Following the identification of two clinical isolates of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) from intensive care unit (ICU) patients, a surveillance programme detected that six of eight ICU patients were colonised by VRE. Standard epidemic control measures were instituted in the ICU. During a 16-month period, 13 (2.5%) of 509 ICU patients had VRE-positive swabs upon admission, and 43 (8.7%) of 496 VRE-negative patients were colonised by VRE in the ICU. Patients who acquired VRE in the ICU had a longer ICU stay (p < 0.0001). No other statistically significant differences were demonstrated. Two patients had documented infection (infection/colonisation index, 3.6%; overall VRE infection frequency, 0.4%), but both recovered and were discharged. VRE colonisation did not increase the mortality rate. Automated ribotyping identified three clusters containing, respectively, the first 52 Enterococcus faecium isolates, two Enterococcus faecalis isolates, and two further isolates of E. faecium. Multilocus sequence typing demonstrated that two E. faecium isolates representative of the two ribotypes belonged to sequence types 78 and 18, and that these two isolates belonged to the epidemic lineage C1, which includes isolates with a wide circulation in northern Italy. The outbreak was controlled by continuous implementation of the infection control programme, and by the opening of a new unit with an improved structural design and hand-washing facilities.

This study confirmed the specific features of critically ill A(H1N1) patients (i.e., young age, pregnancy, obesity). The pandemic did not increase ICU workload compared with other periods. A(H1N1) pneumonia did not have a higher risk of death than CAP of different origin among patients admitted to the ICU.

Diagnosis and treatment of infection is a common procedure in the clinical management of patients in the ICU. Infection in the ICU is an important area for study, but requires well-defined and proven diagnostic criteria. The diagnosis of infection, like any diagnosis, is based on probability, and diagnostic criteria are therefore selected according to the physician's objectives and the acceptable margin of error. It is easier to diagnose correctly a full-blown, severe bacterial infection than one that is just beginning, and the same criteria cannot be used to identify accurately both conditions. We should diagnose an infectious complication at the time it needs treatment, but there is often a lack of clear objectives in the diagnostic process, and up to now, few reliable criteria have been available. Before considering the sensitivity and specificity of single diagnostic procedures it is important to trace the evolution of the infection. The problem may be approached in two steps, by describing or defining (i) the minimum level of severity of a probable infection which requires/justifies specific treatment as the first end-point of the diagnosis, and (ii) the ways the diagnosis may be confirmed using the best available procedure (which might not be always available or applicable in all cases in the short term).

No abstract

After the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak in March 2020, the majority of hospital policies have followed guidelines aimed to prevent the virus transmission and the families’ entry was denied in all hospital wards and intensive care units (ICU). Despite being necessary, such restrictions have been experienced with discomfort and sufferings by the general ICU staff of Treviso Hospital (Italy) and by families of patients. Therefore, from April 2020, a step-by-step project was developed to reactivate contact with COVID-19 patients’ families. The several requests and appeals of intensive care communities and organizations, both nationally and internationally, motivated the Treviso hospital initiative, leading to a model that might be potentially useful to other intensive care units worldwide.

No abstract