Türkiye’de bulunan yoğun bakımlarda sabun, kağıt havlu ve alkol bazlı el dezenfektanı yeterli mi?: Phokai çalışması sonuçları

Introduction: Hand hygiene is one of the most effective infection control measures to prevent the spread of healthcare-associated infections (HCAI). Water, soap, paper towel and hand disinfectant must be available and adequate in terms of effective hand hygiene. The adequacy of hand hygiene products or keeping water-soap and paper towel is still a problem for many developing countries like Turkey. In this multicenter study, we analyzed the adequacy in number and availability of hand hygiene products.Materials and Methods: This study was performed in all intensive care units (ICUs) of 41 hospitals (27 tertiary-care educational, 10 state and four private hospitals) from 22 cities located in seven geographical regions of Turkey. We analyzed water, soap, paper towel and alcohol-based hand disinfectant adequacy on four different days, two of which were in summer during the vacation time (August, 27th and 31st 2016) and two in autumn (October, 12th and 15th 2016).Results: The total number of ICUs and intensive care beds in 41 participating centers were 214 and 2357, respectively. Overall, there was no soap in 3-11% of sinks and no paper towel in 10-18% of sinks while there was no alcohol-based hand disinfectant in 1-4.7% of hand disinfectant units on the observation days. When we compared the number of sinks with soap and/or paper towel on weekdays vs. weekends, there was no significant difference in summer. However, on autumn weekdays, the number of sinks with soap and paper towel was significantly lower on weekend days (p<0.0001, p<0.0001) while the number of hand disinfectant units with alcohol-based disinfectant was significantly higher (p<0.0001).Conclusion: There should be adequate and accessible hand hygiene materials for effective hand hygiene. In this study, we found that soap and paper towels were inadequate on the observation days in 3-11% and 10-18% of units, respectively. Attention should be paid on soap and paper towel supply at weekends as well

Piperacillin/tazobactam vs. cefoperazone/sulbactam in adult low-risk febrile neutropenia cases

WOS: 000330113500014PubMed ID: 24372736AimThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam (P/T) and cefoperazone/sulbactam (C/S) in the empirical treatment of adult neutropenic fever. MethodsData and outcomes of low-risk adult cases with neutropenic fever and treated with P/T (4.5gq6h) or C/S (2gq8h) between 2005 and 2011 June were extracted from our database. Risk evaluation was made according to criteria of Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and a score of 21 was considered as low risk. Data were collected prospectively by daily visits and evaluated retrospectively. Primary outcome was - fever defervescence at 72h in combination with success without modification (referring to episodes where the patient recovered from fever with disappearance of signs of infection without modification to initial empirical treatment). All-cause mortality referred to death resulting from a documented or presumed infection or unidentified reason during the treatment and 30-day follow-up period. ResultsA total of 172 patients (113 cases P/T and 59 cases C/S) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. Persistent response in P/T arm was 73.5%, whereas it was 64.5% in C/S arm (p>0.05). Rates of any modification were also similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality during the treatment and 30-day follow-up period was not significantly different (P/T: 4/113 vs. C/S: 2/59, p>0.05). There was no severe adverse effect requiring antibiotic cessation in both cohorts. ConclusionIn conclusion, our data suggest that C/S may be a safe alternative to P/T in the empirical treatment of adult low-risk febrile neutropenia cases