Antiseptic impregnated endotracheal tubes for the prevention of bacterial colonization.

The effect of endotracheal tubes (ETTs) impregnated with chlorhexidine (CHX) and silver carbonate (antiseptic ETTs) against Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Enterobacter aerogenes [organisms associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP)], was evaluated in a laboratory airway model. Antiseptic ETTs and control ETTs (unimpregnated) were inserted in culture tubes half-filled with agar media (airway model) previously contaminated at the surface with 10(8) cfu/mL of the selected test organism. After five days of incubation, bacterial colony counts on all ETT segments were determined. Swabs of proximal and distal ends of the agar tract in antiseptic and control models were subcultured. The initial and residual CHX levels, (five days post-implantation in the model) were determined. Cultures of antiseptic ETTs revealed colonization by the tested pathogens ranging from 1-100 cfu/tube, compared with approximately 10(6) cfu/tube for the control ETTs (P < 0.001). Subcultures from proximal and distal ends of the agar tract showed minimal or no growth in the antiseptic ETTs compared with the control ETTs (P < 0.001). The amount of CHX retained in the antiseptic ETTs after five days of implantation was an average of 45% of the initial level. Antiseptic ETTs prevented bacterial colonization in the airway model and also retained significant amounts of the antiseptic. These results indicate that the effectiveness of antiseptic-impregnated ETTs in preventing the growth of bacterial pathogens associated with VAP may vary with different organisms.

Preventive care in the emergency department, Part II: Clinical preventive services--an emergency medicine evidence-based review. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Public Health and Education Task Force Preventive Services Work Group.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency departments (EDs) provide an opportunity to initiate preventive services for millions of Americans who have no other source for these services. OBJECTIVES: To identify primary and secondary preventive interventions appropriate for inclusion in routine emergency care and, secondarily, to recommend areas in which research into the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of interventions is needed. METHODS: Systematic reviews were performed on 17 candidate preventive interventions with potential applicability in the ED. All but one was selected from those reviewed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Each two-person review team followed a template that provided a uniform approach to search strategy, selection criteria, methodology appraisal, and analysis of the results of primary studies bearing on ED cost-effectiveness. Assigned proctors provided methodological guidance to the review teams throughout the review process. A grading scheme was developed that took into account the evidence and recommendations of the USPSTF supporting primary efficacy of the intervention and the level of evidence supporting ED application identified by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Public Health and Education Task Force (PHTF) review teams. RESULTS: Seventeen reviews were completed. The following interventions received an alpha rating, indicating that evidence is sufficient to support offering these services in the ED setting, assuming sufficient resources are available: alcohol screening and intervention, HIV screening and referral (in high-risk, high-prevalence populations), hypertension screening and referral, adult pneumococcal immunizations (age >/=65 years), referral of children without primary care physicians to a continuing source of care, and smoking cessation counseling. Interventions receiving a beta or gamma rating, indicating that existing research is not sufficient to recommend for or against instituting them routinely in the ED, include: identification and counseling of geriatric patients at risk of falls, Pap tests in women having a pelvic exam in the ED, counseling for smoke detector use, routine social service screening, depression screening, domestic violence screening, safe firearm storage counseling, motorcycle helmet use counseling, and youth violence counseling programs in the ED. Interventions not recommended for ED implementation (omega rating) include Pap test screening for women not having a routine pelvic exam, diabetes screening, and pediatric immunizations. CONCLUSIONS: A set of recommendations for prevention, screening, and counseling activities in the ED based on systematic reviews of selected interventions is presented. The applicability of these primary and secondary preventive services will vary with the different clinical environments and resources available in EDs. The PHTF recommendations should not be used as the basis of curtailing currently available services. This review makes clear the need for further research in this important area.

Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group.

Clinical experience provides clinicians with an intuitive sense of which findings on history, physical examination, and investigation are critical in making an accurate diagnosis, or an accurate assessment of a patient's fate. A clinical decision rule (CDR) is a clinical tool that quantifies the individual contributions that various components of the history, physical examination, and basic laboratory results make toward the diagnosis, prognosis, or likely response to treatment in a patient. Clinical decision rules attempt to formally test, simplify, and increase the accuracy of clinicians' diagnostic and prognostic assessments. Existing CDRs guide clinicians, establish pretest probability, provide screening tests for common problems, and estimate risk. Three steps are involved in the development and testing of a CDR: creation of the rule, testing or validating the rule, and assessing the impact of the rule on clinical behavior. Clinicians evaluating CDRs for possible clinical use should assess the following components: the method of derivation; the validation of the CDR to ensure that its repeated use leads to the same results; and its predictive power. We consider CDRs that have been validated in a new clinical setting to be level 1 CDRs and most appropriate for implementation. Level 1 CDRs have the potential to inform clinical judgment, to change clinical behavior, and to reduce unnecessary costs, while maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction. JAMA. 2000;284:79-84