O benefício do bundle do cateter central em pacientes neonatais e pediátricos : uma revisão sistemática da literatura

Introdução: As infecções primárias da corrente sanguínea associadas ao cateter venoso central (IPCS) são um grande problema nas unidades de terapia intensiva (UTI) pediátricas e neonatais em todo o mundo. Evidências sugerem que a prevenção das IPCSs é crucial para o atendimento seguro ao paciente. Uma percentagem significativa (65-70%) das IPCSs são evitáveis utilizando as estratégias baseadas em evidências, incluindo os bundles. Estas medidas têm um papel bem estabelecido em pacientes adultos.O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar, a partir de uma ampla revisão sistemática da literatura, o benefício da implementação do bundle do cateter central na prevenção das IPCSs em pacientes pediátricos e neonatais internados em UTI. Métodos: Foram pesquisadas as bases de dados Cochrane Library, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature (LILACS), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), além de busca manual e literatura cinzenta entre 1 de janeiro de 2005 até 31 de dezembro de 2015. Não houve restrição dos estudos com relação ao idioma, a data ou status de publicação. Para avaliar o benefício do bundle do cateter central, foram selecionados estudos envolvendo pelo menos dois componentes (higiene de mãos, precauções de barreira máxima, antissepsia da pele, seleção adequada do sítio do cateter, revisão diária da necessidade do cateter) como medida preventiva para pacientes com cateter venoso central (CVC). O desfecho foi o número de IPCSs por 1000 cateteres-dias antes e depois da implementação do bundle. Resultados: Foram identificados inicialmente 6369 estudos, após a exclusão dos títulos duplicados e os inelegíveis, 31 estudos preencheram os critérios de elegibilidade. Os estudos foram heterogêneos tanto na composição do bundle quanto na estratégia de implementação. A mediana da densidade de incidência de IPCS foi de 5.9 por 1000 cateteres-dias (2.6-23.1) nas unidades de terapia intensiva pediátricas (UTIP) e 4.9 por 1000 cateteres-dias (2.0-24.1) nas unidades de terapia intensiva neonatais (UTIN). Após a implementação do bundle do cateter central, a densidade de incidência de IPCS variou de 0 a 14.9 por 1000 cateteres-dias (mediana de 2.1) nas UTIPs e 0.3 a 13.9 (mediana de 2.8) nas UTINs. Conclusões: As IPCSs continuam sendo um problema significativo em unidades de terapia intensiva pediátricas e neonatais, mas a implementação do bundle do cateter central pode reduzir significativamente as taxas dessas infecções. Intervenções assistenciais com as melhores práticas baseadas em evidência permitem uma redução substancial das IPCSs pela promoção de grupos ou bundles de procedimentos e tecnologias, e pela utilização de uma estratégia multimodal para a educação, formação, implementação e divulgação.Background: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are a major problem in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Evidence suggests that CLABSI prevention is crucial for safe patient care. A significant percentage of CLABSIs (65- 70%) are preventable using evidenced-based guidelines. Strategies to prevent these infections have included a myriad of different preventive maneuvers gathered as “bundles”. These measures have a well established role in the adult ICU setting. We aimed to assess the benefit of the implementation of central-line bundles to prevent CLABSIs in neonatal and pediatric ICU patients, populations where their actual efficacy is yet to be proven. Methods: We searched Cochrane Library, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature (LILACS), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), manual search and gray literature to identify studies reporting the implementation of central-line bundles in pediatric ICU (PICU), or neonatal ICU (NICU) patients. We searched for studies published between Jan 1, 2005, and December 21, 2015, without language restriction. To evaluate the benefit of the central line bundle were selected studies involving at least two components (hand hygiene, maximal barrier precautions, skin antisepsis, optimal catheter site selection and daily review of line necessity) as a preventive measure to patients with central venous catheter (CVC). The outcome was the number of CLABSIs per 1000 catheter-days before and after implementation. Results: We initially identified 6369 records, and after excluding duplicates and those ineligible, 31 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies reviewed were quite heterogeneous both in bundle composition and implementation strategy. Median CLABSIs incidence were 5.9 per 1000 catheter-days (range 2.6–23.1) on PICUs and 4.9 per 1000 catheter-days (range 2.0–24.1) on NICUs. After implementation of central-line bundles the CLABSI incidence ranged from 0 to 14.9 per 1000 catheter-days (median 2.1) on PICUs and 0.3 to 14.9 (median 2.8) on NICUs. Conclusions: CLABSIs remain a significant problem in neonatal and pediatric critical care units, but implementation of catheter care bundles can significantly reduce rates of these infections. Best practice interventions allow substantial CLABSI reduction by promotion of groups or bundles of procedures and technology, and by use of a multimodal strategy for education, training, implementation, and dissemination

A utilização do álcool no processo de higienização das mãos

Resumo não disponíve

Análise do perfil glicêmico de um grupo de gestantes

25

Impact of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) multidimensional hand hygiene approach in 3 cities in Brazil

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is the main tool for cross-infection prevention, but adherence to guidelines is low in limited-resource countries, and there are not available published data from Brazil. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, interventional, before-and-after study conducted in 4 intensive care units in 4 hospitals, which are members of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC), from June 2006-April 2008. The study was divided into a 3-month baseline period and a follow-up period. A multidimensional HH approach was introduced, which included administrative support, supplies availability, education and training, reminders in the workplace, process surveillance, and performance feedback. Health care workers were observed for HH practices in each intensive care unit during randomly selected 30-minute periods. Results: We recorded 4,837 opportunities for HH, with an overall HH compliance that increased from 27%-58% (P < .01). Multivariate analysis showed that some variables were associated with poor HH compliance: men versus women (49% vs 38%, P < .001), nurses versus doctors (55% vs 48%, P < .02), among others. Conclusions: With the implementation of the INICC approach, adherence to HH was significantly increased. Programs should be aimed at improving HH in variables found to be predictors of poor HH compliance. Copyright (C) 2015 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Time-dependent analysis of extra length of stay and mortality due to ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive-care units of ten limited-resources countries: findings of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC)

Ventilator-associated pneumonias (VAPs) are a worldwide problem that significantly increases patient morbidity, mortality, and length of stay (LoS), and their effects should be estimated to account for the timing of infection. The purpose of the study was to estimate extra LoS and mortality in an intensive-care unit (ICU) due to a VAP in a cohort of 69 248 admissions followed for 283 069 days in ICUs from 10 countries. Data were arranged according to the multi-state format. Extra LoS and increased risk of death were estimated independently in each country, and their results were combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. VAP prolonged LoS by an average of 2.03 days (95% CI 1.52-2.54 days), and increased the risk of death by 14% (95% CI 2-27). The increased risk of death due to VAP was explained by confounding with patient morbidity