User login
MADRID – even when staff employed an active surveillance screening protocol to identify every carrier at admission.
The failure of precautions may have root in two thorny issues, said Friederike Maechler, MD, who presented the data at the the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases annual congress.
“Adherence to strict contact isolation and hand hygiene is never 100% in a real-life scenario,” said Dr. Maechler, of Charite University Hospital, Berlin. Also, she said, contact isolation can only be effective in a ward if all, or at least most, of the ESBL-E carriers are identified. “Even with an extensive surveillance screening program established, many carriers remained unknown to the health care staff.”
The 25-month study, dubbed R-Gnosis, was conducted in 20 Western European hospitals in Madrid, Berlin, Utrecht, and Geneva. It compared 12 months of contact precaution with standard precaution infection control strategies in medical and surgical non-ICUs.
The entire study hinged on a strict protocol to identify as many ESBL-E carriers as possible. This was done by screening upon admission to the unit, screening once per week during the hospital stay, and screening on discharge. Each patient underwent deep rectal swabs that were cultured on agar and screened for resistance.
The crossover design trial randomized each unit to either contact precautions or standard precautions for 12 months, followed by a 1-month washout period, after which they began the other protocol.
In all, 50,870 patients were entered into the study. By the end, Dr. Maechler had data on 11,367 patients with full screening and follow-up.
Standard precautions did not require a private bedroom, with gloves, gowns, and apron needed for direct contact to body fluids or wounds only, and consistent hand hygiene. Contact precautions required a private bedroom and strict hand hygiene, with gloves, gowns, and aprons used for any patient contact. Study staff monitored compliance with these procedures monthly.
The primary outcome was the ESBL-E acquisition rate per 1,000 patient days. This was defined as a new ESBL-E detection after the patient had a prior negative screen. Dr. Maechler noted that by epidemiological definition, acquisition does not necessarily imply cross-transmission from other patients.
Adherence to the study protocols was good, she said. Adherence to both contact and standard precautions was about 85%, while adherence to hand hygiene was less at around 62%.
Admission ESBL-E screenings revealed that about 12% of the study population was colonized with the strain at admission. The proportion was nearly identical in the contact and standard precaution groups (11.6%, 12.2%).
The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E per 1,000 patient-days at risk was 4.6 in both intervention periods, regardless of the type of precaution taken. Contact precautions appeared to be slightly less effective for Escherichia coli (3.6 per 1,000 patient-days in contact precautions vs. 3.5 in standard), compared with Klebsiella pneumoniae (1.8 vs. 2.2).
A multivariate analysis controlled for screening compliance, colonization pressure, and length of stay, study site, and season of year. It showed that strict contact precautions did not reduce the risk of ward-acquired ESBL-E carriage.
Dr. Maechler had no financial disclosures. The R-Gnosis study was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme.
SOURCE: Maechler F et al. ECCMID 2018, Oral Abstract O1130.
MADRID – even when staff employed an active surveillance screening protocol to identify every carrier at admission.
The failure of precautions may have root in two thorny issues, said Friederike Maechler, MD, who presented the data at the the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases annual congress.
“Adherence to strict contact isolation and hand hygiene is never 100% in a real-life scenario,” said Dr. Maechler, of Charite University Hospital, Berlin. Also, she said, contact isolation can only be effective in a ward if all, or at least most, of the ESBL-E carriers are identified. “Even with an extensive surveillance screening program established, many carriers remained unknown to the health care staff.”
The 25-month study, dubbed R-Gnosis, was conducted in 20 Western European hospitals in Madrid, Berlin, Utrecht, and Geneva. It compared 12 months of contact precaution with standard precaution infection control strategies in medical and surgical non-ICUs.
The entire study hinged on a strict protocol to identify as many ESBL-E carriers as possible. This was done by screening upon admission to the unit, screening once per week during the hospital stay, and screening on discharge. Each patient underwent deep rectal swabs that were cultured on agar and screened for resistance.
The crossover design trial randomized each unit to either contact precautions or standard precautions for 12 months, followed by a 1-month washout period, after which they began the other protocol.
In all, 50,870 patients were entered into the study. By the end, Dr. Maechler had data on 11,367 patients with full screening and follow-up.
Standard precautions did not require a private bedroom, with gloves, gowns, and apron needed for direct contact to body fluids or wounds only, and consistent hand hygiene. Contact precautions required a private bedroom and strict hand hygiene, with gloves, gowns, and aprons used for any patient contact. Study staff monitored compliance with these procedures monthly.
The primary outcome was the ESBL-E acquisition rate per 1,000 patient days. This was defined as a new ESBL-E detection after the patient had a prior negative screen. Dr. Maechler noted that by epidemiological definition, acquisition does not necessarily imply cross-transmission from other patients.
Adherence to the study protocols was good, she said. Adherence to both contact and standard precautions was about 85%, while adherence to hand hygiene was less at around 62%.
Admission ESBL-E screenings revealed that about 12% of the study population was colonized with the strain at admission. The proportion was nearly identical in the contact and standard precaution groups (11.6%, 12.2%).
The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E per 1,000 patient-days at risk was 4.6 in both intervention periods, regardless of the type of precaution taken. Contact precautions appeared to be slightly less effective for Escherichia coli (3.6 per 1,000 patient-days in contact precautions vs. 3.5 in standard), compared with Klebsiella pneumoniae (1.8 vs. 2.2).
A multivariate analysis controlled for screening compliance, colonization pressure, and length of stay, study site, and season of year. It showed that strict contact precautions did not reduce the risk of ward-acquired ESBL-E carriage.
Dr. Maechler had no financial disclosures. The R-Gnosis study was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme.
SOURCE: Maechler F et al. ECCMID 2018, Oral Abstract O1130.
MADRID – even when staff employed an active surveillance screening protocol to identify every carrier at admission.
The failure of precautions may have root in two thorny issues, said Friederike Maechler, MD, who presented the data at the the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases annual congress.
“Adherence to strict contact isolation and hand hygiene is never 100% in a real-life scenario,” said Dr. Maechler, of Charite University Hospital, Berlin. Also, she said, contact isolation can only be effective in a ward if all, or at least most, of the ESBL-E carriers are identified. “Even with an extensive surveillance screening program established, many carriers remained unknown to the health care staff.”
The 25-month study, dubbed R-Gnosis, was conducted in 20 Western European hospitals in Madrid, Berlin, Utrecht, and Geneva. It compared 12 months of contact precaution with standard precaution infection control strategies in medical and surgical non-ICUs.
The entire study hinged on a strict protocol to identify as many ESBL-E carriers as possible. This was done by screening upon admission to the unit, screening once per week during the hospital stay, and screening on discharge. Each patient underwent deep rectal swabs that were cultured on agar and screened for resistance.
The crossover design trial randomized each unit to either contact precautions or standard precautions for 12 months, followed by a 1-month washout period, after which they began the other protocol.
In all, 50,870 patients were entered into the study. By the end, Dr. Maechler had data on 11,367 patients with full screening and follow-up.
Standard precautions did not require a private bedroom, with gloves, gowns, and apron needed for direct contact to body fluids or wounds only, and consistent hand hygiene. Contact precautions required a private bedroom and strict hand hygiene, with gloves, gowns, and aprons used for any patient contact. Study staff monitored compliance with these procedures monthly.
The primary outcome was the ESBL-E acquisition rate per 1,000 patient days. This was defined as a new ESBL-E detection after the patient had a prior negative screen. Dr. Maechler noted that by epidemiological definition, acquisition does not necessarily imply cross-transmission from other patients.
Adherence to the study protocols was good, she said. Adherence to both contact and standard precautions was about 85%, while adherence to hand hygiene was less at around 62%.
Admission ESBL-E screenings revealed that about 12% of the study population was colonized with the strain at admission. The proportion was nearly identical in the contact and standard precaution groups (11.6%, 12.2%).
The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E per 1,000 patient-days at risk was 4.6 in both intervention periods, regardless of the type of precaution taken. Contact precautions appeared to be slightly less effective for Escherichia coli (3.6 per 1,000 patient-days in contact precautions vs. 3.5 in standard), compared with Klebsiella pneumoniae (1.8 vs. 2.2).
A multivariate analysis controlled for screening compliance, colonization pressure, and length of stay, study site, and season of year. It showed that strict contact precautions did not reduce the risk of ward-acquired ESBL-E carriage.
Dr. Maechler had no financial disclosures. The R-Gnosis study was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme.
SOURCE: Maechler F et al. ECCMID 2018, Oral Abstract O1130.
REPORTING FROM ECCMID 2018
Key clinical point: A protocol of strict contact precautions and hand hygiene was no better than standard contact precautions at preventing the spread of extended-spectrum, beta-lactamase–resistant Enterobacteriaceae.
Major finding: The incidence density of ward-acquired ESBL-E per 1,000 patient-days at risk was 4.6, regardless of precaution.
Study details: The 25-month crossover trial comprised more than 11,000 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Maechler had no financial disclosures. The R-Gnosis study was funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme.
Source: Maechler F et al. ECCMID 2018, Oral Abstract O1130.