David Bracco1,2, Marc-Jacques Dubois3, Redouane Bouali4, Philippe Eggimann5. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University Health Center, Room D10-145-3, 1650 Cedar Avenue, H3G 1A4, Montreal, Canada. david.bracco@mcgill.ca. 2. Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine, Montreal University Hospital, Montreal, Canada. david.bracco@mcgill.ca. 3. Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine, Montreal University Hospital, Montreal, Canada. 4. Intensive Care Unit, Department of Medicine, Ottawa General & Civic Hospital, Ottawa, Canada. 5. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nosocomial infections remain a major problem in intensive care units. Several authorities have recommended housing patients in single rooms to prevent cross-transmission of potential pathogens, but this issue is currently debated. The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of nosocomial cross-contamination between patients hosted in single rooms versus bay rooms. DESIGN: Prospective observational data acquisition over 2.5 years. SETTING: A 14-bed medico-surgical ICU, composed of six single-bed rooms plus a six-bed and a two-bed bay room served by the same staff. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2004. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in admitted patients was 1.1% and acquisition rate 2.4%. The incidence density of MRSA acquisition was 4.1 [95% CI 2.7-6.3]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 1.3 [0.5-3.4]/1,000 patient-days in single rooms (p<0.001). Pseudomonas spp. acquisition rate was 3.9 [2.5-6.1]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 0.7 [0.2-2.4]/1,000 patient-days in single rooms (p<0.001), and Candida spp. colonization was 38.4 [33.3-44.1]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 13.8 [10.2-18.6]/1,000 patient-days (p<0.001). By multivariate analysis, the relative risk of MRSA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida spp. acquisition in single rooms or cubicles versus bay rooms was 0.65, 0.61 and 0.75 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in an institution where MRSA is not hyperendemic, infection control measures may be more effective to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms in patients housed in single rooms.
OBJECTIVE:Nosocomial infections remain a major problem in intensive care units. Several authorities have recommended housing patients in single rooms to prevent cross-transmission of potential pathogens, but this issue is currently debated. The aim of the present study was to compare the rate of nosocomial cross-contamination between patients hosted in single rooms versus bay rooms. DESIGN: Prospective observational data acquisition over 2.5 years. SETTING: A 14-bed medico-surgical ICU, composed of six single-bed rooms plus a six-bed and a two-bed bay room served by the same staff. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted from 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2004. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in admitted patients was 1.1% and acquisition rate 2.4%. The incidence density of MRSA acquisition was 4.1 [95% CI 2.7-6.3]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 1.3 [0.5-3.4]/1,000 patient-days in single rooms (p<0.001). Pseudomonas spp. acquisition rate was 3.9 [2.5-6.1]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 0.7 [0.2-2.4]/1,000 patient-days in single rooms (p<0.001), and Candida spp. colonization was 38.4 [33.3-44.1]/1,000 patient-days in bay rooms versus 13.8 [10.2-18.6]/1,000 patient-days (p<0.001). By multivariate analysis, the relative risk of MRSA, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida spp. acquisition in single rooms or cubicles versus bay rooms was 0.65, 0.61 and 0.75 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in an institution where MRSA is not hyperendemic, infection control measures may be more effective to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms in patients housed in single rooms.
Authors: M Dettenkofer; S Seegers; G Antes; E Motschall; M Schumacher; F D Daschner Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-31 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michelle R Ananda-Rajah; Emma S McBryde; Kirsty L Buising; Leanne Redl; Christopher Macisaac; John F Cade; Caroline Marshall Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Vincent C C Cheng; Josepha W M Tai; W M Chan; Eric H Y Lau; Jasper F W Chan; Kelvin K W To; Iris W S Li; P L Ho; K Y Yuen Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: M Pozzi; P Pellegrino; S Galbiati; M Granziera; F Locatelli; C Carnovale; V Perrone; S Antoniazzi; C Perrotta; S Strazzer; E Clementi Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Daniel E Freedberg; Hojjat Salmasian; Bevin Cohen; Julian A Abrams; Elaine L Larson Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sophie J Jansen; Enrico Lopriore; Romy J M Berkhout; Alieke van der Hoeven; Barbara Saccoccia; Jonne M de Boer; Karin E Veldkamp; Martha T van der Beek; Vincent Bekker Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2020-12-23