OBJECTIVE: To compare, in subjects undergoing general surgery, two measures of intrinsic patients risk for nosocomial infection: the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) index and the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System index. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with follow-up for 1 month after hospital discharge. SETTING: The general surgery service of a tertiary hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Surgical-site infection. PATIENTS: 1,483 subjects aged 10 to 92 years. RESULTS: During follow-up, 155 patients developed nosocomial infection, yielding a cumulative incidence of 10.5%. The NNIS index showed a linear trend with both crude and adjusted (for SENIC index) rates of surgical-wound infection. The SENIC index did not exhibit any linear trend with adjusted (for NNIS index) rates of surgical-wound infection. To delineate whether the SENIC index added explanatory information to the NNIS index (or vice versa), we regressed each variable on the other. Logistic regression analyses confirmed the results of stratified analysis: residuals of the NNIS index added discriminating ability to the SENIC index, whereas residuals of the SENIC index did not improve the predictive power of the NNIS index. CONCLUSIONS: The NNIS index had a better ability than the SENIC index for discriminating and predicting risk of surgical-wound infection.
OBJECTIVE: To compare, in subjects undergoing general surgery, two measures of intrinsic patients risk for nosocomial infection: the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) index and the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System index. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, with follow-up for 1 month after hospital discharge. SETTING: The general surgery service of a tertiary hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Surgical-site infection. PATIENTS: 1,483 subjects aged 10 to 92 years. RESULTS: During follow-up, 155 patients developed nosocomial infection, yielding a cumulative incidence of 10.5%. The NNIS index showed a linear trend with both crude and adjusted (for SENIC index) rates of surgical-wound infection. The SENIC index did not exhibit any linear trend with adjusted (for NNIS index) rates of surgical-wound infection. To delineate whether the SENIC index added explanatory information to the NNIS index (or vice versa), we regressed each variable on the other. Logistic regression analyses confirmed the results of stratified analysis: residuals of the NNIS index added discriminating ability to the SENIC index, whereas residuals of the SENIC index did not improve the predictive power of the NNIS index. CONCLUSIONS: The NNIS index had a better ability than the SENIC index for discriminating and predicting risk of surgical-wound infection.
Authors: Alexander Reinisch; Patrizia Malkomes; Nils Habbe; Wolf Otto Bechstein; Juliane Liese Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-07-15 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Diana Vetter; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis; Mira Giama; Hanna Hosa; Markus K Muller; Antonio Nocito; Marc Schiesser; Rudolf Moos; Marco Bueter Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Robert L Smith; Jamie K Bohl; Shannon T McElearney; Charles M Friel; Margaret M Barclay; Robert G Sawyer; Eugene F Foley Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 12.969