Effects of infection control measures on acquisition of five antimicrobial drug-resistant microorganisms in a tetanus intensive care unit in Vietnam

PURPOSE: To quantify the effects of barrier precautions and antibiotic mixing on prevalence and acquisition of five drug-resistant microorganisms within a single tetanus intensive care unit at a tertiary referral hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. METHODS: All patients admitted within the study period were included. After a 1-year baseline period, barrier precautions were implemented and the single empirical treatment ceftazidime was changed to mixing (per consecutive patient) of three different regimens (ceftazidime, ciprofloxacin, piperacillin–tazobactam). Markov chain modeling and genotyping were used to determine the effects of interventions on prevalence levels and the relative importance of cross-transmission and antibiotic-associated selection. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients were included in year 1 (2,708 patient days, 17,260 cultures) and 167 patients in year 2 (3,384 patient days, 20,580 cultures). In year 1, average daily prevalence rates for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), extended spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (excluding Klebsiella pneumoniae), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, gentamicin-resistant K. pneumoniae, and amikacin-resistant Acinetobacter species were 34.0, 61.3, 53.4, 65.7 and 57.1 %. After intervention, ceftazidime usage decreased by 53 %; the use of piperacillin–tazobactam and ciprofloxacin increased 7.2-fold and 4.5-fold, respectively. Adherence to hand hygiene after patient contact was 54 %. These measures were associated with a reduction of MRSA prevalence by 69.8 % (to 10.3 %), mainly because of less cross-transmission (88 % reduction), and of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae prevalence by 10.3 % (non-significantly). In contrast, prevalence levels of the other three pathogens remained unaffected. CONCLUSION: The combination of simple infection control measures and antibiotic mixing was highly effective in reducing the prevalence of MRSA, but not of Gram-negative microorganisms. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-012-2771-1) contains supplementary material.