We Dutch, we love gut decontamination. Not only in critically ill patients, but also in those undergoing elective colorectal surgery. A decontaminated gut is a safe gut, and that feeling was based on data from Dutch studies. A new study from Finland, published in Lancet, now questions whether our gut feeling was correct. Continue reading
Marc recently posted about the second clinical outcome findings from the BETR-D study, recently published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases. Marc contended that the team may have been ‘blinded by the [UV] light’ in reaching the conclusion that enhanced terminal room disinfection led to a hospital wide reduction in acquisition of key pathogens. Here, in the spirit of healthy academic debate, I offer another perspective.
With the first paper on Selective Digestive Decontamination in ICU patients published in 1983, this year marks the 35th anniversary of one the fiercest controversies in intensive care medicine, infection prevention and clinical microbiology. To celebrate this, Intensive Care Medicine published 3 editorials called the “Antipathy against SDD is justified”: 1 arguing Pro, 1 Con and 1 wasn’t sure. If the contents of these editorials had been patients, a (good) physician would have called them “diagnostic”. SDD is where clinical epidemiology becomes psychology and sociology. Continue reading
Last year (Jan 17, 2017) I blogged on an excellent pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover study in which 4 patient room cleaning strategies were tested for their effectiveness to reduce acquisition of bacterial carriage for the incoming patients. The authors’ conclusion was that “enhanced terminal room disinfection decreases the risk of pathogen acquisition”, which I interpreted as “Not for C. diff, may be for MRSA and yes for VRE.” Now the same group published the effects of these interventions on infection/colonization with these pathogens in ALL patients admitted to the hospital during the study period, see. Authors’ conclusion this time: “Enhanced terminal room disinfection with UV in a targeted subset of high-risk rooms led to a decrease in hospital-wide incidence of C difficile and VRE.” Really? Continue reading
Shortages?! Slowly, I get used to it. Basic antibiotics such as penicillins, CHX-wipes, or now, mupirocin. From what I hear we have to expect severe shortages (= no product) for the next few months. As the use of mupirocin for nasal decolonization of S. aureus (in combination with CHX skin wash) has become part of the pre-operative care for certain indications, the obvious question is: WHAT SHOULD I USE INSTEAD?
A month ago I blogged on the practices of pre-operative (or better peri-operative) treatment of nasal S. aureus carriage to prevent S. aureus surgical site infection (SSI) in orthopaedic or cardiothoracic surgery patients. The issue brought forward was that a “treat-all” (thus “screen none”) strategy is more feasible, more effective and cheaper than the “screen & treat” strategy. The latter strategy, is associated with less mupirocin exposure and thus less selective pressure for mupirocin-resistance genes. There was a poll with 2 questions. What is your current practice for patients undergoing orthopaedic or cardiothoracic surgery and what do you think the strategy should be, with 3 options for each question; “do nothing”, “screen & treat”, or “treat all”. Today the results. Continue reading
Pre-operative (or better peri-operative) treatment of nasal S. aureus carriage is one of the most – if not the most – effective infection prevention measure. A large double-blind randomized controlled trial convincingly confirmed the meta-analysis results of previously performed smaller studies: 5 days of nasal mupirocin ointment together with chlorhexidine showering reduced the incidence of deep-seated S. aureus surgicial site infection (SSI) with 80% among S. aureus carriers undergoing orthopaedic or cardiothoracic surgery. Eight years after publication of these findings I (and others) still have the feeling that many hospitals have not implemented this measure. Continue reading