Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus outbreak in a pre- and post-cardiothoracic transplant population: Impact of discontinuing multidrug-resistant organism surveillance during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Many institutions suspended surveillance and contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) at the outset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to a lack of resources. Once our institution reinstated surveillance in September 2020, a vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) faecium outbreak was detected in the cardiothoracic transplant units, a population in which we had not previously detected outbreaks. METHODS: An outbreak investigation was conducted using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis for strain typing and electronic medical record review to determine the clinical characteristics of involved patients. The infection prevention (IP) team convened a multidisciplinary process improvement team comprised of IP, cardiothoracic transplant nursing and medical leadership, environmental services, and the microbiology laboratory. RESULTS: Between December 2020 and March 2021, the outbreak involved thirteen patients in the cardiothoracic transplant units, four index cases, and nine transmissions. Of the 13, seven (54%) were on the transplant service, including heart and lung transplant recipients, patients with ventricular assist devices, and a patient on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplantation. Four of 13 (31%) developed a clinical infection. DISCUSSION: Cardiothoracic surgery/transplant patients may have a similar risk for VRE-associated morbidity as abdominal solid organ transplant and stem cell transplant patients, highlighting the need for aggressive outbreak management when VRE transmission is detected. Our experience demonstrates an unintended consequence of discontinuing MDRO surveillance in this population and highlights a need for education, monitoring, and reinforcement of foundational infection prevention measures to ensure optimal outcomes.

Does Active Chest Tube Clearance After Cardiac Surgery Provide Any Clear Benefits?

BACKGROUND: Retained blood syndrome (RBS) encompasses complications, acute and chronic, related to inflammation created by retained intrathoracic blood after cardiac surgery. Reports suggest that active chest tube clearance devices reduce RBS and may lower the rates of reoperation for bleeding and postoperative atrial fibrillation. METHODS: In a prospective study (April 2015-October 2017), 1367 patients meeting the study inclusion criteria (1113 control subjects with conventional chest tubes and 254 patients with active chest tube clearance devices [the ATC group]) underwent cardiac surgery through primary sternotomy. RESULTS: Groups were similar in their preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. No differences were found in overall RBS occurrence (4.3% in the ATC group vs 5.3% in the control group; P = .527), including the components of reexploration for bleeding (2.0% [5/254] for the ATC group and 2.4% [27/1113] for the control group; P = .664) and pleural effusion requiring intervention (3.1% [8/254] vs 3.6% [40/1113]; P = .729). Postoperative atrial fibrillation (20.8% [52/254] vs 20.2 % [221/1113]; P = .837) and 30-day mortality were also similar (3.5% vs 2.2%; P = .231). Postoperative blood product use was 31.9% (81/254) in the ATC group and 28.7% (319/1113) in the control group (P = .308). Some complications were more common in the ATC group, including septicemia (2.4% [6/254] vs 0.7% [8/1113]; P = .019) and renal failure (3.9% [10/254] vs 1.7% [19/1113]; P = .026). Median postoperative length of stay was shorter in the ATC group (5 days vs 6 days; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Active chest tube clearance devices were not associated with improved postoperative outcomes related to RBS at the study institution (Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL). Given the additional cost, the nursing effort to maintain the active chest tube clearance devices, and the lack of apparent benefit, this study did not demonstrate the value of using such devices in cardiac surgery.

Outcomes of 3-day discharge after elective cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Shorter length of stay (LOS) is a welcome consequence of optimized perioperative care. However, accelerated hospital discharge may have unintended consequences. Before implementing an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, we evaluated the safety of shorter LOS and compared outcomes of patients with shorter LOS (LOS ≤ 3 days) to those with longer LOS (LOS > 3 days). METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between July 2004 and June 2017. Transcatheter approaches, ventricular assist devices, transplants, and traumas were excluded. Patients were divided into two cohorts, one with shorter hospitalizations (LOS ≤ 3 days) and one with longer hospitalizations (LOS > 3 days). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and differences between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 5,987 patients (63.0 ± 13.8 years old, 34% female) were identified and 131 (2.2%) patients were LOS ≤ 3 days; median STS Risk score was 1.2 (0.6-2.4). PSM resulted in a total of 478 patients (357 LOS > 3 and 121 LOS ≤ 3 days); median STS Risk score was 0.4 (0.3-0.9). LOS ≤ 3 days had lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation (2% vs. 19%; p < .001) and major in-hospital complications (0% vs. 9%; p = .001); however, 30-day readmissions (8% LOS ≤ 3 vs. 6% LOS > 3 days; p = .66) and mortality rates (0% vs. 0%) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LOS ≤ 3 days was associated with less postoperative atrial fibrillation and fewer major in-hospital complications. LOS ≤ 3 days was not associated with rehospitalization or mortality. Shorter LOS after elective cardiac surgery appears to be a safe practice with favorable outcomes, especially in low operative risk patients.