Slaughter S, Hayden M K, Nathan C, Hu T C, Rice T, Van Voorhis J, Matushek M, Franklin C, Weinstein R A
Cook County Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Ann Intern Med. 1996 Sep 15;125(6):448-56. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-6-199609150-00004.
To determine the efficacy of the use of gloves and gowns compared with that of the use of gloves alone for the prevention of nosocomial transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
Epidemiologic study and controlled, nonrandomized clinical trial.
University-affiliated, 900-bed, urban teaching hospital in which vancomycin-resistant enterococci are endemic.
181 consecutive patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit for 48 hours or more.
It was determined that all hospital employees would always use gloves and gowns when attending 8 particular beds in the medical intensive care unit and would always use gloves alone when attending 8 others. Compliance with precautions was monitored weekly. Rectal surveillance cultures were taken from patients daily. Cultures of environmental surfaces, such as those of bed rails, bedside tables, and other frequently touched objects in patient rooms and common areas, were taken monthly. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used for molecular epidemiologic typing of vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
The number of patients becoming colonized by vancomycin-resistant enterococci; the number of days to acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci; and other measurements, including nosocomial infections, length of hospital stay, and mortality rates.
The 93 patients in glove-and-gown rooms and the 88 patients in glove-only rooms had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. Fifteen (16.1%) patients in the glove-and-gown group and 13 (14.8%) in the glove-only group had vancomycin-resistant enterococci on admission to the medical intensive care unit. Twenty-four (25.8%) patients in the glove-and-gown group and 21 (23.9%) in the glove-only group acquired vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the medical intensive care unit. The mean times to colonization among the patients who became colonized were 8.0 days in the glove-and-gown group and 7.1 days in the glove-only group. None of these comparisons were statistically significant. Risk factors for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci induced length of stay in the medical intensive care unit, use of enteral feeding, and use of sucralfate. Compliance with precautions was 79% in glove-and-gown rooms and 62% in glove-only rooms (P < 0.001). Only 25 of 397 (6.3%) environmental cultures were positive for vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Nineteen types of vancomycin-resistant enterococci were documented by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis during the study period.
Universal use of gloves and gowns was no better than universal use of gloves only in preventing rectal colonization by vancomycin-resistant enterococci in a medical intensive care unit of a hospital in which vancomycin-resistant enterococci are endemic. Because the use of gowns and gloves together may be associated with better compliance and may help prevent transmission of other infectious agents, this finding may not be applicable to outbreaks caused by single strains or hospitals in which the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci is low.
确定使用手套和隔离衣与仅使用手套相比,在预防耐万古霉素肠球菌的医院内传播方面的效果。
流行病学研究及对照、非随机临床试验。
一所隶属于大学的、拥有900张床位的城市教学医院,耐万古霉素肠球菌在该医院呈地方性流行。
181例连续入住医学重症监护病房48小时或更长时间的患者。
确定所有医院工作人员在照料医学重症监护病房的8张特定病床的患者时始终使用手套和隔离衣,而在照料另外8张病床的患者时仅使用手套。每周监测预防措施的依从情况。每天对患者进行直肠监测培养。每月对病房和公共区域的环境表面(如床栏、床头柜及其他经常触摸的物品)进行培养。采用脉冲场凝胶电泳对耐万古霉素肠球菌进行分子流行病学分型。
耐万古霉素肠球菌定植的患者数量;获得耐万古霉素肠球菌的天数;以及其他指标,包括医院感染、住院时间和死亡率。
使用手套和隔离衣病房的93例患者与仅使用手套病房的88例患者具有相似的人口统计学和临床特征。在入住医学重症监护病房时,使用手套和隔离衣组的15例(16.1%)患者和仅使用手套组的13例(14.8%)患者有耐万古霉素肠球菌。在医学重症监护病房,使用手套和隔离衣组的24例(25.8%)患者和仅使用手套组的21例(23.9%)患者获得了耐万古霉素肠球菌。在发生定植的患者中,使用手套和隔离衣组的平均定植时间为8.0天,仅使用手套组为7.1天。这些比较均无统计学意义。获得耐万古霉素肠球菌的危险因素包括在医学重症监护病房的住院时间、肠内营养的使用和硫糖铝的使用。使用手套和隔离衣病房的预防措施依从率为79%,仅使用手套病房为62%(P<0.001)。397份环境培养物中只有25份(6.3%)耐万古霉素肠球菌呈阳性。在研究期间,通过脉冲场凝胶电泳记录了19种耐万古霉素肠球菌类型。
在一所耐万古霉素肠球菌呈地方性流行的医院的医学重症监护病房,普遍使用手套和隔离衣在预防耐万古霉素肠球菌直肠定植方面并不比仅普遍使用手套更好。由于同时使用隔离衣和手套可能与更好的依从性相关,并且可能有助于预防其他传染源的传播,这一发现可能不适用于由单一菌株引起的暴发或耐万古霉素肠球菌患病率较低的医院。