An outbreak of gram-negative bloodstream infections in chronic hemodialysis patients

A Cluster of Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections in Connecticut Hemodialysis Patients Associated with Contaminated Wall Boxes and Prime Buckets

BACKGROUND

Maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients are at increased risk of bloodstream infections (BSI). We investigated a cluster of Delftia acidovorans infections among patients undergoing HD at an outpatient unit (Facility A).

METHODS

A case was defined as a Facility A HD patient with ≥1 culture positive for Delftia acidovorans between February 1 - April 30, 2018. An investigation included review of patient records, facility policies, practice observations, and environmental cultures.

RESULTS

The cluster included two patients with confirmed D. acidovorans BSI. Both patients had recently been dialyzed at Station #2, where a wall box culture yielded D. acidovorans. One patient also had a BSI due to Enterobacter asburiae, which was recovered from several other wall boxes and saline prime buckets (SPB). Observations revealed leakage of wastewater from wall boxes onto the floor, and that SPBs were not always disinfected and dried appropriately before reuse. Multiple deficiencies in hand hygiene and station disinfection were observed. No deficiencies in water treatment practices were identified, and water cultures were negative for the observed pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

The cluster of D. acidovorans infections was most likely due to indirect exposures to contaminated wall boxes and possibly SPBs due to poor hand hygiene and station disinfection.

Multicenter Outbreak of Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections in Hemodialysis Patients

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Contaminated water and other fluids are increasingly recognized to be associated with health care-associated infections. We investigated an outbreak of Gram-negative bloodstream infections at 3 outpatient hemodialysis facilities.

STUDY DESIGN

Matched case-control investigations.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Patients who received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C from July 2015 to November 2016.

EXPOSURES

Infection control practices, sources of water, dialyzer reuse, injection medication handling, dialysis circuit priming, water and dialysate test findings, environmental reservoirs such as wall boxes, vascular access care practices, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and whole-genome sequencing of bacterial isolates.

OUTCOMES

Cases were defined by a positive blood culture for any Gram-negative bacteria drawn July 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016 from a patient who had received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Exposures in cases and controls were compared using matched univariate conditional logistic regression.

RESULTS

58 cases of Gram-negative bloodstream infection occurred; 48 (83%) required hospitalization. The predominant organisms were Serratia marcescens (n=21) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=12). Compared with controls, cases had higher odds of using a central venous catheter for dialysis (matched odds ratio, 54.32; lower bound of the 95% CI, 12.19). Facility staff reported pooling and regurgitation of waste fluid at recessed wall boxes that house connections for dialysate components and the effluent drain within dialysis treatment stations. Environmental samples yielded S marcescens and P aeruginosa from wall boxes. S marcescens isolated from wall boxes and case-patients from the same facilities were closely related by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing. We identified opportunities for health care workers' hands to contaminate central venous catheters with contaminated fluid from the wall boxes.

LIMITATIONS

Limited patient isolates for testing, on-site investigation occurred after peak of infections.

CONCLUSIONS

This large outbreak was linked to wall boxes, a previously undescribed source of contaminated fluid and biofilms in the immediate patient care environment.

Hemodialysis-Associated Infections

Hemodialysis patients are at increased risk of infections, which are common adverse events among this patient population. We review factors contributing to infections among hemodialysis patients and epidemiology of common infections and outbreaks, including bloodstream infections, vascular access infections, and infections caused by bloodborne pathogens. Recommendations for prevention are discussed with emphasis on essential infection control practices for hemodialysis settings.

Microbiological Analysis of Hemodialysis Water in a Developing Country

Microbiological control of hemodialysis fluid is important for the prevention of hemodialysis-associated illness. Bacterial populations inhabiting a distribution system for hemodialysis water were studied over a 4 month period in five hospitals (one in Tehran, and the others at Alborz). All the samples from the four hospitals at Alborz had colony counts of ≥100 CFU/ml, which at different points of sampling were higher than the maximum recommended values. A total of 80 samples taken at different points in each hospital's hemodialysis distribution system were collected, and 229 planktonic bacteria isolated on R2A medium. No growth was detected by culturing the samples on Blood agar or Mueller-Hinton agar, according to routine procedures currently used in the five hospitals. A representative of isolates from each of 45 different morphotypes were identified using 16S RNA sequencing. A diverse bacterial community, containing predominantly gram-positive members of Kocuria, Arthrobacter and Staphylococcus and Mycobacterium, was detected. Bacteria from the genera Acinetobacter, Burkholderia, Halomonas, Herbaspirillum, Pseudomonas, and Sphingomonas were identified, which has been described in the build-up of biofilms. Some of the species reported here may represent a health risk to patients receiving hemodialysis treatment. In conclusion, it is recommended that standard protocols for evaluation of microbial contamination be used for regular monitoring and identification of culturable bacteria.

Reuse and Biocompatibility of Hemodialysis Membranes: Clinically Relevant?

The practice of reprocessing dialyzers for reuse, once predominant in the United States, has been steadily declining over the last 20 years. The professed roles of reuse in improving dialyzer membrane biocompatibility and lowering the risk of first-use syndrome have lost relevance with the advent of biocompatible dialyzer membranes and favorable sterilization techniques. The potential for cost-savings from reuse is also called into question by the easy availability of comparatively cheaper dialyzers and rising regulatory demands and operational cost of reprocessing systems. While the environmental concerns from additional dialyzer-related solid waste from rising single-use practice remains pertinent and requires development of safer dialyzer disposable system technologies, there is no meaningful medical rationale for the continued practice of dialyzer reuse in the twenty-first century.

Hemodialyzer Reuse and Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections

BACKGROUND

Clusters of bloodstream infections caused by Burkholderia cepacia and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia are uncommon, but have been previously identified in hemodialysis centers that reprocessed dialyzers for reuse on patients. We investigated an outbreak of bloodstream infections caused by B cepacia and S maltophilia among hemodialysis patients in clinics of a dialysis organization.

STUDY DESIGN

Outbreak investigation, including matched case-control study.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Hemodialysis patients treated in multiple outpatient clinics owned by a dialysis organization.

PREDICTORS

Main predictors were dialyzer reuse, dialyzer model, and dialyzer reprocessing practice.

OUTCOMES

Case patients had a bloodstream infection caused by B cepacia or S maltophilia; controls were patients without infection dialyzed at the same clinic on the same day as a case; results of environmental cultures and organism typing.

RESULTS

17 cases (9 B cepacia and 8 S maltophilia bloodstream infections) occurred in 5 clinics owned by the same dialysis organization. Case patients were more likely to have received hemodialysis with a dialyzer that had been used more than 6 times (matched OR, 7.03; 95% CI, 1.38-69.76) and to have been dialyzed with a specific reusable dialyzer (Model R) with sealed ends (OR, 22.87; 95% CI, 4.49-∞). No major lapses during dialyzer reprocessing were identified that could explain the outbreak. B cepacia was isolated from samples collected from a dialyzer header-cleaning machine from a clinic with cases and was indistinguishable from a patient isolate collected from the same clinic, by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Gram-negative bacteria were isolated from 2 reused Model R dialyzers that had undergone the facility's reprocessing procedure.

LIMITATIONS

Limited statistical power and overmatching; few patient isolates and dialyzers available for testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This outbreak was likely caused by contamination during reprocessing of reused dialyzers. Results of this and previous investigations demonstrate that exposing patients to reused dialyzers increases the risk for bloodstream infections. To reduce infection risk, providers should consider implementing single dialyzer use whenever possible.

Outbreak of Bloodstream Infection With the Mold Phialemonium Among Patients Receiving Dialysis at a Hemodialysis Unit

Background

Molds are a rare cause of disseminated infection among dialysis patients.

Objective.

We evaluated a cluster of intravascular infections with the mold Phialemonium among patients receiving hemodialysis at the same facility in order to identify possible environmental sources and prevent further infection.

Design.

Environmental assessment and case-control study.

Setting.

A hemodialysis center affiliated with a tertiary care hospital.

Methods.

We reviewed surveillance and clinical microbiology records and performed a blood culture survey for all patients. The following data for case patients were compared with those for control patients: underlying illness, dialysis characteristics, medications, and other possible exposure for 120 days prior to infection. Environmental assessment of water treatment, dialysis facilities, and heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems of the current and previous locations of the dialysis center was performed. Samples were cultured for fungus; Phialemonium isolates were confirmed by sequencing of DNA. Investigators observed dialysis access site disinfection technique.

Results.

Four patients were confirmed as case patients, defined as a patient having intravascular infection with Phialemonium species; 3 presented with fungemia, and 1 presented with an intravascular graft infection. All case patients used a fistula or graft for dialysis access, as did 12 (75%) of 16 of control patients (P = .54). Case and control patients did not differ in other dialysis characteristics, medications received, physiologic findings, or demographic factors. Phialemonium species were not recovered from samples of water or dialysis machines, but were recovered from the condensation drip pans under the blowers of the HVAC system that supplied air to the dialysis center. Observational study of 21 patients detected suboptimal contact time with antiseptic agents used to prepare dialysis access sites.

Conclusion.

The report of this outbreak adds to previous published reports of Phialemonium infection occurring in immunocompromised patients who likely acquired infection in the healthcare setting. Recovery of this mold from blood culture should be considered indicative of infection until proven otherwise. Furthermore, an investigation into possible healthcare-related environmental reservoirs should be considered.

Hemodialysis and water quality

Over 383,900 individuals in the U.S. undergo maintenance hemodialysis that exposes them to water, primarily in the form of dialysate. The quality of water and associated dialysis solutions have been implicated in adverse patient outcomes and is therefore critical. The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation has published both standards and recommended practices that address both water and the dialyzing solutions. Some of these recommendations have been adopted into Federal Regulations by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as part of the Conditions for Coverage, which includes limits on specific contaminants within water used for dialysis, dialysate, and substitution fluids. Chemical, bacterial, and endotoxin contaminants are health threats to dialysis patients, as shown by the continued episodic nature of outbreaks since the 1960s causing at least 592 cases and 16 deaths in the U.S. The importance of the dialysis water distribution system, current standards and recommendations, acceptable monitoring methods, a review of chemical, bacterial, and endotoxin outbreaks, and infection control programs are discussed.

Comparative study of surgical instruments from sterile-service departments for presence of residual gram-negative endotoxin and proteinaceous deposits

The ineffective cleaning of surgical instruments may be a vector for the transmission of hospital-acquired infections. The aim of this research was to investigate whether further decontamination procedures need to be instigated in sterile-service departments (SSDs) to reduce the risk of nosocomial illnesses, such as endotoxemia, sepsis, or iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (to date, 1,147 cases of confirmed Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease deaths in the United Kingdom since 1990 have been reported). Instrument sets were obtained from nine anonymous United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) primary care trust SSDs. The investigation implemented an advanced light microscopy technique, episcopic differential interference contrast microscopy with the sensitive fluorescent reagents SYPRO Ruby and 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI), to detect proteinaceous and microbial contamination levels. Gram-negative lipopolysaccharide (LPS) endotoxin was monitored using a dansylated polymyxin B fluorochrome agent. None of the 260 instruments examined displayed signs of microbial colonization or LPS endotoxin contamination. However, over 60 percent of the instruments showed a high degree of protein soiling (0.4 to 4.2 mug protein/mm(2)). Some instruments appeared soiled with crystalline deposits that may consist of a potentially hazardous material contributing to inflammation and/or surgical shock. It is clear that the overall standard for cleaning must be raised in order to fulfill the imminent introduction of new European standards and to reduce the risk of cross-patient contamination and iatrogenic transmission.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN DIALYSIS: Dialyzer Best Practice: Single Use or Reuse?

Outcome studies have shown either no additional risk or a small additional risk for hospitalization and mortality associated with reprocessing dialyzers. Although the risks from reprocessing dialyzers have yet to be fully elucidated, reuse can be done safely if it is performed in full compliance with the standards of Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI). Like most industrial processes, however, complete control of the reuse process in a clinical environment and full compliance with regulations at all times is difficult. Potential errors and breakdowns in the reuse process are continuing concerns. The quality controls for reprocessing of dialyzers are not equal to the rigor of the manufacturing process under the purview of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Therefore, if one were to determine "best practice," single use is preferable to reuse of dialyzers based on medical criteria and risk assessment. The long-term and cumulative effects of exposure to reuse reagents are unknown and there is no compelling medical indication for reprocessing of dialyzers. The major impediment when deciding to convert from reuse to single use of dialyzers is economic. The experience in Fresenius Medical Care-North America (FMCNA) facilities demonstrates that converting from a practice of reuse to single use is achievable. However, the overall economic impact of conversion to single use is provider specific. The dominance of reuse has been negated of late by a major shift in practice toward single use. Physicians and patients should be well informed in making decisions regarding the practice of single use versus reuse of dialyzers.

Outbreak of long-term intravascular catheter-related bacteremia due to Achromobacter xylosoxidans subspecies xylosoxidans in a hemodialysis unit

Achromobacter xylosoxidans is a rare cause of bacteremia. Over a 2-week period, A. xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans was isolated from blood cultures of four hemodialysis patients with long-term intravascular catheters. A culture from one atomizer that contained diluted 2.5% chlorhexidine, which had been used to disinfect the skin, yielded A. xylosoxidans subsp. xylosoxidans. No further cases were diagnosed once the use of this atomizer was discontinued. Five outbreak-related strains from the four patients and the atomizer were tested by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) under XbaI restriction. The isolates from the first three patients and the atomizer had identical PFGE patterns, confirming the atomizer as the source of the outbreak. The strain isolated from the fourth patient had six more bands than the outbreak strain and was considered possibly related to the outbreak strain. All patients were treated with intravenous levofloxacin. The catheter was removed in only one patient. The three patients in whom the catheter was left in place were also treated with antibiotic lock therapy with levofloxacin. All four patients were cured. This is believed to be the first reported outbreak of central venous catheter-related bacteremia due to A. xylosoxidans and the second reported outbreak with this organism associated with chlorhexidine atomizers. The use of diluted chlorhexidine via atomizers can be dangerous for the care of venous catheters and should be called into question. Patients with long-term intravascular catheter-related bacteremia due to this organism can be treated successfully with systemic antimicrobial therapy in addition to antibiotic lock therapy without catheter removal.

Dialyzer reuse and patient outcomes: what do we know now?

Although some hemodialysis (HD) providers in the United States have recently embarked on programs to discontinue dialyzer reprocessing, the practice of dialyzer reuse is still much more common in the United States than in many other countries. Continuation of reprocessing programs has been justified chiefly as an effort to deliver HD with biocompatible and often expensive higher flux dialysis membranes. However, this rationale is considerably less compelling with the decrease in cost for most types of HD membranes and with ongoing debates about the relative effectiveness of HD membranes according to flux and other characteristics. While it is highly likely that mandated quality control standards have limited catastrophic events, such as outbreaks of blood-borne bacterial infections that can occur due to poor dialyzer reprocessing techniques, hemodialyzer reprocessing remains vulnerable to poor implementation. Reprocessing is no longer indicated in order to improve blood-membrane biocompatibility, due to the marked decrease in first-use syndrome since the widespread adoption of synthetic dialysis membranes. Rather, the possibility exists that certain chronic inflammatory responses observed with dialyzer reuse may be deleterious, although these relationships remain speculative. While observational studies have not consistently demonstrated a large excess mortality attributable to reuse, the association of reuse to mortality remains uncertain. Evaluation of the safety of particular reprocessing techniques, germicides, and cleaners has been even harder to examine. Given the widespread availability of inexpensive biocompatible HD membranes and persistent uncertainties about the safety of dialyzer reprocessing, it is time for providers to reexamine their rationale for continuing hemodialyzer reprocessing programs.

POOR NUTRITIONAL STATUS AND INFLAMMATION: Ultrapure Dialysate

To prevent pyrogenic reactions during hemodialysis, it is recommended that bacteria and endotoxin in dialysate not exceed 100-200 colony forming units (CFU)/ml and 0.25-2 endotoxin units (EU)/ml, respectively. While these limits are adequate to prevent acute pyrogenic reactions, data are accumulating to suggest they may not prevent stimulation of chronic inflammation in hemodialysis patients. Fragments of endotoxin and other bacterial products capable of stimulating immune cells cross low-flux and high-flux membranes in vitro. In clinical studies, use of ultrapure dialysate (bacteria < 0.1 CFU/ml and endotoxin < 0.03 EU/ml) is associated with lower concentrations of inflammatory markers and acute phase reactants than are observed with dialysate meeting current quality recommendations. Moreover, observational studies suggest a link between clinical outcomes and dialysate purity. Treatment of patients with ultrapure dialysate is reported to improve nutritional status, increase responsiveness to erythropoietin, slow the decline in residual renal function, lessen cardiovascular morbidity, and decrease the incidence of beta(2)-microglobulin amyloidosis. To date, however, none of these studies has shown a cause-and-effect relationship between dialysate purity and outcome. Further, there are no data defining the concentration dependence of outcomes on dialysate purity and the relative importance of dialysate purity as a trigger of inflammation remains unclear. While the technology exists to routinely provide ultrapure dialysate, controlled clinical trials are still needed to answer the question of whether or not introducing ultrapure dialysate into routine clinical practice represents an efficient use of limited resources in terms of decreasing inflammation and improving outcomes in hemodialysis patients.

Infection control and its application to the administration of intravenous medications during gastrointestinal endoscopy

Several infection control practices and procedures crucial to the prevention of disease transmission in the health care setting are reviewed and discussed. Emphasis is placed on the importance of infection control to gastrointestinal endoscopy. Recommendations that minimize the risk of nosocomial infection during the preparation, handling, and administration of intravenous medications, particularly propofol, are provided. These recommendations include the labeling of predrawn syringes; use of sterile single-use syringes, needles, and administration sets for each patient; and, whenever feasible, administration of intravenous medications promptly after opening their prefilled syringes or after opening their ampoules or vials and filling the sterile syringes.

Seven-year study of bacteremia in hospitalized patients on chronic hemodialysis in a single tertiary hospital

Sixty-seven hospitalized bacteremic patients on chronic hemodialysis were matched with 134 bacteremic controls. Mortality (25% and 28% respectively) was unrelated to dialysis. Predictors of mortality were: advanced age, decreased functional capacity, and malignancies. Most common organisms recovered were Staphylococcus aureus (30%), coagulase negative Staphylococcus (15%), and polymicrobial agents (15%).

Infection control in the ICU

Nosocomial infections (NIs) now concern 5 to 15% of hospitalized patients and can lead to complications in 25 to 33% of those patients admitted to ICUs. The most common causes are pneumonia related to mechanical ventilation, intra-abdominal infections following trauma or surgery, and bacteremia derived from intravascular devices. This overview is targeted at ICU physicians to convince them that the principles of infection control in the ICU are based on simple concepts and that the application of preventive strategies should not be viewed as an administrative or constraining control of their activity but, rather, as basic measures that are easy to implement at the bedside. A detailed knowledge of the epidemiology, based on adequate surveillance methodologies, is necessary to understand the pathophysiology and the rationale of preventive strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective. The principles of general preventive measures such as the implementation of standard and isolation precautions, and the control of antibiotic use are reviewed. Specific practical measures, targeted at the practical prevention and control of ventilator-associated pneumonia, sinusitis, and bloodstream, urinary tract, and surgical site infections are detailed. Recent data strongly confirm that these strategies may only be effective over prolonged periods if they can be integrated into the behavior of all staff members who are involved in patient care. Accordingly, infection control measures are to be viewed as a priority and have to be integrated fully into the continuous process of improvement of the quality of care.

Molecular investigation of two clusters of hospital-acquired bacteraemia caused by multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and in frequent restriction site PCR. Infection Control Group

Two molecular typing methods, DNA macrorestriction analysis with XbaI resolved by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) and infrequent restriction site PCR (IRS-PCR) assay with adapters designed for XbaI and HhaI restriction sites, were used to investigate two clusters of hospital-acquired bacteraemia associated with multi-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae which occurred in a paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). A total of 56 K. pneumoniae isolates were analysed. These included 10 bacteraemic isolates from eight patients, 26 isolates obtained during an epidemiological survey, and 20 epidemiologically non-related isolates incorporated as controls. One major pattern was demonstrated in 22 of the 56 isolates analysed. These included nine of the 10 bacteraemic isolates, a single rectal isolate, two hand culture isolates and 10 sink isolates. All of these 22 isolates illustrated identical antibiograms, whilst the other 34 isolates shared six antibiograms and 31 unique patterns by either PFGE or IRS-PCR assay. The two clusters of bacteraemia appeared to be outbreaks induced by the same strain of K. pneumoniae which may have utilized sinks as reservoirs and been transmitted through the hands of medical personnel to patients. IRS-PCR demonstrates concordant results with PFGE analysis in studying the genetic relationships among K. pneumoniae isolates, and serves as an excellent epidemiological tool for this bacterium.

An outbreak of Burkholderia cepacia bacteremia in hemodialysis patients: an epidemiologic and molecular study

The risk of blood stream infections increases in patients undergoing chronic hemodialysis. Outbreaks of infection are usually caused by contamination of the water supply, water treatment, distribution system, or dialyzer reprocessing. We report an outbreak of subclavian catheter-related Burkholderia cepacia bacteremia in nine patients undergoing hemodialysis. Using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis, the bacterial isolates were clonally identical to Burkholderia cepacia isolated from residue of the diluted chlorhexidine-cetrimide solution used to disinfect the transfer forceps. These forceps were used to pick up cotton balls and gauze for dressing the subclavian catheter. Antibiotic therapy failed to cure the infections, and all patients required catheter removal. Pathology showed numerous bacilli embedded in the biofilm on the inner surface of the removed catheters. In conclusion, our study showed that contaminated chlorhexidine-cetrimide solution was the source of a bacteremic outbreak in nine patients who developed catheter-related Burkholderia cepacia infection.

Outbreaks of infection and/or pyrogenic reactions in dialysis patients

These dialysis-related outbreaks demonstrate the ongoing potential for infection-related morbidity and mortality among dialysis patients. Many of these outbreaks could have been prevented by adequate water treatment, proper disinfection of water systems and dialysis machines, adherence to recommended reprocessing protocols in centers reusing dialyzers, and more stringent quality control monitoring. Finally, these outbreaks highlight the importance of active surveillance for adverse events among dialysis patients. The incidence of gram-negative bacteremia, pyrogenic reactions, and peritonitis should be monitored over time and any increase in incidence investigated.

An outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in hemodialysis patients traced to hemodialysis machine waste drain ports

OBJECTIVE

To investigate an outbreak of gram-negative bacteremias at a hemodialysis center (December 1, 1996-January 31, 1997).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Reviewed infection control practices and maintenance and disinfection procedures for the water system and dialysis machines. Performed cultures of the water and dialysis machines, including the waste-handling option (WHO), a drain port designed to dispose of saline used to flush the dialyzer before patient use. Compared isolates by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.

SETTING

A hemodialysis center in Maryland.

RESULTS

94 patients received dialysis on 27 machines; 10 (11%) of the patients had gram-negative bacteremias. Pathogens causing these infections were Enterobacter cloacae (n = 6), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 4), and Escherichia coli (n = 2); two patients had polymicrobial bacteremia. Factors associated with development of gram-negative bacteremias were receiving dialysis via a central venous catheter (CVC) rather than via an arterio-venous shunt (all 10 infected patients had CVCs compared to 31 of 84 uninfected patients, relative risk [RR] undefined; P<.001) or dialysis on any of three particular dialysis machines (7 of 10 infected patients were exposed to the three machines compared to 20 of 84 uninfected patients, RR = 5.8; P = .005). E cloacae, P aeruginosa, or both organisms were grown from cultures obtained from several dialysis machines. WHO valves, which prevent backflow from the drain to dialysis bloodlines, were faulty in 8 (31%) of 26 machines, including 2 of 3 machines epidemiologically linked to case-patients. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns of available dialysis machine and patient E cloacae isolates were identical.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that WHO ports with incompetent valves and resultant backflow were a source of cross-contamination of dialysis bloodlines and patients' CVCs. Replacement of faulty WHO valves and enhanced disinfection of dialysis machines terminated the outbreak.

Requirements for infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology in out-of-hospital settings: a consensus panel report. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

In 1997 the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America established a consensus panel to develop recommendations for optimal infrastructure and essential activities of infection control and epidemiology programs in out-of-hospital settings. The following report represents the Consensus Panel's best assessment of requirements for a healthy and effective out-of-hospital-based infection control and epidemiology program. The recommendations fall into 5 categories: managing critical data and information; developing and recommending policies and procedures; intervening directly to prevent infections; educating and training of health care workers, patients, and nonmedical caregivers; and resources. The Consensus Panel used an evidence-based approach and categorized recommendations according to modifications of the scheme developed by the Clinical Affairs Committee of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee.

The molecular and clinical epidemiology of enterobacteriaceae-producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamase in a tertiary care hospital

To describe the epidemiology of Enterobacteriaceae-producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (EP-ESBL) in a non-outbreak setting, and to define the risk factors associated with colonization, a 5-month surveillance study was initiated. Ten of 333 patients were colonized with EP-ESBL, as defined by isoelectric focusing. Klebsiella sp. and Escherichia coli were the species most commonly harbouring these plasmid-mediated enzymes. Of the 16 SHV-producing isolates, 10 were SHV-3-like (pI 7.0) and six were SHV-5-like (pI 8.2). All isolates were resistant to ceftriaxone. Ceftazidime resistance was detected in 50% and 100% of SHV-3-like and SHV-5-like producing isolates, respectively. One patient was colonized with four different SHV-5-like producing Enterobacteriaceae. These isolates carried plasmids that were indistinguishable by restriction endonuclease analysis, indicating broad plasmid transfer within the patient. By logistic regression, haemodialysis was a strong risk factor for colonization with EP-ESBL, suggesting that, in our hospital, horizontal transmission is an important mechanism of dissemination of these resistant pathogens.

National Kidney Foundation report on dialyzer reuse. Task Force on Reuse of Dialyzers, Council on Dialysis, National Kidney Foundation

The Council on Dialysis of the National Kidney Foundation convened an expert panel to evaluate the current practice and literature related to the reuse of hemodialyzers. The panel reviewed and evaluated literature related to reuse since the last report of the National Kidney Foundation recommendations on reuse was published in 1988. The group sought to develop a consensus concerning the effect of reuse of hemodialyzers on mortality; the efficiency of delivered hemodialysis when reused hemodialyzers are used in the clinical setting; the clinical effects of reused dialyzers as compared with dialyzers not reused on intradialytic symptoms; infections in patients using reused dialyzers; and the effect of reused dialyzers on complement activation, cytokine production, and beta2-microglobulin metabolism and clearance. In addition, the panel reviewed the literature on the potential toxicity of germicides used in the processing of dialyzers for reuse as well as recent changes in federally mandated regulations concerning labeling of dialyzers for reuse, the monitoring of the reuse process, and the effectiveness of reused dialyzers to achieve a prescribed delivered clearance as estimated by urea kinetic modeling or by percent urea reduction. The National Kidney Foundation takes no position for or against dialyzer reuse. The principal reason for the practice of reuse is economical. In view of the uncertainties related to the safety and biological impact of reuse procedures, the task force recommends that a full discussion of the issue of reuse and its potential beneficial and detrimental effects be undertaken with each patient. There is no conclusive evidence to substantiate the notion that either morbidity or mortality associated with single use or reuse is different. Microbial contamination of the water used for dialyzer reprocessing increases patient morbidity. The chemical quality of water used for dialyzer reprocessing should, at least, fall within the same standards as those recommended for product water intended for hemodialysis. Dialyzers should not be reprocessed from patients who have tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. The effects of reprocessing high-flux dialyzers on beta2-microglobulin clearance are dependent on the reprocessing technique, the number of reuses, and the nature of the dialyzer membrane used. There are insufficient data on the effects of reuse on beta2-microglobulin behavior to make uniform recommendations. Untoward effects of reused dialyzers may still occur in spite of rigorous adherence to the AAMI guidelines. For example, use of the total cell volume method for assessing changes in small molecule clearances will not show the loss of performance attributable to dialysate shunting. For this reason, the measurement of Kt/V for urea as recommended by the AAMI or the determination of the urea reduction ratio (URR) is strongly recommended at least monthly to gauge the adequacy of the dialysis procedure. Given the significant fall in dialyzer efficiency for urea removal that can occur after repeated uses of a dialyzer, dialysis prescriptions in units practicing reuse should be designed to deliver a Kt/V or URR value that exceeds the dose used for patients treated with single-use dialyzers to make allowance for any possible reuse-induced reduction in dialyzer efficiency. Technicians and other personnel responsible for the reprocessing of dialyzers should receive proper training. These health care providers should be certified in reprocessing by an examining body so that professional competency can be assured.

Surgical wound infections diagnosed after discharge from hospital: epidemiologic differences with in-hospital infections

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to study postoperative infections detected in hospital and after discharge and to identify risk factors for such infections.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was used, with follow-up of 30 days after hospital discharge, on 1483 patients admitted to the general surgery service of a tertiary care hospital. The main outcome measure was surgical wound infection (SWI). Relative risks, crude and multiple risk factors adjusted for by logistic regression analysis, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

During follow-up 155 patients showed evidence of nosocomial infection, 134 in hospital and 21 at home, yielding a cumulative incidence of 10.5%. According to several variables (age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, serum albumin, the SENIC and National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance indexes of intrinsic patient risk, length of hospital stay, etc.) there were no differences between patients with postdischarge SWI and uninfected patients; however, differences were detected between postdischarge SWI and in-hospital SWI, as well as between patients with in-hospital SWI and patients without infections. The analysis of risk factors showed that most predictors for in-hospital SWI did not behave in the same manner for postdischarge SWI. Stepwise logistic regression analysis identified cancer (odds ratio = 4.5, 95% CI = 1.7 to 12.2, p = 0.003) and surgeon performing the operation (for medium risk, OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 0.9 to 21.3, p = 0.059; for high risk, OR = 3.0, 95% CI = 0.7-13.3, p = 0.144) as independent risk factors for postdischarge SWI.

CONCLUSIONS

There were important epidemiologic differences between in-hospital SWI and postdischarge SWI; most risk factors for in-hospital SWI are not predictors for postdischarge SWI.

Elimination of an outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in a hemodialysis unit

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify the cause of an unusual outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis.

METHODS

We performed direct observation and investigation of current dialysis techniques and facilities including microbiologic sampling in a long-term hemodialysis unit in a tertiary care center. We also performed a retrospective review of medical charts and laboratory data of 10 patients undergoing long-term hemodialysis who experienced 11 episodes of gram-negative bacteremia between March 4 and June 28, 1993.

RESULTS

All of these patients underwent dialysis by jugular venous access. Containers used to collect flush solution after priming of dialysis tubing remained unemptied for extended periods of time, and quantitative culture revealed more than 200 colony-forming units/ml gram-negative bacilli, including species isolated in blood cultures. Dialysis tubing and connector were left submerged in flush solution collection containers during priming, and the process of disinfecting tubing before patient connection had recently been discontinued. Control measures included emptying of flush containers after each use and daily decontamination. All dialysis tubing was to be disinfected before patient connection.

CONCLUSION

Outbreak was due to contamination during dialysis setup. After institution of appropriate control measures, no new cases have occurred.

Epidemiological perspective on infections in chronic dialysis patients

Infectious complications are a source of substantial morbidity and a common cause of death among dialysis patients. This article considers the magnitude and impact of the problem of infection among patients treated with hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) using data from national registries and large cohort studies of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data indicate that in the United States for years 1991 to 1992, infection accounted for 12% of all deaths among HD patients and 15% of all deaths among PD patients. Septicemia was the underlying cause in 76% of these infectious deaths among HD patients, of which the vascular access, peritonitis, peripheral vascular disease, and other causes accounted for 12%, 5%, 24%, and 59% respectively. Among PD patients, septicemia accounted for 79% of infectious deaths. Of these deaths attributable to septicemia, peritonitis, peripheral vascular disease, and other causes were reported as the cause in 35%, 23%, and 41% respectively. Infection is also a major cause of morbidity in the dialysis population. Among HD patients, an average of 7.6 bacteremic episodes per 100 patient years (0.076 per year) has been described, of which 48% were associated with access infections. Among PD patients, studies have reported peritonitis rates ranging from 1 in 7.6 to 21.5 months (0.56 to 1.58 per patient year) and exit and/or tunnel infections occurring at a rate of 0.6 episodes per year. The known predictors of infectious complications among these populations are reviewed.