METHODS: Prospective, surveillance study on PVCR-BSI conducted from September 1, 2013, to May 31, 2019, in 727 intensive care units (ICUs), by members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC), from 268 hospitals in 141 cities of 42 countries of Africa, the Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, South East Asia, and Western Pacific regions. For this research, we applied definition and criteria of the CDC NHSN, methodology of the INICC, and software named INICC Surveillance Online System.
RESULTS: We followed 149,609 ICU patients for 731,135 bed days and 743,508 short-term peripheral venous catheter (PVC) days. We identified 1,789 PVCR-BSIs for an overall rate of 2.41 per 1,000 PVC days. Mortality in patients with PVC but without PVCR-BSI was 6.67%, and mortality was 18% in patients with PVC and PVCR-BSI. The length of stay of patients with PVC but without PVCR-BSI was 4.83 days, and the length of stay was 9.85 days in patients with PVC and PVCR-BSI. Among these infections, the microorganism profile showed 58% gram-negative bacteria: Escherichia coli (16%), Klebsiella spp (11%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (6%), Enterobacter spp (4%), and others (20%) including Serratia marcescens. Staphylococcus aureus were the predominant gram-positive bacteria (12%).
CONCLUSIONS: PVCR-BSI rates in INICC ICUs were much higher than rates published from industrialized countries. Infection prevention programs must be implemented to reduce the incidence of PVCR-BSIs in resource-limited countries.
Methods: This study, stratified in pre-, during, and post-intervention periods, was conducted between February 2017 and March 2018 in two wards at a tertiary care hospital in Malaysia. Hand hygiene promotion was facilitated either by PICAs (study arm 1) or MSCAs (study arm 2), and the two wards were randomly allocated to one of the two interventions. Outcomes were: 1) perceived leadership styles of PICAs and MSCAs by staff, vocalised during question and answer sessions; 2) the social network connectedness and communication patterns between HCWs and change agents by applying social network analysis; and 3) hand hygiene leadership attributes obtained from HCWs in the post-intervention period by questionnaires.
Results: Hand hygiene compliance in study arm 1 and study arm 2 improved by from 48% (95% CI: 44-53%) to 66% (63-69%), and from 50% (44-55%) to 65% (60-69%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two arms. Healthcare workers perceived that PICAs lead by example, while MSCAs applied an authoritarian top-down leadership style. The organisational culture of both wards was hierarchical, with little social interaction, but strong team cohesion. Position and networks of both PICAs and MSCAs were similar and generally weaker compared to the leaders who were nominated by HCWs in the post-intervention period. Healthcare workers on both wards perceived authoritative leadership to be the most desirable attribute for hand hygiene improvement.
Conclusion: Despite experiencing successful hand hygiene improvement from PICAs, HCWs expressed a preference for the existing top-down leadership structure. This highlights the limits of applying leadership models that are not supported by the local organisational culture.
Method: The guidelines were developed by an appointed workgroup comprising experts in the Asia Pacific region, following reviews of previously published guidelines and recommendations relevant to each section.
Results: It recommends that healthcare facilities review specific risk factors and develop effective prevention strategies, which would be cost effective at local levels. Gaps identified are best closed using a quality improvement process. Surveillance of SSIs is recommended using accepted international methodology. The timely feedback of the data analysed would help in the monitoring of effective implementation of interventions.
Conclusions: Healthcare facilities should aim for excellence in safe surgery practices. The implementation of evidence-based practices using a quality improvement process helps towards achieving effective and sustainable results.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of methods used during dental treatment procedures to minimize aerosol production and reduce or neutralize contamination in aerosols.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases on 17 September 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (in the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1946); Embase Ovid (from 1980); the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) performed by dental healthcare providers that evaluated methods to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics (excluding preprocedural mouthrinses). The primary outcomes were incidence of infection in dental staff or patients, and reduction in volume and level of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment. The secondary outcomes were cost, accessibility and feasibility.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened search results, extracted data from the included studies, assessed the risk of bias in the studies, and judged the certainty of the available evidence. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as the effect estimate for continuous outcomes, and random-effects meta-analysis to combine data. We assessed heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with 425 participants aged 5 to 69 years. Eight studies had high risk of bias; eight had unclear risk of bias. No studies measured infection. All studies measured bacterial contamination using the surrogate outcome of colony-forming units (CFU). Two studies measured contamination per volume of air sampled at different distances from the patient's mouth, and 14 studies sampled particles on agar plates at specific distances from the patient's mouth. The results presented below should be interpreted with caution as the evidence is very low certainty due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals. Moreover, we do not know the 'minimal clinically important difference' in CFU. High-volume evacuator Use of a high-volume evacuator (HVE) may reduce bacterial contamination in aerosols less than one foot (~ 30 cm) from a patient's mouth (MD -47.41, 95% CI -92.76 to -2.06; 3 RCTs, 122 participants (two studies had split-mouth design); very high heterogeneity I² = 95%), but not at longer distances (MD -1.00, -2.56 to 0.56; 1 RCT, 80 participants). One split-mouth RCT (six participants) found that HVE may not be more effective than conventional dental suction (saliva ejector or low-volume evacuator) at 40 cm (MD CFU -2.30, 95% CI -5.32 to 0.72) or 150 cm (MD -2.20, 95% CI -14.01 to 9.61). Dental isolation combination system One RCT (50 participants) found that there may be no difference in CFU between a combination system (Isolite) and a saliva ejector (low-volume evacuator) during AGPs (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.82 to 0.20) or after AGPs (MD -0.35, -0.99 to 0.29). However, an 'n of 1' design study showed that the combination system may reduce CFU compared with rubber dam plus HVE (MD -125.20, 95% CI -174.02 to -76.38) or HVE (MD -109.30, 95% CI -153.01 to -65.59). Rubber dam One split-mouth RCT (10 participants) receiving dental treatment, found that there may be a reduction in CFU with rubber dam at one-metre (MD -16.20, 95% CI -19.36 to -13.04) and two-metre distance (MD -11.70, 95% CI -15.82 to -7.58). One RCT of 47 dental students found use of rubber dam may make no difference in CFU at the forehead (MD 0.98, 95% CI -0.73 to 2.70) and occipital region of the operator (MD 0.77, 95% CI -0.46 to 2.00). One split-mouth RCT (21 participants) found that rubber dam plus HVE may reduce CFU more than cotton roll plus HVE on the patient's chest (MD -251.00, 95% CI -267.95 to -234.05) and dental unit light (MD -12.70, 95% CI -12.85 to -12.55). Air cleaning systems One split-mouth CCT (two participants) used a local stand-alone air cleaning system (ACS), which may reduce aerosol contamination during cavity preparation (MD -66.70 CFU, 95% CI -120.15 to -13.25 per cubic metre) or ultrasonic scaling (MD -32.40, 95% CI - 51.55 to -13.25). Another CCT (50 participants) found that laminar flow in the dental clinic combined with a HEPA filter may reduce contamination approximately 76 cm from the floor (MD -483.56 CFU, 95% CI -550.02 to -417.10 per cubic feet per minute per patient) and 20 cm to 30 cm from the patient's mouth (MD -319.14 CFU, 95% CI - 385.60 to -252.68). Disinfectants ‒ antimicrobial coolants Two RCTs evaluated use of antimicrobial coolants during ultrasonic scaling. Compared with distilled water, coolant containing chlorhexidine (CHX), cinnamon extract coolant or povidone iodine may reduce CFU: CHX (MD -124.00, 95% CI -135.78 to -112.22; 20 participants), povidone iodine (MD -656.45, 95% CI -672.74 to -640.16; 40 participants), cinnamon (MD -644.55, 95% CI -668.70 to -620.40; 40 participants). CHX coolant may reduce CFU more than povidone iodine (MD -59.30, 95% CI -64.16 to -54.44; 20 participants), but not more than cinnamon extract (MD -11.90, 95% CI -35.88 to 12.08; 40 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no studies that evaluated disease transmission via aerosols in a dental setting; and no evidence about viral contamination in aerosols. All of the included studies measured bacterial contamination using colony-forming units. There appeared to be some benefit from the interventions evaluated but the available evidence is very low certainty so we are unable to draw reliable conclusions. We did not find any studies on methods such as ventilation, ionization, ozonisation, UV light and fogging. Studies are needed that measure contamination in aerosols, size distribution of aerosols and infection transmission risk for respiratory diseases such as COVID-19 in dental patients and staff.
METHODS: Prospective, surveillance study on peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections conducted from 1 September 2013 to 31 May 2019 in 262 intensive care units, members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium, from 78 hospitals in 32 cities of 8 countries in the South-East Asia Region: China, India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. For this research, we applied definition and criteria of the CDC NHSN, methodology of the INICC, and software named INICC Surveillance Online System.
RESULTS: We followed 83,295 intensive care unit patients for 369,371 bed-days and 376,492 peripheral venous catheter-days. We identified 999 peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections, amounting to a rate of 2.65/1000 peripheral venous catheter-days. Mortality in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.53% and 12.21% in patients with peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The mean length of stay in patients with peripheral venous catheter but without peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections was 4.40 days and 7.11 days in patients with peripheral venous catheter and peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections. The microorganism profile showed 67.1% were Gram-negative bacteria: Escherichia coli (22.9%), Klebsiella spp (10.7%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.3%), Enterobacter spp. (4.5%), and others (23.7%). The predominant Gram-positive bacteria were Staphylococcus aureus (11.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: Infection prevention programs must be implemented to reduce the incidence of peripheral venous catheter-associated bloodstream infections.
Material and Methods: Retrospective review was done to the patients who received two-stage revisions with an antibiotic loaded cement-spacer for PJI of the hip between January 2010 to May 2015. We found 65 patients (65 hips) with positive culture findings. Eight patients were lost to follow-up and excluded from the study. Among the rest of the 57 patients, methicillin-resistant infection (MR Group) was found in 28 cases. We also evaluate the 29 other cases that caused by the other pathogen as control group. We compared all of the relevant medical records and the treatment outcomes between the two groups.
Results: The mean of follow-up period was 33.7 months in the methicillin-resistant group and 28.4 months in the control group (p = 0.27). The causal pathogens in the methicillin-resistant group were: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in 10 cases, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) in 16 cases and Methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (MRCNS) in two cases. The reimplantation rate was 92.8% and 89.6% in the methicillin-resistant and control group, respectively (p= 0.66). The rates of recurrent infection after reimplantation were 23.1% (6/26) in the methicillin-resistant group and 7.6% (2/26) in the control group (p= 0.12). The overall infection control rate was 71.4% (20/28) and 89.6% (26/29) in the methicillin-resistant and control group, respectively (p = 0.08). Both groups showed comparable baseline data on mean age, BMI, gender distribution, preoperative ESR/CRP/WBC and comorbidities.
Conclusions: Two-stage revision procedure resulted in low infection control rate and high infection recurrency rate for the treatment of methicillin-resistant periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip. Development of the treatment strategy is needed to improve the outcome of methicillin-resistant periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip.