Intensive care unit-acquired infections: is postdischarge surveillance useful?
Détails
ID Serval
serval:BIB_B2B995B913EF
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
Intensive care unit-acquired infections: is postdischarge surveillance useful?
Périodique
Critical care medicine
ISSN
0090-3493 (Print)
ISSN-L
0090-3493
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
12/2002
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
30
Numéro
12
Pages
2636-2638
Langue
anglais
Notes
Publication types: Journal Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Résumé
To assess the added value of surveying patients after discharge from the intensive care unit.
Prospective cohort study.
Medical intensive care unit of a large teaching hospital.
All patients admitted to the intensive care unit for 48 hrs or more from October 1995 to November 1997.
We prospectively surveyed 1,068 patients during their intensive care unit stay and for 5 days after intensive care unit discharge. We detected 554 intensive care unit-acquired infections, yielding an infection rate of 70.7 per 1,000 patient days. Of these, only 31 infections (5.6%) in 27 patients were detected after intensive care unit discharge. If postdischarge surveillance was targeted on patients who had had a central vascular catheter while in the intensive care unit, only one infected patient would have been missed, but only 554 out of 889 would have been followed up (sensitivity, 96.2%; specificity, 38.7%; negative predictive value, 99.7%).
Surveillance of all patients discharged from the medical intensive care unit is not recommended, as it is resource demanding and allows the detection of few additional infections. However, targeted postdischarge surveillance could be a rational alternative, and selection criteria need to be refined and validated.
Prospective cohort study.
Medical intensive care unit of a large teaching hospital.
All patients admitted to the intensive care unit for 48 hrs or more from October 1995 to November 1997.
We prospectively surveyed 1,068 patients during their intensive care unit stay and for 5 days after intensive care unit discharge. We detected 554 intensive care unit-acquired infections, yielding an infection rate of 70.7 per 1,000 patient days. Of these, only 31 infections (5.6%) in 27 patients were detected after intensive care unit discharge. If postdischarge surveillance was targeted on patients who had had a central vascular catheter while in the intensive care unit, only one infected patient would have been missed, but only 554 out of 889 would have been followed up (sensitivity, 96.2%; specificity, 38.7%; negative predictive value, 99.7%).
Surveillance of all patients discharged from the medical intensive care unit is not recommended, as it is resource demanding and allows the detection of few additional infections. However, targeted postdischarge surveillance could be a rational alternative, and selection criteria need to be refined and validated.
Mots-clé
Aftercare/methods, Cross Infection/epidemiology, Cross Infection/prevention & control, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Population Surveillance, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Switzerland/epidemiology
Pubmed
Web of science
Création de la notice
24/01/2008 16:57
Dernière modification de la notice
09/04/2024 6:14