4.5 Article

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium report, data summary for 2002-2007, issued January 2008

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 627-637

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the results of an International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) surveillance study from 2002 through 2007 in 98 intensive care units (ICUs) in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe. During the 6-year study, using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS) definitions for device-associated health care-associated infection, we collected prospective data from 43,114 patients hospitalized in the Consortium's hospital ICUs for an aggregate of 272,279 days. Although device utilization in the INICC ICUs was remarkably similar to that reported from US ICUs in the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network, rates of device-associated nosocomial infection were markedly higher in the ICUs of the INICC hospitals: the pooled rate of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABs) in the INICC ICUs, 9.2 per 1000 CL-days, is nearly 3-fold higher than the 2.4-5.3 per 1000 CL-days reported from comparable US ICUs, and the overall rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia was also far higher, 19.5 vs 1.1-3.6 per 1000 ventilator-days, as was the rate of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 6.5 versus 3.4-5.2 per 1000 catheter-days. Most strikingly, the frequencies of resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolates to methicillin (MRSA) (80.8% vs 48.1 %), Enterobacter species to ceftriaxone (50.8% vs 17.8%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to fluoroquinolones (52.4% vs 29.1 %) were also Far higher in the Consortium's ICUs, and the crude unadjusted excess mortalities of device-related infections ranged from 14.3 % (CLABs) to 27.5% (ventilator-associated pneumonia). (Am J Infect Control 2008:36:627-37.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据