1 / 59

Infection Prevention in the Post-Antibiotic Era

Explore the history of infection control, the prevalence of nosocomial infections, and the four pillars of infection prevention. Learn how CHG can be used successfully to prevent catheter-related infections.

bull
Download Presentation

Infection Prevention in the Post-Antibiotic Era

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Infection Prevention 2012: In Defiance of the Post-Antibiotic Era March 15, 2012Cynosure Health ‘Beyond SCIP’ Meeting Allan J. Morrison, Jr., MD, MSc, FACP, FIDSA FSHEA Inova Health System Epidemiologist Chairperson, Infection Control Committee Inova Fairfax Hospital Professor and Distinguished Senior Fellow School of Public Policy, George Mason University Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine Georgetown University Hospital

  2. DISCLOSURES • Speaker’s Bureau with the following entities: Care Fusion, Cubist, Glaxo-SmithKline, Pfizer, Ortho-McNeil, Merck, Sage • No mention of investigational nor off-label usage will be employed in this program

  3. NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS • Historical derivation • Nosocome: Rabelais (circa 1340) “ . . . so they took the wounded soldiers to the great nosocome . . . ” • “Castle-acquired” infections Ann Int Med 2002;137:665

  4. MOST PREVALENT CRBSIs and SSIs:occur when skin is incised Weinstein RA. Nosocomial infection update. Emerg Infect Dis. 1998;4(3):416-420.

  5. INFECTION CONTROL IN THE MODERN ERA: HISTORY • 1970s: “KARDEX” system • Whole house/body site surveillance • Data prospectively gathered, retrospectively analyzed • Created objective methodology • SENIC study • First large study to demonstrate characteristics of “efficacious” IC program • ICP/250 beds, organized surveillance, SSI feedback to surgeons, trained epidemiologist

  6. NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS : PREVENTABLES • SENIC (1971-1976) • 6% NI preventable by minimal infection control efforts • 32% NI preventable by well-organized and highly effective infection control programs Am J Epid 1985;121:182 • Meta-analysis of interventional studies (N=25) • 66% reduction (15.1 8.3/1000 C-D) CIN PerfQualHlth Care 1998;6:172 • 46% reduction (3217.4/1000 C-D) Am J Inf Control 1999;27:402;J Hosp Inf 2003;54:258

  7. INFECTION CONTROL IN THE MODERN ERA: HISTORY • 2000 - 2010 • Emergence of evidence-based data leading to “bundles” • VAP, CRBSI, Sepsis, CDAD • (Variably) implemented but NI rates  • 2011 - Future Where do we go from here?

  8. HUMAN: BACTERIAL INTERFACE • Total human cells/person ~ 1013 • Total colonizing microbes ~ 1014 . . . We are outnumbered 10:1! NEJM 2010;362:75

  9. “ESKAPE” Pathogens1Clinical Outcomes 8 J Infect Dis; 2008; 41:327

  10. INFECTION CONTROL IN THE MODERN ERA: BLUEPRINT FOR FAILURE • Current paradigm:  MDRO (community, nosocomial)  Transmission within facilities  Colonization,  infection,  mortality  ABX pressure • Hand hygiene: poor compliance •  Respect for isolation protocols/barriers

  11. INFECTION PREVENTION: (FOUR) PILLARS * De-populate the patient * De-populate the space * De-instrument the patient * De-escalate the ABX fole

  12. Infection Control: The Symmetry of Science

  13. INFECTION PREVENTION: (FOUR) PILLARS * De-populate the patient * De-populate the space * De-instrument the patient * De-escalate the ABX fole

  14. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CULTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  15. CHG :”Great White” of Skin Antisepsis

  16. PREVENTION OF CATHETER-RELATED INFECTIONS IN THE ICU: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF 2% CHG/70% IPA VERSUS 10% POVIDONE-IODINE 10.6 7.7 Infection Rates per 1000 Catheter Days P= 0.05 P= 0.015 1.3 1.3 Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections N = 82 Primary Bloodstream Infections N = 82 Catheter-related bloodstream infection: Isolation of identical organisms from blood cultures and semi-quantitative catheter cultures with no other identified source of infection. CDC primary bloodstream infection: Pathogen cultured from one or more blood cultures; organism cultured from blood is not related to an infection at another site. Patient has at least one of the following signs and symptoms: fever (>38°C). chills, or hypotension and positive skin contaminant found in blood cultures, OR positive antigen test with signs and symptoms of infection not related to another site. Kelly R, et al. Prevention of infections related to central venous catheters and arterial catheters in intensive care patients: a prospective randomized trial of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) versus povidone iodine (PI). 15th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America; April 9-12, 2005; Los Angeles, CA. Abstract 165.

  17. CHG: CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER (CVC) • P/R trial of CVC insertion (IJ, SC) • 5% Povidone-Iodine/70% ethanol • 0.25% CHG/4% benzylic alcohol • 2 x 30 second application (pre-insertion) then Q 72o@ dressing change • Results: PI-ACHG-AP-value N 242 239 Catheter colonization 22.2% 11.6% 0.002 CR-BSI 4.2% 1.7% 0.09 • RF for catheter colonization IJ site, PI Arch Int Med 2007;167:2066

  18. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CUTLTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  19. CHG PREP: PERIPHERAL IVs • P/R trial comparing: • 2% chlorhexidinegluconate - plus 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IA) • 70% isopropyl alcohol (IA) • Results: CHG-IAIAP-value N 91 79 -- X dwell 2.3D 2.2D NS Tip Cx 20% 49% <.001 • Skin disinfection with CHG-IA prior to PIV insertion associated with  TIP CX  ICHE 2008;29:963

  20. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CUTLTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  21. CHG Bathing: ICU • 52 wk/cross-over trial • 22-bed MICU (Cook County Hospital) • Daily CHG bathing (impregnated washcloth) vs. soap/water • Results: Soap/WaterCHGP-value N (pt-days) 2119 2210 Primary BSI 10.4 4.1 <.01 (per 1000 pt-days) Arch Int Med 2007;167:2073

  22. CHG Bathing: ICU • ICU (N=6): Daily Bathing Protocol Six Months ‘Regular’, Six Months CHG • MRSA acquisition decreased 32% (p<.05) • VRE acquisition decreased 50% (p<.01) • VRE Bacteremia decreased (p=.02) Crit Care Med 2008;37:185

  23. CHG Bathing: Non-ICU • N= 4 Hospital wards • 94 Beds; Rhode Island (>70K pt-days) • Daily CHG bathing (impregnated washcloth) vs. soap/water • Results: Soap/WaterCHGP-value N (pts) 7102 7699 ---- MRSA VRE HAIs 64% .01 Clostridium difficile…..no effect ICHE 2011;32:238

  24. CHG Bathing : Meta-Analysis • N= 12 studies; 137,392 patient-days • Studies screened for methodological rigor • Results: p-value CRBSI/BSI reduction <.00001 Inf Ctrl Hosp Epid 2012;33:257

  25. SURGICAL SITE INFECTION

  26. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CULTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  27. CHLORHEXIDINE: PREOPERATIVE SHOWERS CDC recommends preoperative showering with CHG1 CHG more effective than PI & triclocarban Lower rates of intra-operative wound contamination 1. Mangram AJ et al. The hospital infection control practices advisory committee. Guidelines for prevention of surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20(4):250-278. 2. Garibaldi RA. Prevention of intraoperative wound contamination with chlorhexidine shower and scrub. J Hosp Infect. 1988;11(suppl B):5-9.

  28. The Ultimate Pre-op Shower

  29. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CULTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  30. “ History repeats itself; that's one of the things that's wrong with history." Clarence Darrow US Defense Lawyer

  31. CHG: SURGICAL SCRUB • CHG superior to povidone-iodine • Reduced hand bacterial counts at scrub • Reduction maintained 6 hours later Orthopedics 2006:29:329 Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;132:677

  32. Bacterial Colony Counts/Site/Prep 2% CHG/70% IPA vs 0.7% Iodine 74% IPA; Hallux (P<0.01) 2% CHG/70% IPA vs 0.7% Iodine 74% IPA; Toe (P<0.05) 2% CHG/70% IPA vs 3% Chloroxylenol; Control (P<0.01) Control = anterior tibia, 12 cm proximal to the ankle joint Ostrander RV, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87-A:980-985.

  33. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CULTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  34. Blood Culture Results: Truth or Dare * Blood Culture Contamination (BCC): Rate estimated at 0.6 - 6.0% * Results in unnecessary Lab costs, hospital admissions, LOS, antibiotics J Hosp Med 2006;1:272 ClinMicrobiol Rev 2006;19:788

  35. BCC: Efficacy of CHG-Alcohol • P/Trial: ER (60% BC drawn in ER) • Compared Iodine vs. CHG-A skin prep • Results: Iodine CHG-Alcohol p-value BCC 3.5% 2.2% <.0001 J Nurse Care Qual 2008;23:272

  36. Blood Culture Contamination: Can it be Reduced ? • Randomized/Crossover/Sterile Gloves • Results: Routine Optional p-value N 5265 5255 N/A BCC,possible 0.6% 1.1% .009 BCC,likely 0.5% 0.9% .007 Ann Int Med 2011;154:145

  37. Blood Cx Contamination: THE NEWEST BUNDLE? • Training in proper BC collection: Requirement for annual competency • ? Time for a Blood Culture Bundle? Ann Int Med 2011;154:202

  38. INFECTION CONTROL AND CHG: BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS • CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PERIPHERAL VENOUS CATHETERS • PATIENT BATHING PROTOCOLS • PREOPERATIVE PATIENT SHOWER • OPERATIVE TEAM HAND SCRUB • BLOOD CULTURE SKIN PREP • OPERATIVE SITE SKIN PREP

  39. SSI: DOES CHOICE OF PREP MATTER? • P/R trial comparing CHG-Alcohol (CA) and Povidine-Iodine (PI) • Clean-contaminated surgery (N = 849) • Pre-op prep, follow-up 30D post-op • Results CAPIP-value N 409 440 SSI (total) 9.5% 16.1% .004 Superficial 4.2% 8.6% .008 Deep 1% 3% .05 NEJM 2010;362:18

  40. SSI: DOES CHOICE OF PREP MATTER? • P/R trial comparing CHG-Alcohol and Povidine-Iodine • Clean-contaminated surgery (N = 849) • Pre-op prep, follow-up 30D post-op • Results (continued): 7 patients died (4 = CA; 3 = PI). None of CA deaths had SSI. All 3 PI deaths due to Sepsis from SSI. NEJM 2010;362:18

  41. Caesarean Section: SSI

  42. CHG-Alcohol: C-Sections • 2005: 4M live births in US annually • C-Sections account for 30% (>1M) • P/Trial (2006-2007): Pre-op CHG cloths and CHG-A operative prep • Results: Pre-IntervInterv p-value SSI 7.5% 1.2% <.001 Projected cost savings: $25,546 per SSI Am J Inf Control 2010;38:319

  43. Preoperative Skin Antisepsis: CHG vs. Iodine : Meta-Analysis • Cost benefit decision analytic model • N=1508 screened: 9 met criteria • Summary: “Use of CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis is associated with a 36% reduction in the number of SSIs…Although CHG is more costly than Iodine, this dramatic reduction in the number of SSIs will likely result in greater overall cost savings with chlorhexidine use” • Am J Inf Control 2010;31:1219

  44. SSI: Efficacy of CHG-A Skin Prep • …..In summary, the weight of evidence suggests that chlorhexidine alcohol should replace povidone-iodine as the standard for preoperative surgical scrubs. NEJM 2010;362:1

  45. INFECTION PREVENTION: (FOUR) PILLARS * De-populate the patient * De-populate the space * De-instrument the patient * De-escalate the ABX fole

  46. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION: VRE • VRE persists through an average of 2.8 standard room cleanings ICHE 1998;19:261

  47. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANING: MDR CONTROL? Purpose To assess the efficacy of environmental cleaning protocols for reduction of VRE, C. difficile Baseline Post-Routine Post-Bleach  CxCleaningCleaning VRE (N = 17) 94% 71% 0 (p < .001) C. diff (N = 9) 100% 78% 11% (p = .03) . . . Implications . . . BMC InfDis 2007;7:61

More Related