Cargando…

Model-based Assessment of the Effect of Contact Precautions Applied to Surveillance-detected Carriers of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in Long-term Acute Care Hospitals

BACKGROUND: An intervention that successfully reduced colonization and infection with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Chicago-area long-term acute-care hospitals included active surveillance and contact precautions. However, the specific effects of contact precautions applied to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Toth, Damon J A, Khader, Karim, Beams, Alexander, Samore, Matthew H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6761367/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31517974
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciz557
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: An intervention that successfully reduced colonization and infection with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) in Chicago-area long-term acute-care hospitals included active surveillance and contact precautions. However, the specific effects of contact precautions applied to surveillance-detected carriers on patient-to-patient transmission are unknown, as other, concurrent intervention components or changes in facility patient dynamics also could have affected the observed outcomes. METHODS: Using previously published data from before and after the CPE intervention, we designed a mathematical model with an explicit representation of postintervention surveillance. We estimated preintervention to postintervention changes of 3 parameters: [Formula: see text] , the baseline transmission rate excluding contact precaution effects; [Formula: see text] , the rate of a CPE carrier progressing to bacteremia; and [Formula: see text] , the progression rate to nonbacteremia clinical detection. RESULTS: Assuming that CPE carriers under contact precautions transmit carriage to other patients at half the rate of undetected carriers, the model produced no convincing evidence for a postintervention change in the baseline transmission rate [Formula: see text] (+2.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −18% to +28%]). The model did find evidence of a postintervention decrease for [Formula: see text] (−41% [95% CI, −60% to −18%]), but not for [Formula: see text] (−7% [95% CI, −28% to +19%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that contact precautions for surveillance-detected CPE carriers could potentially explain the observed decrease in colonization by itself, even under conservative assumptions for the effectiveness of those precautions for reducing cross-transmission. Other intervention components such as daily chlorhexidine gluconate bathing of all patients and hand-hygiene education and adherence monitoring may have contributed primarily to reducing rates of colonized patients progressing to bacteremia.