Dataset Information

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care patients has been controversial for years. Through regular questionnaires we determined expectations concerning SDD (effectiveness) and experience with SDD and SOD (workload and patient friendliness), as perceived by nurses and physicians. METHODS: A survey was embedded in a group-randomized, controlled, cross-over multicenter study in the Netherlands in which, during three 6-month periods, SDD, SOD or standard care was used in random order. At the end of each study period, all nurses and physicians from participating intensive care units received study questionnaires. RESULTS: In all, 1024 (71%) of 1450 questionnaires were returned by nurses and 253 (82%) of 307 by physicians. Expectations that SDD improved patient outcome increased from 71% and 77% of respondents after the first two study periods to 82% at the end of the study (P = 0.004), with comparable trends among nurses and physicians. Nurses considered SDD to impose a higher workload (median 5.0, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high)) than SOD (median 4.0) and standard care (median 2.0). Both SDD and SOD were considered less patient friendly than standard care (medians 4.0, 4.0 and 6.0, respectively). According to physicians, SDD had a higher workload (median 5.5) than SOD (median 5.0), which in turn was higher than standard care (median 2.5). Furthermore, physicians graded patient friendliness of standard care (median 8.0) higher than that of SDD and SOD (both median 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Although perceived effectiveness of SDD increased as the trial proceeded, both among physicians and nurses, SOD and SDD were, as compared to standard care, considered to increase workload and to reduce patient friendliness. Therefore, education about the importance of oral care and on the effects of SDD and SOD on patient outcomes will be important when implementing these strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN35176830.

SUBMITTER: Jongerden IP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2945100 | biostudies-literature | 2010

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey.

Jongerden Irene P IP de Smet Anne Marie G AM Kluytmans Jan A JA te Velde Leo F LF Dennesen Paul J PJ Wesselink Ronald M RM Bouw Martijn P MP Spanjersberg Rob R Bogaers-Hofman Diana D van der Meer Nardo J NJ de Vries Jaap W JW Kaasjager Karin K van Iterson Mat M Kluge Georg H GH van der Werf Tjip S TS Harinck Hubertus I HI Bindels Alexander J AJ Pickkers Peter P Bonten Marc J MJ

Critical care (London, England) 20100713 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care patients has been controversial for years. Through regular questionnaires we determined expectations concerning SDD (effectiveness) and experience with SDD and SOD (workload and patient friendliness), as perceived by nurses and physicians.<h4>Methods</h4>A survey was embedded in a group-randomized, controlled, cross-over multicenter study in the N ...[more]

PMID: 20626848

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) reduce colonization with antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (ARGNB), incidence of nosocomial infections and improve survival in ICU patients. The effect on bacterial gut colonization might be caused by growth suppression by antibiotics during SDD/SOD. We investigated intestinal colonization with ARGNB after discharge from ICU and discontinuation of SDD or SOD.MethodsWe performed a prospective, observational follow-up study in regular hospital wards of three teaching hospitals in the Netherlands in patients discharged from the ICU, who were participating in a cluster randomized trial comparing SDD with SOD. We determined rectal carriage with ARGNB at ICU discharge (time (T) = 0) and 3, 6 and 10 days after discharge. The primary endpoint was time to first colonization with ARGNB that was not present at T = 0. Bacteria that are intrinsically resistant to antibiotics were not included in the primary analysis, but were included in post-hoc analysis.ResultsOf 1370 patients screened for inclusion, 996 patients had samples at T = 0 (507 after SDD and 489 after SOD). At ICU discharge, the prevalence of intestinal carriage with any ARGNB was 22/507 (4.3%) after SDD and 87/489 (17.8%) after SOD (p < 0.0001): 426 (SDD) and 409 (SOD) patients had at least one follow-up sample for analysis. The hazard rate for acquiring carriage of ARGNB after discontinuation of SDD, compared to SOD, in the ICU was 0.61 (95% CI 0.40-0.91, p = 0.02), and cumulative risks of acquisition of at least one ARGNB until day 10 were 13% (SDD) and 18% (SOD). At day 10 after ICU discharge, the prevalence of intestinal carriage with ARGNB was 11.3% (26/230 patients) after SDD and 12.5% (28/224 patients) after SOD (p = 0.7). In post-hoc analysis of all ARGNB, including intrinsically resistant bacteria, colonization at ICU discharge was lower after SDD (4.9 vs. 22.3%, p < 0.0001), but acquisition rates after ICU discharge were similar in both groups.ConclusionsIntestinal carriage at ICU discharge and the acquisition rate of ARGNB after ICU discharge are lower after SDD than after SOD. The prevalence of intestinal carriage with ARGNB at 10 days after ICU discharge was comparable in both groups, suggesting rapid clearance of ARGNB from the gut after ICU discharge.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry, NTR3311 . Registered on 28 february 2012.

Project description:IntroductionSelective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is a prophylactic antibiotic regimen that is not widely used in practice. We aimed to describe the opinions of key 'stakeholders' about the validity of the existing evidence base, likely consequences of implementation, relative importance of their opinions in influencing overall practice, likely barriers to implementation and perceptions of the requirement for further research to inform the decision about whether to embark on a further large randomised controlled trial.MethodsThis was a Delphi study informed by comprehensive framework of possible determinants of health professionals' behaviour to study Critical Care practice in four countries. There were four key stakeholder participant groups including ICU physicians, pharmacists, clinical leads, and clinical microbiologists/ infectious disease physicians. Round one comprised participant interviews and Rounds two and three were online questionnaires using Delphi method.ResultsIn this study, 141 participants were recruited of whom 82% were retained. Participants rated themselves as knowledgeable about SDD. Antibiotic resistance was identified as the most important issue. SDD was seen as a low clinical priority but few participants reported strong opposition. There was moderate agreement that research to date has not adequately addressed concerns about antibiotic resistance and lacks generalizability. Participants indicated equipoise with regard to benefits and harms of SDD, and indicated strong support for a further randomised trial.ConclusionsClinicians have clinical equipoise about the effectiveness of SDD. Future research requires longer follow up to assess antibiotic resistance as well as greater validity/generalizability to provide definitive answers on the effectiveness of decontamination and effects on antibiotic resistance. SDD was regarded as not being a high clinical priority, which may limit future trial participation. These results have identified that further large randomised controlled trial of SDD in critical care is both warranted and appropriate.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the effect on mortality of selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, and topical oropharyngeal chlorhexidine in adult patients in general intensive care units and to compare these interventions with each other in a network meta-analysis.DesignSystematic review, conventional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched to December 2012. Previous meta-analyses, conference abstracts, and key journals were also searched. We used pairwise meta-analyses to estimate direct evidence from intervention-control trials and a network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to combine direct and indirect evidence.Inclusion criteriaProspective randomised controlled trials that recruited adult patients in general intensive care units and studied selective digestive decontamination, selective oropharyngeal decontamination, or oropharyngeal chlorhexidine compared with standard care or placebo.ResultsSelective digestive decontamination had a favourable effect on mortality, with a direct evidence odds ratio of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.84). The direct evidence odds ratio for selective oropharyngeal decontamination was 0.85 (0.74 to 0.97). Chlorhexidine was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio 1.25, 1.05 to 1.50). When each intervention was compared with the other, both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination were superior to chlorhexidine. The difference between selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination was uncertain.ConclusionSelective digestive decontamination has a favourable effect on mortality in adult patients in general intensive care units. In these patients, the effect of selective oropharyngeal decontamination is less certain. Both selective digestive decontamination and selective oropharyngeal decontamination are superior to chlorhexidine, and there is a possibility that chlorhexidine is associated with increased mortality.

Project description:Enterococci have emerged as important opportunistic pathogens in intensive care units (ICUs). In this study, enterococcal population size and Enterococcus isolates colonizing the intestinal tract of ICU patients receiving Selective Digestive Decontamination (SDD) were investigated. All nine patients included in the study showed substantial shifts in the enterococcal 16S rRNA gene copy number in the gut microbiota during the hospitalization period. Furthermore, 41 Enterococcus spp. strains were isolated and characterized from these patients at different time points during and after ICU hospitalization, including E. faecalis (n = 13), E. faecium (n = 23), and five isolates that could not unequivocally assigned to a specific species (E. sp. n = 5) Multi locus sequence typing revealed a high prevalence of ST 6 in E. faecalis isolates (46%) and ST 117 in E. faecium (52%). Furthermore, antibiotic resistance phenotypes, including macrolide and vancomycin resistance, as well as virulence factor-encoding genes [asa1, esp-fm, esp-fs, hyl, and cyl (B)] were investigated in all isolates. Resistance to ampicillin and tetracycline was observed in 25 (61%) and 19 (46%) isolates, respectively. Furthermore, 30 out of 41 isolates harbored the erm (B) gene, mainly present in E. faecium isolates (78%). The most prevalent virulence genes were asa1 in E. faecalis (54%) and esp (esp-fm, 74%; esp-fs, 39%). Six out of nine patients developed nosocomial enterococcal infections, however, corresponding clinical isolates were unfortunately not available for further analysis. Our results show that multiple Enterococcus species, carrying several antibiotic resistance and virulence genes, occurred simultaneously in patients receiving SDD therapy, with varying prevalence dynamics over time. Furthermore, simultaneous presence and/or replacement of E. faecium STs was observed-, reinforcing the importance of screening multiple isolates to comprehensively characterize enterococcal diversity in ICU patients.

Dataset Information

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey.

Publications

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets