American journal of infection control · 2024
Does the removal of isolation for VRE-infected patients change the incidence of health care-associated VRE?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Pan Huiling, Zhang Chuanlai, Song Jie, Yang Ruiqi, Zhang Zonghong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Several single-center studies have suggested that eliminating isolation for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) control in the context of endemic or nonoutbreak settings, has no impact on infection rates. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of discontinuing isolation.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 10, 2024 for studies evaluating discontinuation of isolation for VRE. Subgroup analyses assessed sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the final review. Four reported the incidence of hospital-acquired VRE (HA-VRE) infections and 5 reported the incidence of hospital-acquired VRE bloodstream infections (HA-VRE BSI). No significant difference between the rates of HA-VRE infection before and after stopping isolation was observed (risk ratios, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.26; P = .62), as well as no significant difference on the incidence of HA-VRE BSI (risk ratios, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.07, P = .09). Furthermore, we conducted 2 subgroup analyses: one stratified by whether the studies were conducted during Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), and the other stratified by whether clinicians continued to use personal protective equipment. Both analyses revealed no significant differences in the incidence of HA-VRE BSI and termination of isolation between the subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of endemic or nonoutbreak settings, discontinuation of isolation for VRE patients has not been associated with an increased rate of HA-VRE infections.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through April 10, 2024 for studies evaluating discontinuation of isolation for VRE. Subgroup analyses assessed sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the final review. Four reported the incidence of hospital-acquired VRE (HA-VRE) infections and 5 reported the incidence of hospital-acquired VRE bloodstream infections (HA-VRE BSI). No significant difference between the rates of HA-VRE infection before and after stopping isolation was observed (risk ratios, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.26; P = .62), as well as no significant difference on the incidence of HA-VRE BSI (risk ratios, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.07, P = .09). Furthermore, we conducted 2 subgroup analyses: one stratified by whether the studies were conducted during Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), and the other stratified by whether clinicians continued to use personal protective equipment. Both analyses revealed no significant differences in the incidence of HA-VRE BSI and termination of isolation between the subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: In the context of endemic or nonoutbreak settings, discontinuation of isolation for VRE patients has not been associated with an increased rate of HA-VRE infections.