Journals / Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations / 2015 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3

Bir üniversite hastanesi yoğun bakım ünitesindeki hastane enfeksiyonları ve risk faktörleri

Nosocomial infections and risk factors in intensive care unit of a university hospital

Pages
233–239
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

It was considered that infection control measures must be applied carefully, invasive procedures should be used in correct indications and we should avoid long-term hospitalization if unnecessary.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate nosocomial infections (NIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) in terms of site of infection, distribution of pathogens and risk factors for developing infection.Methods: 80 patients staying for more than 48 hours in the ICU were included in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Cultures, identification of isolates and antibiotic susceptibility tests were made by standard microbiologic methods.Results: Of 56 patients who have developed NIs, 26 (50%) had pneumonia, 15 (28.8%) had bloodstream infections and 6 (11.5%) had urinary tract infections.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was considered that infection control measures must be applied carefully, invasive procedures should be used in correct indications and we should avoid long-term hospitalization if unnecessary.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate nosocomial infections (NIs) in intensive care unit (ICU) in terms of site of infection, distribution of pathogens and risk factors for developing infection.Methods: 80 patients staying for more than 48 hours in the ICU were included in the study. Epidemiologic characteristics of the patients, invasive procedures and other risk factors were noted. Cultures, identification of isolates and antibiotic susceptibility tests were made by standard microbiologic methods.Results: Of 56 patients who have developed NIs, 26 (50%) had pneumonia, 15 (28.8%) had bloodstream infections and 6 (11.5%) had urinary tract infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae (23.5%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19.6%), and Acinetobacter spp. (15.6%) were the most frequently isolated microorganisms, respectively. For Klebsiella pneumoniae isolates, extended spectrum beta lactamase (ESBL) rate was 91.6%, carbapenem resistance rate was 15.6% and for Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. carbapenem resistance rates were 60% and 100% respectively. Hemodialysis, enteral nutrition, total parenteral nutrition and prolonged hospitalization for more than 10 days were determined as independent risk factors for developing NI. Additionally Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, length of ICU stay and lenght of hospital stay before ICU were found to be high in the NI group.Conclusion: Pneumonia is the most common NI and carbapenem resistance in Gram-negative bacilli was remarkably high in our ICU. It was considered that infection control measures must be applied carefully, invasive procedures should be used in correct indications and we should avoid long-term hospitalization if unnecessary.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada yoğun bakım ünitesindeki (YBÜ) hastane enfeksiyonlarının (HE) enfeksiyon odağı, patojenlerin dağılımı ve risk faktörleri açısından değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı.Yöntemler: YBÜ'de 48 saatten fazla kalan 80 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların epidemiyolojik özellikleri, invaziv girişimler ve diğer risk faktörleri kaydedildi. Kültürler, patojenlerin tanımlanması ve antibiyotik duyarlılık testleri standart mikrobiyolojik yöntemlerle yapıldı.Bulgular: HE gelişen 56 hastanın 26 (%50)'sında pnömoni, 15 (%28,8)'inde kan dolaşımı enfeksiyonu ve 6 (%11.5)'sında üriner sistem enfeksiyonu saptandı. Klebsiella pneumoniae (%23.5), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (%19,6) ve Acinetobacter spp. (%15,6) sırasıyla en sık saptanan etken mikroorganizmalar idi. Klebsiella pneumoniae izolatlarında genişlemiş spektrumlu beta laktamaz (GSBL) oranı %91,6, karbapenem direnci %15,6, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ve Acinetobacter spp. izolatları için de karbapenem direnci sırasıyla %60 ve %100 olarak saptandı. Hemodiyaliz, enteral beslenme, total parenteral beslenme, 10 günden uzun süreli yatış HE gelişimi açısından bağımsız risk faktörleri olarak saptandı. "Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation" (APACHE) II skoru, YBÜ'de yatış süresi ve YBÜ öncesi hastanede yatış süresi de HE gelişen grupta daha yüksek bulundu.Sonuç: Hastanemiz YBÜ'de pnömoni en sık görülen HE olarak saptandı ve Gram-negatif basillerdeki karbapenem direnci dikkat çekici ölçüde yüksek bulundu. Enfeksiyon kontrol önlemlerinin dikkatli bir şekilde uygulanması, invaziv girişimlerin doğru endikasyonlarda uygulanması ve gereksiz uzun dönem yatışlardan kaçınılması gerektiği düşünüldü

🔖

Cite This Article

KAYA, F. Ö., YEŞİLBAĞ, Z., BAŞARAN, S., KARADENİZ, A. (2022). Bir üniversite hastanesi yoğun bakım ünitesindeki hastane enfeksiyonları ve risk faktörleri. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Investigations, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 3, 233–239. https://ajindex.com/articles/561664

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Trilla A. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 1994;20:1-4.
  2. Fridkin SK, Welbel SF, Weinstein RA. Magnitude and prevention of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1997;11:479-496.
  3. Garner JS, Jarwis WR, Emori TG, et al. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:128-140
  4. Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe. Results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. EPIC International Advisory Committee. JAMA 1995;274:639-644.
  5. Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA 2009;302:2323-2329.
  6. Oliveira AC, Kovner CT, Silva RS. Nosocomial infection in an intensive care unit in a Brazilian University Hospital. Rev Latino-Am Enfermagem 2010;18:233-239.
  7. Ding JG, Sun QF, Li KC, et al. Retrospective analysis of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in China during 2003 and 2007. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:115-121.
  8. Buke C, Sipahi OR, Tasbakan M, et al. The evaluation of the infections developing in intensive care unit of the internal medicine department. Turk J Infect 2005;19:67-73.
  9. Erol S, Kürsat H, Özkurt Z, et al. Nosocomial infections in our reanimation unit. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi 2000;4:97-100.
  10. Palabiyikoglu I, Tulunay M, Oral M, Bengisun JS. Nosocomial infections observed in a reanimation unit: risk factors, causative agents and antimicrobial resistance. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi 2000;4:150-155.
  11. Celik I, Inci N, Denk A, et al. Prevalence of hospital acquired infections in anesthesiology intensive care unit. Fırat Tıp Derg 2005;10:132-135.
  12. Arslan H, Gurdogan K. Nosocomial Infections Detected in Intensive Care Units. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi 1999;3:165-170.
  13. Willke A, Baskan S, Palabiyikoglu I, et al. Hospital infections observed in Ibn-i Sina Hospital Between 1992-1998. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi 2001;5:31- 37. Meric M, Wilke A, Caglayan C, Toker K. Intensive care unit-acquired infections: Incidence, risk factors and associated mortality in a Turkish university hospital. Jpn J Infect Dis 2005;58:297-302.
  14. Esen S, Leblebicioglu H. Prevalence of nosocomial infections at intensive care units in Turkey: a multicentre 1-day point prevalence study. Scand J Infect Dis 2004;36:144-148.
  15. Erbay H, Yalcin AN, Serin S, et al. Nos