Background: Antimicrobials have been widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the antimicrobial consumption of 66 hospitals in Catalonia. Methods: Adult antibacterial and antimycotic consumption was calculated as defined daily doses (DDD)/100 bed-days and DDD/100 discharges. Firstly, overall and ICU consumption in 2019 and 2020 were compared. Secondly, observed ICU 2020 consumptions were compared with non-COVID-19 2020 estimated consumptions (based on the trend from 2008–2019). Results: Overall, antibacterial consumption increased by 2.31% and 4.15% DDD/100 bed-days and DDD/100 discharges, respectively. Azithromycin (105.4% and 109.08% DDD/100 bed-days and DDD/100 discharges, respectively) and ceftriaxone (25.72% and 27.97% DDD/100 bed-days and DDD/100 discharges, respectively) mainly accounted for this finding. Likewise, antifungal consumption increased by 10.25% DDD/100 bed-days and 12.22% DDD/100 discharges, mainly due to echinocandins or amphotericin B. ICU antibacterial and antimycotic consumption decreased by 1.28% and 4.35% DDD/100 bed-days, respectively. On the contrary, antibacterial and antifungal use, expressed in DDD/100 discharges, increased by 23.42% and 19.58%. Azithromycin (275.09%), ceftriaxone (55.11%), cefepime (106.35%), vancomycin (29.81%), linezolid (31.28%), amphotericin B (87.98%), and voriconazole (96.17%) use changed the most. Observed consumption of amphotericin B, azithromycin, caspofungin, ceftriaxone, vancomycin, and voriconazole were higher than estimated values. Conclusions: The consumption indicators for most antimicrobials deviated from the expected trend pattern. A worrisome increase in antibacterial and antifungal consumption was observed in ICUs in Catalonia.
To determine the impact of a multimodal intervention designed to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) outside the ICU, we conducted a prospective, quasi-experimental, before-after intervention study in 11 hospitals participating in the VINCat programme in Catalonia, Spain. The intervention consists of: (i) an evidence-based bundle of practices relating to catheter insertion and maintenance; (ii) a training programme for healthcare workers; (iii) four point-prevalence surveys to track the status of the catheters; and (iv) feedback reports to the staff involved. The study included both central (CVC) and peripheral venous catheters (PVCs). Rates of CRBSI per 1000 patient-days were prospectively measured in 2009 (pre-intervention period) and 2010 (post-intervention period). The analysis included 1 191 843 patient-days in 2009 and 1 173 672 patient-days in 2010. The overall incidence of CRBSI decreased from 0.19 to 0.15 (p 0.04) and the incidence of CRBSI associated with a CVC decreased from 0.14 to 0.10 (p 0.004) after the intervention. The incidence in PVCs remained unchanged. There was a statistically significant improvement in the adequate maintenance of both CVCs and PVCs. Among the CRBSIs originating in PVCs, 61.8% appeared more than 72 h every insertion. There was a lower infection rate in the hospitals with a higher adherence to the recommendation to replace PVCs after 72 h. Our findings suggest that the implementation of intervention programmes similar to ours could have a major impact on patient safety by reducing the incidence of CRBSIs, and that routine replacement of PVCs might additionally prevent a significant number of bloodstream infections.
BackgroundOrgan-space surgical site infections (SSI) are the most serious and costly infections after colorectal surgery. Most previous studies of risk factors for SSI have analysed colon and rectal procedures together. The aim of the study was to determine whether colon and rectal procedures have different risk factors and outcomes for organ-space SSI.MethodsA multicentre observational prospective cohort study of adults undergoing elective colon and rectal procedures at 10 Spanish hospitals from 2011 to 2014. Patients were followed up until 30 days post-surgery. Surgical site infection was defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) was considered as the administration of oral antibiotics the day before surgery combined with systemic intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis.ResultsOf 3,701 patients, 2,518 (68%) underwent colon surgery and 1,183 (32%) rectal surgery. In colon surgery, the overall SSI rate was 16.4% and the organ-space SSI rate was 7.9%, while in rectal surgery the rates were 21.6% and 11.5% respectively (p < 0.001). Independent risk factors for organ-space SSI in colon surgery were male sex (Odds ratio -OR-: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14–2.15) and ostomy creation (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.8–3.92) while laparoscopy (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.38–0.69) and OAP combined with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (OR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.51–0.97) were protective factors. In rectal surgery, independent risk factors for organ-space SSI were male sex (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.34–3.31) and longer surgery (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.03–2.15), whereas OAP with intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32–0.73) was a protective factor. Among patients with organ-space SSI, we found a significant difference in the overall 30-day mortality, being higher in colon surgery than in rectal surgery (11.5% vs 5.1%, p = 0.04).ConclusionsOrgan-space SSI in colon and rectal surgery has some differences in terms of incidence, risk factors and outcomes. These differences could be considered for surveillance purposes and for the implementation of preventive strategies. Administration of OAP would be an important measure to reduce the OS-SSI rate in both colon and rectal surgeries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.