Delgado-Rodríguez M, Sillero-Arenas M, Medina-Cuadros M, Martínez-Gallego G
Division of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, School of Medicine, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1997 Jan;18(1):19-23. doi: 10.1086/647495.
To compare, in subjects undergoing general surgery, two measures of intrinsic patients risk for nosocomial infection: the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control (SENIC) index and the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System index.
Prospective cohort study, with follow-up for 1 month after hospital discharge.
The general surgery service of a tertiary hospital.
Surgical-site infection.
1,483 subjects aged 10 to 92 years.
During follow-up, 155 patients developed nosocomial infection, yielding a cumulative incidence of 10.5%. The NNIS index showed a linear trend with both crude and adjusted (for SENIC index) rates of surgical-wound infection. The SENIC index did not exhibit any linear trend with adjusted (for NNIS index) rates of surgical-wound infection. To delineate whether the SENIC index added explanatory information to the NNIS index (or vice versa), we regressed each variable on the other. Logistic regression analyses confirmed the results of stratified analysis: residuals of the NNIS index added discriminating ability to the SENIC index, whereas residuals of the SENIC index did not improve the predictive power of the NNIS index.
The NNIS index had a better ability than the SENIC index for discriminating and predicting risk of surgical-wound infection.
在接受普通外科手术的患者中,比较两种衡量患者医院感染内在风险的指标:医院感染控制效果研究(SENIC)指数和国家医院感染监测(NNIS)系统指数。
前瞻性队列研究,出院后随访1个月。
一家三级医院的普通外科。
手术部位感染。
1483名年龄在10至92岁之间的受试者。
在随访期间,155名患者发生医院感染,累积发病率为10.5%。NNIS指数与手术切口感染的粗发病率和校正发病率(校正SENIC指数后)均呈线性趋势。SENIC指数与校正发病率(校正NNIS指数后)的手术切口感染率未呈现任何线性趋势。为了确定SENIC指数是否为NNIS指数增加了解释性信息(反之亦然),我们将每个变量对另一个变量进行回归分析。逻辑回归分析证实了分层分析的结果:NNIS指数的残差增加了SENIC指数的判别能力,而SENIC指数的残差并未提高NNIS指数的预测能力。
NNIS指数在判别和预测手术切口感染风险方面比SENIC指数具有更强的能力。