Yeshurun Moshe, Rozovski Uri, Shargian Liat, Pasvolsky Oren, van der Werf Steffie, Tridello Gloria, Knelange Nina, Mikulska Malgorzata, Styczynski Jan, Averbuch Diana, de la Camara Rafael
Institution of Hematology, Rabin Medical Center, Petach-Tikva, Israel and Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
EBMT Leiden Study Unit, Dept. of Medical Statistics & Bioinformatics, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Bone Marrow Transplant. 2023 Apr;58(4):414-423. doi: 10.1038/s41409-023-01916-6. Epub 2023 Jan 18.
We aimed to describe the current status of infection prevention practices among EBMT centers. Questionnaires were distributed to all 553 EBMT transplant centers to capture clinical practices regarding antimicrobial prophylaxis, protective measures, isolation procedures and growth-factor support of patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Responses from 127 centers in 32 countries were obtained. Most centers housed patients in single rooms (autologous-82%; allogeneic-98%), with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA)-filters (autologous-73%; allogeneic-100%) and positive pressure (autologous-61%; allogeneic-88%). Pre-engraftment G-CSF was utilized by 77 and 31% of centers after autologous and allogeneic transplantation, respectively (P < 0.00001). Antibacterial prophylaxis was provided by 57 and 69% (P = 0.086) of centers and antifungal prophylaxis by 65 and 84% (P = 0.0008) of centers, to patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation, respectively. Yet, 16 and 3% of centers provided neither antibacterial nor antifungal prophylaxis to patients undergoing autologous and allogeneic transplantation, respectively. Considerable variation existed between centers and across countries in antimicrobial prophylaxis practices, medications employed and duration of preventive therapy. There were considerable discordances between guidelines and daily practices. JACIE accredited and non-accredited centers did not differ significantly in their antimicrobial prophylaxis practices. Whether these differences between transplant centers translated into differences in infectious morbidity, mortality and financial costs, warrants further research.
我们旨在描述欧洲血液与骨髓移植协会(EBMT)各中心感染预防措施的现状。向所有553个EBMT移植中心发放了问卷,以了解造血细胞移植患者在抗菌预防、防护措施、隔离程序及生长因子支持方面的临床实践情况。共收到来自32个国家127个中心的回复。大多数中心为患者提供单人病房(自体移植患者占82%;异体移植患者占98%),配备高效空气过滤器(HEPA)(自体移植患者占73%;异体移植患者占100%)且为正压病房(自体移植患者占61%;异体移植患者占88%)。自体和异体移植后,分别有77%和31%的中心使用植入前粒细胞集落刺激因子(G-CSF)(P<0.00001)。自体和异体移植患者接受抗菌预防的中心分别为57%和69%(P=0.086),接受抗真菌预防的中心分别为65%和84%(P=0.0008)。然而,分别有16%和3%的中心对自体和异体移植患者既不提供抗菌预防也不提供抗真菌预防。各中心之间以及不同国家之间在抗菌预防措施、所用药物及预防治疗持续时间方面存在很大差异。指南与日常实践之间存在很大不一致。获得欧洲细胞治疗认证基金会(JACIE)认证和未获认证的中心在抗菌预防措施方面没有显著差异。移植中心之间的这些差异是否会转化为感染发病率、死亡率及财务成本方面的差异,值得进一步研究。