Horizontal infection control strategy decreases methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection and eliminates bacteremia in a surgical ICU without active surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients worldwide. Numerous healthcare bodies in Europe and the United States have championed active surveillance per the "search and destroy" model. However, this strategy is associated with significant economic, logistical, and patient costs without any impact on other hospital-acquired pathogens. We evaluated whether horizontal infection control strategies could decrease the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection in the ICU, without the need for active surveillance. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective, observational study in the surgical ICU of a tertiary care medical center in Boston, MA, from 2005 to 2012. PATIENTS: A total of 6,697 patients in the surgical ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Evidence-based infection prevention strategies were implemented in an iterative fashion, including 1) hand hygiene program with refresher education campaign, 2) chlorhexidine oral hygiene program, 3) chlorhexidine bathing, 4) catheter-associated bloodstream infection program, and 5) daily goals sheets. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection fell from 2.66 to 0.69 per 1,000 patient days from 2005 to 2012, an average decrease of 21% per year. The biggest decline in rate of infection was detected in 2008, which may suggest that the catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention program was particularly effective. Among 4,478 surgical ICU admissions over the last 5 years, not a single case of methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive multifaceted horizontal infection control is an effective strategy for reducing the prevalence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection and eliminating methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia in the ICU without the need for active surveillance and decontamination.

Single dose oral fenoprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Fenoprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), available in several different countries, but not widely used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of single dose oral fenoprofen in acute postoperative pain, and associated adverse events. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Oxford Pain Relief Database for studies to December 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: Single oral dose, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of fenoprofen for relief of established moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for methodological quality and data extracted by two review authors independently. Summed total pain relief (TOTPAR) or pain intensity difference (SPID) over 4 to 6 hours was used to calculate the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief. These derived results were used to calculate, with 95% confidence intervals, the relative benefit compared to placebo, and the number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to experience at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Numbers of participants using rescue medication over specified time periods, and time to use of rescue medication, were sought as additional measures of efficacy. Information on adverse events and withdrawals was collected. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies (696 participants) met the inclusion criteria; 24 participants were treated with fenoprofen 12.5 mg, 23 with fenoprofen 25 mg, 79 with fenoprofen 50 mg, 78 with fenoprofen 100 mg, 146 with fenoprofen 200 mg, 55 with fenoprofen 300 mg, 43 with zomepirac 100 mg, 30 with morphine 8 mg, 77 with codeine 60 mg, and 141 with placebo. Participants had pain following third molar extraction, laparoscopy, minor day surgery and episiotomy. The NNT for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours with a single dose of fenoprofen 200 mg compared to placebo was 2.3 (1.9 to 3.0). There were insufficient data to analyse other doses or active comparators, time to use of rescue medication, or numbers of participants needing rescue medication. There was no difference in numbers of participants experiencing any adverse events between fenoprofen 200 mg and placebo. No serious adverse events or adverse event withdrawals were reported in these studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral fenoprofen 200 mg is effective at treating moderate to severe acute postoperative pain, based on limited data for at least 50% pain relief over 4 to 6 hours. Efficacy of other doses, other efficacy outcomes, and safety and tolerability could not be assessed.