Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2019
Real-world effectiveness of infection prevention interventions for reducing procedure-related cardiac device infections: Insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment reporting and tracking program.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Asundi Archana, Stanislawski Maggie, Mehta Payal, Baron Anna E, Mull Hillary J, Ho P Michael, Zimetbaum Peter J, Gupta Kalpana, Branch-Elliman Westyn
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between receipt of specific infection prevention interventions and procedure-related cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort with manually reviewed infection status.
SETTING: Setting: National, multicenter Veterans Health Administration (VA) cohort.
PARTICIPANTS: Sampling of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology (CART-EP) database from fiscal years 2008 through 2015.
METHODS: A sample of procedures entered into the CART-EP database underwent manual review for occurrence of CIED infection and other clinical/procedural variables. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression.
RESULTS: We identified 101 procedure-related CIED infections among 2,098 procedures (4.8% of reviewed sample). Factors associated with increased odds of infections included (1) wound complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.16-24.20), (2) revisions including generator changes (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.59-3.63), (3) an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.18), and (4) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus colonization (aOR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.55-27.77). Clinically effective prevention interventions included preprocedural skin cleaning with chlorhexidine versus other topical agents (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76) and receipt of β-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis versus vancomycin (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.96). The use of mesh pockets and continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure were not associated with reduced infection risk.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings regarding the real-world clinical effectiveness of different prevention strategies can be applied to the development of evidence-based protocols and infection prevention guidelines specific to the electrophysiology laboratory.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort with manually reviewed infection status.
SETTING: Setting: National, multicenter Veterans Health Administration (VA) cohort.
PARTICIPANTS: Sampling of procedures entered into the VA Clinical Assessment Reporting and Tracking-Electrophysiology (CART-EP) database from fiscal years 2008 through 2015.
METHODS: A sample of procedures entered into the CART-EP database underwent manual review for occurrence of CIED infection and other clinical/procedural variables. The primary outcome was 6-month incidence of CIED infection. Measures of association were calculated using multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression.
RESULTS: We identified 101 procedure-related CIED infections among 2,098 procedures (4.8% of reviewed sample). Factors associated with increased odds of infections included (1) wound complications (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.16-24.20), (2) revisions including generator changes (aOR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.59-3.63), (3) an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 (aOR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.18), and (4) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus colonization (aOR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.55-27.77). Clinically effective prevention interventions included preprocedural skin cleaning with chlorhexidine versus other topical agents (aOR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22-0.76) and receipt of β-lactam antimicrobial prophylaxis versus vancomycin (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.96). The use of mesh pockets and continuation of antimicrobial prophylaxis after skin closure were not associated with reduced infection risk.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings regarding the real-world clinical effectiveness of different prevention strategies can be applied to the development of evidence-based protocols and infection prevention guidelines specific to the electrophysiology laboratory.