: Humans
business.industry
MESH: Cross Infection
MESH: Hospitals, Teaching
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
MESH: Male
MESH: Patient Isolation
Clinical trial
MESH: France
chemistry
Emergency medicine
Anti-Infective Agents, Local
MESH: Intensive Care Units
business
MESH: Female
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 01959417, 0899823X, and 15596834
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 2011, 32 (11), pp.1064-1072. ⟨10.1086/662180⟩, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, University of Chicago Press, 2011, 32 (11), pp.1064-1072. ⟨10.1086/662180⟩
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....44186420ef3e924c16fbeba92a81ca4d
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1086/662180⟩