Do Contact Precautions Reduce the Incidence of Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections? The DPCPYO (Detection and Contact Precautions for Patients With P. aeruginosa) Cluster-Randomized Crossover Trial
Language
EN
Article de revue
This item was published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2021-11-02, vol. 73, n° 9, p. e2781-e2788
English Abstract
BACKGROUND: The issue of contact precautions as contributory factors for reducing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) infections in intensive care units (ICUs) remains questioned. We evaluated the impact of the addition of contact ...Read more >
BACKGROUND: The issue of contact precautions as contributory factors for reducing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (Pa) infections in intensive care units (ICUs) remains questioned. We evaluated the impact of the addition of contact precautions to standard precautions for Pa-positive patients on incidence of ICU-acquired Pa infections. METHODS: In this multicenter, cluster-randomized crossover trial, 10 French ICUs were randomly assigned (1:1) to sequence 0-1 (6-month control period [CP]/3-month washout period/6-month intervention period [IP]) or sequence 1-0 (6-month IP/3-month washout period/6-month CP). A surveillance screening program for Pa was implemented. Competing-risks regression models were built with death and discharge without the occurrence of ICU-acquired Pa infection (the primary outcome) as competing events. Models were adjusted for within-ICU correlation and patient- and ICU-level covariates. The Simpson diversity index (SDI) and transmission index (TI) of Pa isolates were derived from pulsed-field gel electrophoresis typing. RESULTS: Within recruited ICUs, the cumulative incidence and incidence rate of ICU-acquired Pa infections were 3.38% (55/1625) versus 3.44% (57/1658) and 3.31 versus 3.52 per 1000 patient-days at risk during the CP and IP, respectively. Multivariable models indicated that the intervention did not significantly change the cumulative incidence (subdistribution hazard ratio, .91; 95% confidence interval [CI], .49-1.67; P = .76) or rate (cause-specific hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, .71-2.63; P = .36) of the primary outcome. SDI and TI did not significantly differ between CP and IP. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of contact precautions to standard precautions for Pa-positive patients with a surveillance screening program does not significantly reduce ICU-acquired Pa infections in non-outbreak situations. Clinical Trials Registration. ISRCTN92710225.Read less <
English Keywords
Contact precautions
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
ICU
Patient-to-patient transmission
PFGE