Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R P Wenzel

Publications and source records attributed to R P Wenzel.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

An experimental model for study of Candida survival and transmission in human volunteers.

In order to determine the potential for cross-transmission of Candida spp. between health-care workers and patients, the survival of clinical isolates of five species of Candida on the palms of human volunteers was tested. One hundred microliters of a McFarland 1.0 density suspension (5 x 10(5) cfu) from an overnight culture of Candida albicans, Candida krusei, Candida parapsilosis, Candida tropicalis and Candida glabrata was used as inoculum. The degree of hydrophobicity of the different Candida species was also tested and did not influence the survival. The half-lives were brief, being 9.5, 12.4, 7.4, 12.8, 9.6 min for Candida albicans, Candida krusei, Candida glabrata, Candida parapsilosis, and Candida tropicalis, respectively, but at 45 min 2.6 x 10(3) to 3 x 10(4) organisms remained on the hands. Survival of Candida albicans for as long as 24 h on inanimate surfaces was observed. Transmission from one hand to a second hand occurred in 69% of the experiments and from the first to a third hand in 38%. Transmission to and from inanimate surfaces was successful in most of the experiments (90%). This experimental model aids in the biological study of Candida spp. and suggests some of the potential mechanisms of transmission.

Candida↗
PubMed1994

Comparative analysis of three antifungal susceptibility test methods against prospectively collected Candida species.

We performed antifungal susceptibility tests with cilofungin (LY121019), amphotericin B, and flucytosine against 38 strains of yeasts from patients with esophagitis or fungemia either before, during, or after treatment with cilofungin. Tests were performed using a macrobroth dilution method similar to that proposed by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (M27-P) and two microbroth methods. For cilofungin and amphotericin B, minimum inhibitory concentrations from microbroth tests using Antibiotic Medium 3 (AM3) were systematically lower than results from the other two methods that utilized RPMI-1640 medium (RPMI). AM3 did not provide any greater degree of in vitro correlation with clinical results than did RPMI. We conclude that cilofungin and possibly other congeners of the echinocandin class of antifungal agents can effectively be studied using the proposed National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards method.

Amphotericin B↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this quality standard are 1) to provide an implementation mechanism that will facilitate the reliable administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents to patients undergoing operative procedures in which such a practice is judged to be beneficial and 2) to provide a guideline that will help local hospital committees formulate policies and set up mechanisms for their implementation. Although standards in the medical literature spell out recommendations for specific procedures, agents, schedules, and doses, other reports document that these standards frequently are not followed in practice. OPTIONS: We have specified the procedures in which the administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents has been shown to be beneficial, those in which this practice is widely thought to be beneficial but in which compelling evidence is lacking, and those in which this practice is controversial. We have examined the evidence regarding the optimal timing of drug administration, the optimal dose, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis. OUTCOMES: The intended outcome is more uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics in those circumstances where their value has been demonstrated or their use has been judged by the local practicing medical community to be desirable. The result should be a reduction in rates of postoperative wound infection with a limitation on the quantities of antimicrobial agents used in circumstances where they are not likely to help. EVIDENCE: Many prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing placebo with antibiotic and comparing one antibiotic with another have been conducted. In addition, some trials have compared the efficacy of different doses or methods of administration. Other papers have reported on the apparent efficacy of administration at different times and on actual practice in specific communities. Only a small group of relevant articles found through 1993 are cited herein. When authoritative reviews are available, these--rather than an exhaustive list of original references--are cited. VALUES: We assumed that reducing rates of postoperative infection was valuable but that reducing the total amount of antimicrobial agents employed was also worthwhile. The cost of and morbidity attributable to postoperative wound infections should be weighed against the cost and potential morbidity associated with excessive use of antimicrobial agents. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: More reliable administration of antimicrobial agents according to recognized guidelines should prevent some postoperative wound infections while lowering the total quantity of these drugs used. No harms are anticipated. The costs involved are those of the efforts needed on a local basis to design and implement the mechanism that supports uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients for whom prophylactic antimicrobial agents are recommended should receive them. The agents given should be appropriate in light of published guidelines. A short duration of prophylaxis (usually < 24 hours) is recommended. VALIDATION: More than 50 experts in infectious disease and 10 experts in surgical infectious disease and surgical subspecialties reviewed the standard. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Contr

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for the treatment of bacteremia. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5% to 17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated strategy. OPTIONS: We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a noncontroversial criterion and easy for a chart reviewer to apply. OUTCOMES: The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia such as renal failure, prolonged hospitalization, and death. EVIDENCE: Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not available. VALUES: Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion to reach a consensus among the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Through the implementation of this standard, at least 5% of bacteremias could be treated more appropriately. An unknown number of deaths would likely be prevented, and mortality from bacteremia treated inappropriately would probably be reduced. The primary undesirable feature of the standard is an increased workload of pharmacists and microbiologists. RECOMMENDATIONS: Treatment of bacteremia with an antibiotic that is appropriate in terms of the pathogen's blood-culture susceptibility is a minimal standard of care for all patients. VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 experts in infectious diseases from the fields of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, epidemiology, pharmacology, and government. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists and were tested by one of the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (Ms. Barrett). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. This standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for assurance of measles immunity among health care workers. The Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. Although the primary emphasis is on health care workers in hospitals, those at other sites, such as clinics, nursing homes, and schools, are also included. It will be the responsibility of designated individuals at these institutions to implement the standard. OPTIONS: We considered advocating the use of measles vaccine rather than MMR but chose the latter because it also protects against mumps and rubella and because it is more readily available. OUTCOMES: The desired outcome is a reduction in the nosocomial transmission of measles. EVIDENCE: Although direct comparative studies are lacking, nosocomial outbreaks of measles have been reported (as recently as 1992) in institutions where measles immunization of nonimmune health care workers is not universal, whereas such outbreaks have not been reported in institutions with universal immunization. VALUES AND VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 infectious-disease experts in epidemiology, government, medicine, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and surgery. In light of disagreement regarding the implementation of the standard, we used group discussions to reach a consensus. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The consequences of the transmission of measles (and of mumps and rubella) in a health care institution include not only the morbidity and mortality attributable to the disease, but also the significant cost of evaluating and containing an outbreak and the serious disruption of regular hospital routines when control measures are instituted. The potential harm to health care workers after the implementation of the standard consists of untoward effects of MMR vaccine, although the reactions of vaccines should be minimal with adherence to recommended vaccination procedures. Implementation of the standard should entail no expense to health care workers; the precise cost to institutions is unknown, but the expense would be mitigated by prevention of measles outbreaks. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend MMR vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (Drs. Gross and McGowan), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (Dr. Wenzel), the Surgical Infection Society (Dr. Dellinger), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Krause), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Dr. Martone), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (Dr. Sweet), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (Ms. Barrett). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Cross Infection↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgical procedures. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this quality standard are (1) to provide an implementation mechanism that will facilitate the reliable administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents to patients undergoing operative procedures in which such a practice is judged to be beneficial and (2) to provide a guideline that will help local hospital committees formulate policies and set up mechanisms for their implementation. Although standards in the medical literature spell out recommendations for specific procedures, agents, schedules, and doses, other reports document that these standards frequently are not followed in practice. OPTIONS: We have specified the procedures in which the administration of prophylactic antimicrobial agents has been shown to be beneficial, those in which this practice is widely thought to be beneficial but in which compelling evidence is lacking, and those in which this practice is controversial. We have examined the evidence regarding the optimal timing of drug administration, the optimal dose, and the optimal duration of prophylaxis. OUTCOMES: The intended outcome is more uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics in those circumstances where their value has been demonstrated or their use has been judged by the local practicing medical community to be desirable. The result should be a reduction in rates of postoperative wound infection in conjunction with a limitation on the quantities of antimicrobial agents used in circumstances where they are not likely to help. EVIDENCE: Many prospective, randomized, controlled trials comparing placebo with antibiotic and comparing one antibiotic with another have been conducted. In addition, some trials have compared the efficacy of different doses or methods of administration. Other papers have reported on the apparent efficacy of administration at different times and on actual practice in specific communities. Only a small group of relevant articles found through 1993 are cited herein. When authoritative reviews are available, these--rather than an exhaustive list of original references--are cited. VALUES: We assumed that reducing rates of postoperative infection was valuable but that reducing the total amount of antimicrobial agents employed was also worthwhile. The cost of and morbidity attributable to postoperative wound infections should be weighted against the cost and potential morbidity associated with excessive use of antimicrobial agents. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: More reliable administration of antimicrobial agents according to recognized guidelines should prevent some postoperative wound infections while lowering the total quantity of these drugs used. No harms are anticipated. The costs involved are those of the efforts needed on a local basis to design and implement the mechanism that supports uniform and reliable administration of prophylactic antibiotics. RECOMMENDATIONS: All patients for whom prophylactic antimicrobial agents are recommended should receive them. The agents given should be appropriate in light of published guidelines. A short duration of prophylaxis (usually < 24 hours) is recommended. VALIDATION: More than 50 experts in infectious diseases and 10 experts in surgical infectious diseases and surgical subspecialties reviewed the standard. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for the treatment of bacteremia. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to optimize the treatment of bacteremia in hospitalized patients by ensuring that the antibiotic given is appropriate in terms of the blood culture susceptibility of the pathogen. Although this standard may appear to be minimal in scope, it is needed because appropriate antimicrobial treatment is not given in 5%-17% of cases. To implement the standard, physicians, pharmacists, and microbiologists will need to devise a coordinated strategy. OPTIONS: We considered criteria for appropriate dosing, most cost-effective selection, proper antibiotic levels in serum, least toxicity, narrowest spectrum, specific clinical indications, and optimal duration of treatment. All these criteria were rejected as the basis for the standard because they were too controversial and too difficult to be applied by a nonphysician chart reviewer. In contrast, the selection of an antibiotic to which the pathogen is sensitive is a noncontroversial criterion that is easy for a chart reviewer to apply. OUTCOMES: The standard is designed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes of septicemia, such as renal failure, prolonged hospitalization, and death. EVIDENCE: Several well-designed clinical trials without randomization as well as case-controlled studies have confirmed the benefit of using an antibiotic that is appropriate in light of the susceptibility of the isolate in blood culture. Prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are not available. VALUES: Our premise is that the presence of bacteremia is a risk factor for serious adverse outcomes. We also believe that the administration of antibiotics must always be guided by the susceptibility report for the pathogen(s) obtained from blood cultures. This concern is more critical for pathogens from the blood than for those from most other body sites. We had evidence that susceptibility reports for pathogens from positive blood cultures were not always used properly. We used group discussion to reach a consensus among the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Through the implementation of this standard, at least 5% of cases of bacteremia could be treated more appropriately. An unknown number of deaths would likely be prevented, and mortality from bacteremia treated inappropriately would probably be reduced. The primary undesirable feature of the standard is an increased workload for pharmacists and microbiologists. RECOMMENDATIONS: Treatment of bacteremia with an antibiotic that is appropriate in terms of the pathogen's blood-culture susceptibility is a minimal standard of care for all patients. VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 experts in infectious diseases from the fields of medicine, surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics and gynecology, nursing, epidemiology, pharmacology, and government. In addition, the methods for its implementation were reviewed by the American Society of Hospital Pharmacists and were tested by one of the members of the Quality Standards Subcommittee. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.L.B.). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed1994

Quality standard for assurance of measles immunity among health care workers. Infectious Diseases Society of America.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this quality standard is to prevent nosocomial transmission of measles by assuring universal measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. Although the primary emphasis is on health care workers in hospitals, those at other sites, such as clinics, nursing homes, and schools, are also included. It will be the responsibility of designated individuals at these institutions to implement the standard. OPTIONS: We considered advocating the use of measles vaccine rather than MMR vaccine but chose the latter because it also protects against mumps and rubella and because it is more readily available. OUTCOMES: The desired outcome is a reduction in the nosocomial transmission of measles. EVIDENCE: Although direct comparative studies are lacking, nosocomial outbreaks of measles have been reported (as recently as 1992) in institutions where measles immunization of nonimmune health care workers is not universal, whereas such outbreaks have not been reported in institutions with universal immunization. VALUES AND VALIDATION: We consulted more than 50 infectious-disease experts from the fields of epidemiology, government, medicine, nursing, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and surgery. In light of disagreement regarding the implementation of the standard, we used group discussions to reach a consensus. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: The consequences of the transmission of measles (and of mumps and rubella) in a health care institution include not only the morbidity and mortality attributable to the disease but also the significant cost of evaluating and containing an outbreak and the serious disruption of regular hospital routines when control measures are instituted. The potential harm to health care workers after the implementation of the standard consists of untoward effects of MMR vaccine, although the reactions of vaccinees should be minimal with adherence to recommended vaccination procedures. Implementation of the standard should entail no expense to health care workers; the precise cost to institutions is unknown, but the expense would be mitigated by the prevention of measles outbreaks. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend MMR vaccination of all health care workers who lack immunity to measles. SPONSORS: The Quality Standards Subcommittee of the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) developed the standard. The subcommittee was composed of representatives of the IDSA (P.A.G. and J.E.M.), the Society for Hospital Epidemiology of America (R.P.W.), the Surgical Infection Society (E.P.D.), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (P.J.K.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (W.J.M.), the Obstetrics and Gynecology Infectious Diseases Society (R.L.S.), and the Association of Practitioners of Infection Control (T.L.B.). Funding was provided by the IDSA and the other cooperating organizations. The standard is endorsed by the IDSA.

Cross Infection↗
PubMed1994

Efficient detection and long-term persistence of the carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The natural history of the carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was examined in a 9-year retrospective cohort study of 102 known carriers. The populations studied consisted of patients admitted to a university hospital from 1989 through 1991; a review extending back to January 1983 was conducted. The focuses of the study included the duration of carriage among patients who were known to have carried MRSA previously and who were readmitted to the hospital (36 patients) and the optimal anatomic site for screening (66 patients). Cultures of the nares (sensitivity, 93%; negative predictive value, 95%) were considerably more valuable for the detection of MRSA colonization than were cultures of cutaneous sites of the axilla, groin, and perineum (sensitivity, < or = 39%; negative predictive value, < or = 69%). The estimated half-life of MRSA colonization in this special population of patients was approximately 40 months. Restriction enzyme analysis of plasmid types of paired isolates from the 12 patients with MRSA carriage persisting for > 12 months revealed five instances (42%) in which both isolates were of the same type. In summary, our results indicate that the majority of readmitted carriers harbor MRSA for > 3 years and that, in this population, culture of the anterior nares alone (with culture of wound or sputum, when present) is a valid and efficient method for the detection of persistent MRSA carriage.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Investigation of the sequence of colonization and candidemia in nonneutropenic patients.

Among neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies, candidemia has been shown to arise typically from autoinfection after colonization. In patients without neutropenia, we examined the similarities of strains colonizing or infecting various body sites and those subsequently causing Candida bloodstream infections. Strain similarity was examined by karyotyping and restriction endonuclease analysis of genomic DNA (REAG) by using two restriction enzymes (SfiI and BssHII). The banding patterns of 42 isolates from 19 patients were independently evaluated in a blinded fashion by three observers. The interobserver reliability measured with a generalized kappa statistic was 0.59 for karyotyping, 0.84 for REAG with SfiI, and 0.88 for REAG with BssHII (P < 0.001 for each). REAG classified the initial colonizing or infecting isolate and subsequent blood isolates as identical in 16 patients (84%). The mean duration of colonization or infection prior to a positive blood culture was 5 and 23 days in patients infected with related and unrelated isolates, respectively (P = 0.14; 95% confidence interval = -14.5 to 50.5). Karyotyping results matched the REAG results for isolates from 14 of the 19 patients (74%). In patients infected with identical isolates, the initial isolate was most frequently recovered from the urine (n = 5) or vascular catheter tips (n = 4). In the five subjects with organisms showing disparate results between the methods, karyotyping revealed different banding patterns, whereas REAG suggested that the isolates were identical. Candida colonization or infection with an identical strain frequently precedes bloodstream infection in nonneutropenic patients. Future studies should evaluate whether patients at high risk for candidemia and who have vascular catheter or urine samples that are positive for a Candida on culture should be treated empirically.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Healthcare workers and the incidence of nosocomial infection: can treatment of one influence the other?--a brief review.

Nasal carriage by health care workers represents an important hospital reservoir of Staphylococcus aureus. Approximately 25% of all hospital-based healthcare workers are stable nasal carriers. Several studies in the US and UK have shown that following treatment of this group with a single 5-day course of intranasal mupirocin, nasal carriage was usually eradicated within 24 hours, and after 12 weeks was only present in 25% of participants. Long-term follow-up in one institution after 52 weeks showed that there were significantly fewer carriers in the mupirocin group than in the group receiving identical placebo. In the same study, between 30% and 50% of those hospital workers who carried S. aureus in their nose, before the start of therapy, were also hand carriers. After treatment, a dramatic reduction in hand carriage of S. aureus was noted, in contrast to no change in the placebo group. After 6 months, the level of hand carriage was still statistically lower in the mupirocin group than in those given placebo. The association between nasal carriage and hand carriage makes it important that health care workers decontaminate their hands effectively between patients. Current evidence suggests, however, that compliance with such control measures is low. Other studies examining the role of S. aureus nasal carriage in the development of post-operative wound infection, have shown that almost half of those isolates recovered from the wound site were present in the nose of the patient pre-operatively. Due to its ability to eliminate nasal carriage of S. aureus, current studies are investigating whether intranasal mupirocin can prevent post-operative wound infections in patients undergoing surgery.

Cross Infection↗
PubMed1993

The epidemiology of intravenous vancomycin usage in a university hospital. A 10-year study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the trends of intravenous vancomycin usage during a 10-year period, to classify the indications for which physicians prescribed the antibiotic, and to identify the independent predictors for empirical use of vancomycin. DESIGN: A descriptive epidemiological study, a cross-sectional study, and a case-control study were performed. SETTING: A 900-bed university-teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The annual crude usage (grams) and incidence density (grams/1000 patient-days) of vancomycin were measured for 10 years (July 1981 to July 1991). In 109 randomly selected patient medical records, we evaluated the proportion of usage of vancomycin classified as prophylaxis, empirical therapy, or specifically directed therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify determinants of empirical administration of vancomycin vs a penicillase-resistant penicillin to 64 case patients and 64 control patients. RESULTS: The rate of vancomycin usage increased 20-fold from 5.72 g/1000 patient-days in 1981 to 121.25 g/1000 patient-days in 1991. The use of vancomycin was significantly higher (P < .0001) in hematology-oncology areas compared with that in other hospital areas. The rates for each indication for vancomycin were 35.0% for prophylaxis 31.8% for empirical therapy, and 33.2% for therapy specifically directed by culture results. In a multivariate analysis, the presence of "plastic" medical devices was the best independent predictor for patients receiving vancomycin: intravenous lines (odds ratio [OR], 6.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.28 to 17.06; P < .001), Hickman catheters (OR, 76.12; 95% CI, 15.06 to 384.73; P < .001), and other medical devices (OR, 10.50; 95% CI, 2.54 to 43.38; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Vancomycin use has increased linearly in the last decade primarily related to the presence of indwelling vascular devices in hematology-oncology patients. Use of vancomycin is equally divided among empirical therapy, prophylaxis, and specific therapy for a documented infection.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed1993

Importance of pre-existing co-morbidities for prognosis of septicemia in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine admission characteristics associated with the outcome of septicemia in critically ill patients and more specifically assess the prognostic value of pre-existing co-morbidities. DESIGN: 5 year-retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU-20 beds) in a 1600 bed-tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Among 5457 patients admitted to the ICU between 1984 and 1988, 176 (3.2%) met prospectively-defined criteria for blood culture-proven septicemia (8.77 per 1000 patient-days). Overall septicemic patients had a 5-fold increased risk of death compared to non-septicemic patients (relative risk 5.03, 95% confidence intervals 4.17-6.07, p < 0.0001), and this estimate persisted after stratification according to age, sex, primary diagnosis and conditions of admission to the ICU (emergency/elective). RESULTS: Prognostic factors recorded on admission to ICU that were associated with mortality from septicemia among 173 patients were older age, higher admission Apache II score, gastrointestinal surgery, ultimately and rapidly fatal diseases and the number of co-morbidities in addition to the principal diagnosis (active smoking, alcohol abuse, non-cured malignancy, diabetes mellitus, splenectomy, recent antibiotic therapy, major surgery, or major cardiac event). In the multivariate analysis with logistic regression procedures, Apache II and co-morbidities were identified as the two independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing co-morbidities assessed at the admission to the ICU significantly improved the prediction of mortality from septicemia compared to Apache II score alone.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

Association of secondary and polymicrobial nosocomial bloodstream infections with higher mortality.

The objective of this study was to characterize microbiological factors independently associated with higher mortality rates following nosocomial bloodstream infection. All patients admitted to the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics between 1 July 1989 and 30 June 1990 who developed a nosocomial bloodstream infection were included. The crude in-house mortality for the 364 patients with nosocomial bloodstream infections was 33%. These deaths accounted for 25% of all in-hospital deaths. Significant risk factors for death from bloodstream infection included diagnoses of cancers and diseases of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems (p < 0.01). Neither previous surgery nor neutropenia was associated with higher mortality rates. Whereas the crude mortality rates associated with gram-negative (33%) and gram-positive (31%) bloodstream infections were similar, that associated with fungemia was higher (54%, p < 0.02). The mortality associated with secondary bloodstream infections (46%) was higher than that associated with primary bloodstream infections (28%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, polymicrobial infections had a worse prognosis than infections from which a single pathogen was isolated (p < 0.05). A multivariate, logistic regression model identified four variables that independently predicted mortality (p = 0.025): age (OR 1.01 per year; CI95 1.00-1.02); cancer (OR 2.35, CI95 1.26-4.37) or diseases of the cardiovascular or respiratory systems (OR 2.20, CI95 1.04-4.67); polymicrobial infection (OR 2.34; CI95 1.21-4.53); and secondary bloodstream infection (OR 2.46; CI95 1.50-4.02). The last variable was the strongest independent predictor. Our study demonstrates the importance of microbiological factors in the outcome of nosocomial bloodstream infections.

Age Factors↗
PubMed1993

Postoperative wound infection after total abdominal hysterectomy: a controlled study of the increased duration of hospital stay and trends in postoperative wound infection.

BACKGROUND: Total abdominal hysterectomy, a common operative procedure, is infrequently accompanied by incisional wound infection. No recent study has examined the excess hospital stay attributable to such infections. METHODS: This historical cohort study of cases and matched controls was performed in a tertiary care university hospital. RESULTS: During the 5-year study period (1985 to 1989), the infection rate was 10.5 per 100 procedures; patients with infection remained hospitalized 3.55 days longer than did matched control patients (p = 0.0025). CONCLUSION: In this era after the introduction of the diagnosis-related groups for reimbursement, incisional wound infection after total abdominal hysterectomy leads to a significant period of extra hospital stay.

Adult↗