Nauseef W M, Maki D G
N Engl J Med. 1981 Feb 19;304(8):448-53. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198102193040802.
To assess the value of simple protective isolation, we prospectively compared it with standard hospital care in 43 episodes of severe granulocytopenia, most occurring in patients with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia. Sterilized food and prophylactic oral antibiotics were not used. Twenty episodes in 17 patients were randomized to simple protective isolation (437 days), and 23 episodes in 20 patients to standard care (611 days). No statistically significant differences were observed in the overall incidence of infection, time to onset of first infection, or days with fever. Twenty-seven infections occurred in recipients of standard care (4.42 per 100 days), and 28 infections in isolated patients (6.41 per 100 days). Except for a threefold higher rate of bacteremia in patients in isolation (2.06 vs. 0.65 per 100 days), the profile of infection was similar in the two groups. Neither response to antileukemic therapy nor survival was improved by isolation. We conclude that protective isolation alone, as practiced in most hospitals, appears not to benefit granulocytopenic patients.
为评估简易保护性隔离的价值,我们前瞻性地将其与标准医院护理进行了比较,涉及43例严重粒细胞减少症病例,大多数发生在急性非淋巴细胞白血病患者中。未使用无菌食物和预防性口服抗生素。17例患者的20次发作被随机分配至简易保护性隔离组(437天),20例患者的23次发作被分配至标准护理组(611天)。在感染的总体发生率、首次感染的发病时间或发热天数方面,未观察到统计学上的显著差异。接受标准护理的患者发生了27次感染(每100天4.42次),隔离患者发生了28次感染(每100天6.41次)。除了隔离患者的菌血症发生率高出三倍(每100天2.06次对0.65次)外,两组的感染情况相似。隔离并未改善抗白血病治疗的反应或生存率。我们得出结论,大多数医院所采用的单纯保护性隔离似乎对粒细胞减少症患者并无益处。