Journals / Dicle Tıp Dergisi / 2012 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of hospital infections developing in intensive care unit during a decade and review of literature

Reanimasyon ünitesinde on yıllık sürede gelişen hastane enfeksiyonlarının değerlendirilmesi ve literatürün gözden geçirilmesi

Pages
492–498
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Prevention of unnecessary invasive procedures, early removal of invasive catheters, infection control measures and documenting of antibiotic susceptibilities of causative organisms will reduce the incidence of HAI.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: Hospital acquired infections (HAI) are major health problem in intensive care units.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We aimed to deter- mine the nosocomial infection rate, distribution of HAI and the distribution of microorganisms isolated from nosocomial infections and their antibiotic resistance profiles in hospital- ized patients in intensive care unit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Prevention of unnecessary invasive procedures, early removal of invasive catheters, infection control measures and documenting of antibiotic susceptibilities of causative organisms will reduce the incidence of HAI.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: Hospital acquired infections (HAI) are major health problem in intensive care units. We aimed to deter- mine the nosocomial infection rate, distribution of HAI and the distribution of microorganisms isolated from nosocomial infections and their antibiotic resistance profiles in hospital- ized patients in intensive care unit. Materials and methods: A total 222 patients with a diagno- sis of hospital-acquired infection hospitalized between Janu- ary 2003 and June 2012 at Dicle University Medical Faculty Hospital intensive care unit, were included in this study. Clini- cal, radiographic, laboratory data and culture results record- ed to the standard forms and in the computer environment on a daily basis. Hospital acquired infections rates by year, dis- tribution of HAI according to the systems, infectious agents were determined. Results: A total of 327 episodes of HAI were developed 222 (18.4%) of 1208 hospitalized patients in ten years pe- riod per 21 974 patients day. Hospital-acquired infection rate was 27.6 per 100 patient days and density was 15.2 per 1000 patient days. The most common HAI were blood- stream infection (38.5%) and followed by pneumonia (24%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (14.7%). Acinetobacter spp. (23.7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (13.9%) were the most frequently isolated bacteria. The most effective anti- biotics against gram-negative microorganisms were colistin, amikacin, imipenem, meropenem, cefoperazone-sulbactam, while gram-positives to linezolid, vancomycin and daptomy- cin. Conclusion: Prolonged duration of hospitalization increases the risk of infection and invasive procedures. Prevention of unnecessary invasive procedures, early removal of invasive catheters, infection control measures and documenting of antibiotic susceptibilities of causative organisms will reduce the incidence of HAI.

Özet

Amaç: Hastane enfeksiyonları (HE) yoğun bakım ünitele- rinde mortalite ve morbiditenin önemli nedenidir. Bu çalış- mada reanimasyon ünitesinde yatan hastalarda görülen HE oranının, HE’ nın dağılımının, HE’ndan izole edilen mikroorganizmaların dağılımının ve antibiyotik direnç pro- fillerinin belirlenmesi amaçlandı. Gereç ve yöntem: Ocak 2003-Haziran 2012 tarihleri arasında Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi re- animasyon ünitesinde yatan, HE tanısı olan 222 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların klinik bulguları, kültür sonuçları, radyolojik ve laboratuvar verileri standart forma ve günlük olarak bilgisayar ortamına kaydedildi. Yıllara göre HE hızı, HE’nın sistemlere göre dağılımı ve etkenleri belirlendi. Bulgular: On yıl içinde yatırılan 1208 hastanın 222 (%18.4)’sinde 21974 hasta gününde toplam 327 HE ata- ğı gelişti. Hastane enfeksiyonu hızı 100 hasta gününde 27.6 ve dansitesi 1000 hasta gününde 15.2 idi. Kan do- laşım enfeksiyonu en sık (%38.5) enfeksiyon olup bunu pnömoni (24%) ve ventilatör ilişkili pnömoni (14.7%) takip ediyordu. Acinetobacter spp. (%23.7) ve Pseudomonas aeruginosa (%13.9) en sık izole edilen bakterilerdi. Gram negatif mikroorganizmalara karşı en etkili antibiyotikler kolistin, amikasin, imipenem, meropenem, sefoperazon- sulbaktam iken gram pozitiflerde ise linezolid, vankomisin ve daptomisin idi. Sonuç: Uzamış yatış süresi, invaziv girişimleri ve enfek- siyon riskini arttırır. Gereksiz invaziv girişimleri önlenmesi, invaziv kateterlerin erken çıkarılması, enfeksiyon kontrol önlemlerinin alınması ve etken mikroorganizmaların anti- biyotik duyarlılıklarının dökümante edilmesi HE insidansı- nı azaltacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜFEK, A., TEKİN, R., DAL, T., TOKGÖZ, O., DOĞAN, E., ÖLMEZ, G. K., HOŞOĞLU, S. (2012). Evaluation of hospital infections developing in intensive care unit during a decade and review of literature. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 4, 492–498. https://ajindex.com/articles/349902

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Uzun Ö. The definitions of nosocomial infections. Turk J Hosp Infect 1997;1(1):8-20
  2. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J In- fect Control 1988;16(3):128-40
  3. Bueno-Cavanillas A, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Lopez-Luque A, Schaffino-Cano S, Galvez-Vargas R. Influence of noso- comial infection on mortality rate in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1994;22(1):55-60
  4. Weber DJ, Raasch R, Rutala WA. Nosocomial infections in the ICU: the growing importance of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Chest 1999;115(3):34-41
  5. Öztürk V. Nosocomial infections. Turkiye Klinikleri J Int Med Sci 2006;2(22):33-8
  6. Fridkin SK, Welbel SF, Weinstein RA. Magnitude and pre- vention of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997;11(2):479-96
  7. Trilla A. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections in adult in- tensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 1994;20(3):1-4
  8. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe. Re- sults of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. EPIC International Advisory Commit- tee. JAMA. 1995;274(8):639-44
  9. Legras A, Malvy D, Quinioux AI et al. Nosocomial infec- tions: prospective survey of incidence in five French inten- sive care units. Intensive Care Med 1998;24(10):1040-6
  10. Alberti C, Brun-Buisson C, Burchardi H, et al. Epidemi- ology of sepsis and infection in ICU patients from an in- ternational multicenter cohort study. Intensive Care Med 2002;28(2):108-21
  11. Edmond BM WP. Organization for infection control. Prin- ciples and Practice of Infectious Diseases 2005(12):3323-6
  12. Spencer RC. Predominant pathogens found in the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care Study. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1996;15(4):281-5
  13. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Am J Infect Control 1992;20(5):271-4
  14. Saba R. Supportive measures in ICU patients: which pa- tients have to be isolated? J Intens Care 2002;2(1):133-8
  15. Spencer RC. Epidemiology of infection in ICUs. Intensive Care Med 1994;20(4):2-6
  16. Esen S, Leblebicioglu H. Prevalence of nosocomial infec- tions at intensive care units in Turkey: a multicentre 1-day point prevalence study. Scand J Infect Dis 2004;36(2):144- 8
  17. Saltoğlu N