RESUMO
Background and objective The prevalence of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) is underreported in developing nations due to a lack of systematic active surveillance. This study reports the burden of device-associated HAIs (DA-HAIs) based on two years of active surveillance with in situ bundle care in closed intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary care hospital. Materials and methods A prospective surveillance study was carried out in 140-bedded ICUs (2,100-bed hospital) of a tertiary care private medical college hospital. Daily active surveillance for catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), ventilator-associated event (VAE), and central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) was done by trained infection control nurses (ICNs) along with quality champion nurses with HAI surveillance forms with bundle care auditing, which was attached to the case sheets of all patients on devices. The surveillance definitions of DA-HAIs were adapted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC-NHSN) 2017 surveillance criteria. Data were analyzed at the end of every month to generate the cumulative device-associated infection (DAI) rates and device utilization ratio (DUR). These data were compared with NHSN and International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) - India HAI rates and communicated to corresponding ICUs and also presented at the hospital infection control committee (HICC) meeting. Results The surveillance data were reported over 71,877 patient days during the study period. The DUR of urinary catheters, ventilator, and central line were 0.53, 0.16, and 0.22, respectively. CAUTI, VAE, and CLABSI rates were 0.97, 10.5, and 0.43 per 1,000 device days, respectively. Among 166 DA-HAIs reported, 182 pathogens were identified. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism isolated, accounting for 37.4% of all DA-HAI cases, followed by Acinetobacter baumanii (30.8%). Most of the Gram-negative organisms were carbapenem-resistant (153/175; 87.4%). Vancomycin resistance rate in Enterococcus was 28.5% (2/7). Conclusion DUR and CAUTI, VAE, CLABSI rates were less/on par with the benchmarks of INICC and CDC-NHSN in almost all ICUs of our tertiary care unit. Gram-negative pathogen with 87.4% carbapenem resistance worsened the scenario. Proper active surveillance with bundle care and training by ICNs made a significant difference in all DA-HAI rates, especially VAE, which decreased to 10.5 from 23.6 per 1,000 ventilator days. Sustained active surveillance of HAI and bundle care auditing by a trained infection prevention team with a stringent antibiotic policy are the need of the hour to combat DAIs.
RESUMO
AIM: During the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the physicians are using various off-label therapeutics to manage COVID-19. We undertook a cross-sectional survey to study the current variation in therapeutic strategies for managing severe COVID-19 in India. METHODS: From January 4 to January 18, 2021, an online cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians involved in the management of severe COVID-19. The survey had three sections: 1. Antiviral agents, 2. Immunomodulators, and 3. Adjuvant therapies. RESULTS: 1055 respondents (from 24 states and five union territories), of which 64.2% were consultants, 54.3% working in private hospitals, and 39.1% were from critical care medicine completed the survey. Remdesivir (95.2%), antithrombotics (94.2%), corticosteroids (90.3%), vitamins (89.7%) and empirical antibiotics (85.6%) were the commonly used therapeutics. Ivermectin (33%), convalescent plasma (28.6%) and favipiravir (17.6%) were other antiviral agents used. Methylprednisolone (50.2%) and dexamethasone (44.1%) were preferred corticosteroids and at a dose equivalent of 8 mg of dexamethasone phosphate (70.2%). There was significant variation among physicians from different medical specialities in the use of favipiravir, corticosteroids, empirical antibiotics and vitamins. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable variation in the physicians' choice of therapeutic strategies for the management of severe COVID-19 in India, as compared with the available evidence.
