Nosocomial infection remains the most frequent complication associated with hospitalization, presenting a serious burden in terms of health care costs, morbidity, and possibly also mortality [1, 2]. Especially intensive care unit (ICU) patients are at risk of infection because of their decreased immune status due to an often debilitated physical condition and exposure to numerous invasive procedures. Therefore surveillance of nosocomial infections is of utmost importance when considering quality control in ICUs. Strict follow-up of the incidence of some of the most prevalent infections (pneumonia, bacteremia, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection) is essential to assess the quality of infection control and to evaluate the value of interventions introduced to minimize the threat of hospital-acquired infection.
In Intensive Care Medicine van der Kooi et al. [3] now describe the results of a 4-year surveillance of nosocomial infections in 19 Dutch ICUs. The authors focused on device-associated infections. This is a good choice, because these infections constitute a substantial proportion of infectious episodes, and because the incidence of device-associated infections is a good quality-of-care indicator. In addition, device-associated infections can be expressed per 1,000 device-days, which is far more discriminating than expressing infection rates per 1,000 days in the ICU or per 1,000 ICU admissions [4, 5]. Only the use of a denominator expressing a fixed number of days at risk (device-days) can allow a fair interpretation of trends in infection rates over longer periods of time.
In their study van der Kooi et al. [3] found that duration of device use was a risk factor for device-associated infection. It seems quite logical that infection risk increases with exposure time to the factor inherently associated with the infection itself. The relationship between exposure time and likelihood of infection has been repeatedly described [6, 7, 8]. Although the finding of van der Kooi et al. is not surprising, the message remains of great importance. In addition to strict hand hygiene, limiting the number of device-days is a top priority for reducing nosocomial infections. Successful interventions are those succeeding in reducing the length of endotracheal intubation or catheterization. Reduction in length of ventilation by only 1 or 2 days substantially decreases the probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [7, 8]. A proactive weaning protocol may serve this goal [9]. Berentholtz et al. [10] nearly eliminated catheter-related bloodstream infection (CR-BSI) by the introduction of a multifaceted intervention program. Increasing the awareness of the problem and assessing daily the possibility of removing the catheter were major steps in this successful program.
van der Kooi et al. did not found higher mortality among patients with VAP or CR-BSI and catheter-associated urinary tract infections after adjusting for confounding factors. On the other hand, number of device-days was an independent predictor of fatal outcome. Caution is warranted by such a statement. It must be noted that regression models do not indicate causality. Why should patients die because of being catheterized for a longer period, especially while CR-BSI does not contribute to mortality? Number of days at risk is often considered a major confounder in outcome studies, but this does not mean that it necessarily results in worse outcomes [11]. A longer need for ICU stay, devices used, and a higher mortality are far more likely the result of critical underlying conditions. The value of analyses linking device-days with mortality can be questioned as their relevance is tiny and they are prone to misinterpretation.
More intriguing is the relationship between the infection itself and mortality. The observation that CR-BSI does not significant increase mortality has been well addressed previously [1, 12]. There is ore discussion about excess mortality of pneumonia. van der Kooi et al. show that patients with VAP do not have a higher mortality. In general the mortality attributable to VAP ranges from 5% to 50% [6]. Several factors may explain these differences. Firstly, the diagnosis of VAP remains a tricky issue [13]. Although widely used, the definition published by the Centers for Disease Control include wide room for interpretation and may result in the inclusion of patients meeting the definition only in a borderline fashion. The definitions proposed by the International Sepsis Forum offer a more solid basis for identifying patients with pneumonia [14]. The fact that patients are classified as having possible, probable, or confirmed pneumonia in a post-hoc manner does not hamper their use for surveillance purposes. Secondly, given the numerous confounding factors in nosocomial infections and outcome, matching criteria may affect the results a matched cohort study [11]. Matched cohort studies in which matching criteria include a severity of disease score are more likely to demonstrate rather small attributable mortality rates than those in which matching is based on more general characteristics such as age, gender, and length of hospitalization [1, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]. Thirdly, quality of care is essential for optimizing the odds for survival. In particular, early recognition of sepsis followed by appropriate antimicrobial therapy in terms of timely initiation, pathogen coverage, correct dosing, and route [26, 27, 28, 29].
In any case, whether nosocomial infections do contribute to increased death does not cast doubt on the need for careful monitoring. Efforts to reduce the incidence of infections remain essential because of associated excesses in morbidity, length of ICU stay, and health care resources use [6, 12, 30].
References
Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF, Tafflet M, Misset B, Zahar JR, Soufir L, Lazard T, Jamali S, Mourvillier B, Cohen Y, De Lassence A, Azoulay E, Cheval C, Descorps-Declere A, Adrie C, Costa de Beauregard MA, Carlet J (2006) Excess risk of death from intensive care unit-acquired nosocomial bloodstream infections: a reappraisal. Clin Infect Dis 42:1118–1126
Rello J, Ollendorf DA, Oster G, Vera-Llonch M, Bellm L, Redman R, Kollef MH (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a large US database. Chest 122:2115–2121
van der Kooi T, de Boer A, Manniën J, Wille J, Beaumont M, Mooi B, van den Hof S (2006) Incidence and risk factors of device-associated infections and associated mortality at the intensive care in the Dutch surveillance system. Intensive Care Med (DOI 10.1007/s00134-006-0464-3)
Eggimann P, Hugonnet S, Sax H, Touveneau S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D (2003) Ventilator-associated pneumonia: caveats for benchmarking. Intensive Care Med 29:2086–2089
Mori H, Hirasawa H, Oda S, Shiga H, Matsuda K, Nakamura M (2006) Oral care reduces incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in ICU populations. Intensive Care Med 32:230–236
Safdar N, Dezfulian C, Collard HR, Saint S (2005) Clinical and economic consequences of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 33:2184–2193
Cook DJ, Walter SD, Cook RJ, Griffith LE, Guyatt GH, Leasa D, Jaeschke RZ, Brun-Buisson C (1998) Incidence of and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients. Ann Intern Med 129:433–440
Myny D, Depuydt P, Colardyn F, Blot S (2005) Ventilator-associated pneumonia in a tertiary care ICU: analysis of risk factors for acquisition and mortality. Acta Clin Belg 60:114–121
Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB (2000) Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med 342:1471–1477
Berenholtz SM, Pronovost PJ, Lipsett PA, Hobson D, Earsing K, Farley JE, Milanovich S, Garrett-Mayer E, Winters BD, Rubin HR, Dorman T, Perl TM (2004) Eliminating catheter-related bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 32:2014–2020
Blot S, De Bacquer D, Hoste E, Depuydt P, Vandewoude K, De Waele J, Benoit D, De Schuijmer J, Colardyn F, Vogelaers D (2005) Influence of matching for exposure time on estimates of attributable mortality caused by nosocomial bacteremia in critically ill patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 26:352–356
Blot SI, Depuydt P, Annemans L, Benoit D, Hoste E, De Waele JJ, Decruyenaere J, Vogelaers D, Colardyn F, Vandewoude KH (2005) Clinical and economic outcomes in critically ill patients with nosocomial catheter-related bloodstream infections. Clin Infect Dis 41:1591–1598
Depuydt P, Myny D, Blot S (2006) Nosocomial pneumonia: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Pulm Med 12:192–197
Calandra T, Cohen J (2005) The international sepsis forum consensus conference on definitions of infection in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 33:1538–1548
Blot S, Vandewoude K, Hoste E, Colardyn F (2003) Reappraisal of attributable mortality in critically ill patients with nosocomial bacteraemia involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J Hosp Infect 53:18–24
Blot S, Vandewoude K, Hoste E, De Waele J, Kint K, Rosiers F, Vogelaers D, Colardyn F (2003) Absence of excess mortality in critically ill patients with nosocomial Escherichia coli bacteremia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 24:912–915
Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, Colardyn FA (2002) Clinical impact of nosocomial Klebsiella bacteremia in critically ill patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 21:471–473
Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Griffith L, Keenan SP, Brun-Buisson C (1999) The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. The Canadian Critical Trials Group. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159:1249–1256
Blot SI, Vandewoude KH, Hoste EA, Colardyn FA (2002) Effects of nosocomial candidemia on outcomes of critically ill patients. Am J Med 113:480–485
Girou E, Stephan F, Novara A, Safar M, Fagon JY (1998) Risk factors and outcome of nosocomial infections: results of a matched case-control study of ICU patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 157:1151–1158
Lodise TP, McKinnon PS, Tam VH, Rybak MJ (2002) Clinical outcomes for patients with bacteremia caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococcus in a level 1 trauma center. Clin Infect Dis 34:922–929
Blot S, Vandewoude K, Colardyn F (2003) Nosocomial bacteremia involving Acinetobacter baumannii in critically ill patients: a matched cohort study. Intensive Care Med 29:471–475
Leleu G, Aegerter P, Guidet B (2002) Systemic candidiasis in intensive care units: a multicenter, matched-cohort study. J Crit Care 17:168–175
Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP (1994) Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 271:1598–1601
Rello J, Sole-Violan J, Sa-Borges M, Garnacho-Montero J, Munoz E, Sirgo G, Olona M, Diaz E (2005) Pneumonia caused by oxacillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus treated with glycopeptides. Crit Care Med 33:1983–1987
Blot S, Vandewoude K (2004) Early detection of systemic infection. Acta Clin Belg 59:20–23
Colardyn F (2005) Appropriate and timely empirical antimicrobial treatment of icu infections-a role for carbapenems. Acta Clin Belg 60:51–62
Harbarth S, Garbino J, Pugin J, Romand JA, Lew D, Pittet D (2003) Inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy and its effect on survival in a clinical trial of immunomodulating therapy for severe sepsis. Am J Med 115:529–535
Pea F, Viale P (2006) The antimicrobial therapy puzzle: could pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships be helpful in addressing the issue of appropriate pneumonia treatment in critically ill patients? Clin Infect Dis 42:1764–1771
Rossi C, Simini B, Brazzi L, Rossi G, Radrizzani D, Iapichino G, Bertolini G (2006) Variable costs of ICU patients: a multicenter prospective study. Intensive Care Med 32:545–552
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This editorial refers to the article available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0464-3
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blot, S.I., Peleman, R. & Vandewoude, K.H. Invasive devices: no need? No use!. Intensive Care Med 33, 209–211 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0465-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0465-2