多药耐药菌感染防控措施:系统综述与网络荟萃分析。

IF 5.4 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Yuhui Geng, Zhuo Liu, Xiaojuan Ma, Ting Pan, Mingbo Chen, Jingxia Dang, Ping Zhang, Chen Chen, Yuan Zhao, Dongfeng Pan, Peifeng Liang
{"title":"多药耐药菌感染防控措施:系统综述与网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuhui Geng, Zhuo Liu, Xiaojuan Ma, Ting Pan, Mingbo Chen, Jingxia Dang, Ping Zhang, Chen Chen, Yuan Zhao, Dongfeng Pan, Peifeng Liang","doi":"10.1007/s15010-025-02498-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of infection prevention and control measures combating multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in healthcare settings remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 1, 2024. The interventions encompassed standard precautions (SP), contact precautions (CP), hand hygiene (HH), environmental cleaning (ENV), antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP), decolonization (DCL), and chlorhexidine baths (CHG). The primary outcome were the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and MDROs-associated bacteraemia. Effect indicators were expressed as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included a total of 97 articles, comprising 19 RCTs and 78 non-RCTs. The results showed that the most effective combination interventions for the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs compared to SP varied as follows: CP + CHG (RR, 0.38 [0.18, 0.79]), SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 [0.02, 0.08]), and SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14, 0.56]). In subgroup analyses, CP + CHG (RR, 0.36 [0.20,0.64]) was the most effective intervention for the acquisition of MDROs in the ICU setting, whereas SP + CP + ASP (RR, 0.35 [0.14,0.92]) was the most effective hospital-wide. Across subgroups, SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 to 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.99]) was identified as the most effective intervention for MDROs infections. In the ICU setting, SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14,0.56]) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in reducing the colonization of MDROs, whereas SP + CP + ENV + CHG (RR, 0.15 [0.06,0.38]) was the most effective on a hospital-wide scale. SP + CP + DCL (RR, 0.28 [0.24, 0.32]) was associated with reduced CRE colonization. The results of this study were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. None of the analyses related to secondary outcomes were statistically significant. In terms of article quality assessment, 94.7% of the RCTs were medium to high risk, while 92.31% of the non-RCTs. The primary limitation of the RCTs were related to the randomization process, whereas the non-RCTs were primarily affected by confounding bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective interventions differ based on carriage status, intervention setting, and the resistant strain. Additionally, contact precautions is a crucial component of these combinations. Consequently, healthcare organizations can select appropriate interventions based on their unique resistance profiles to optimize precision and resource efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":13600,"journal":{"name":"Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Infection prevention and control measures for multidrug-resistant organisms: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuhui Geng, Zhuo Liu, Xiaojuan Ma, Ting Pan, Mingbo Chen, Jingxia Dang, Ping Zhang, Chen Chen, Yuan Zhao, Dongfeng Pan, Peifeng Liang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s15010-025-02498-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness of infection prevention and control measures combating multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in healthcare settings remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 1, 2024. The interventions encompassed standard precautions (SP), contact precautions (CP), hand hygiene (HH), environmental cleaning (ENV), antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP), decolonization (DCL), and chlorhexidine baths (CHG). The primary outcome were the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and MDROs-associated bacteraemia. Effect indicators were expressed as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included a total of 97 articles, comprising 19 RCTs and 78 non-RCTs. The results showed that the most effective combination interventions for the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs compared to SP varied as follows: CP + CHG (RR, 0.38 [0.18, 0.79]), SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 [0.02, 0.08]), and SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14, 0.56]). In subgroup analyses, CP + CHG (RR, 0.36 [0.20,0.64]) was the most effective intervention for the acquisition of MDROs in the ICU setting, whereas SP + CP + ASP (RR, 0.35 [0.14,0.92]) was the most effective hospital-wide. Across subgroups, SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 to 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.99]) was identified as the most effective intervention for MDROs infections. In the ICU setting, SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14,0.56]) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in reducing the colonization of MDROs, whereas SP + CP + ENV + CHG (RR, 0.15 [0.06,0.38]) was the most effective on a hospital-wide scale. SP + CP + DCL (RR, 0.28 [0.24, 0.32]) was associated with reduced CRE colonization. The results of this study were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. None of the analyses related to secondary outcomes were statistically significant. In terms of article quality assessment, 94.7% of the RCTs were medium to high risk, while 92.31% of the non-RCTs. The primary limitation of the RCTs were related to the randomization process, whereas the non-RCTs were primarily affected by confounding bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Effective interventions differ based on carriage status, intervention setting, and the resistant strain. Additionally, contact precautions is a crucial component of these combinations. Consequently, healthcare organizations can select appropriate interventions based on their unique resistance profiles to optimize precision and resource efficiency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-025-02498-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-025-02498-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在卫生保健环境中,感染预防和控制措施对抗多药耐药生物(mdro)的有效性仍然存在争议。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE、Cochrane Library和CINAHL自成立至2024年6月1日的文献。干预措施包括标准预防措施(SP)、接触预防措施(CP)、手部卫生(HH)、环境清洁(ENV)、抗菌管理计划(ASP)、去菌落(DCL)和洗必泰浴(CHG)。主要结果是MDROs的获得、感染和定植。次要结局是全因死亡率和mdro相关菌血症。效应指标用95%置信区间的率比(rr)表示。结果:本研究共纳入97篇文献,包括19篇随机对照试验和78篇非随机对照试验。结果表明,与SP相比,CP + CHG (RR, 0.38[0.18, 0.79])、SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04[0.02, 0.08])和SP + CHG (RR, 0.28[0.14, 0.56])组合干预对MDROs的获得、感染和定植最有效。在亚组分析中,CP + CHG (RR, 0.36[0.20,0.64])是ICU环境中获得MDROs最有效的干预措施,而SP + CP + ASP (RR, 0.35[0.14,0.92])是全院范围内最有效的干预措施。在各个亚组中,SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04至0.09 [95% CI, 0.01至0.99])被认为是对MDROs感染最有效的干预措施。在ICU环境中,SP + CHG (RR, 0.28[0.14,0.56])在减少MDROs定植方面表现出最高的效果,而SP + CP + ENV + CHG (RR, 0.15[0.06,0.38])在医院范围内最有效。SP + CP + DCL (RR, 0.28[0.24, 0.32])与CRE定植减少相关。根据敏感性分析,本研究的结果是稳健的。与次要结果相关的分析均无统计学意义。在文章质量评价方面,94.7%的rct为中高风险,92.31%的非rct为中高风险。随机对照试验的主要局限性与随机化过程有关,而非随机对照试验主要受混杂偏倚的影响。结论:有效的干预措施因携带状况、干预环境和耐药菌株而异。此外,接触预防措施是这些组合的关键组成部分。因此,医疗保健组织可以根据其独特的抗性概况选择适当的干预措施,以优化精度和资源效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Infection prevention and control measures for multidrug-resistant organisms: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: The effectiveness of infection prevention and control measures combating multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in healthcare settings remains controversial.

Methods: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception to June 1, 2024. The interventions encompassed standard precautions (SP), contact precautions (CP), hand hygiene (HH), environmental cleaning (ENV), antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP), decolonization (DCL), and chlorhexidine baths (CHG). The primary outcome were the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and MDROs-associated bacteraemia. Effect indicators were expressed as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: The study included a total of 97 articles, comprising 19 RCTs and 78 non-RCTs. The results showed that the most effective combination interventions for the acquisition, infection, and colonization of MDROs compared to SP varied as follows: CP + CHG (RR, 0.38 [0.18, 0.79]), SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 [0.02, 0.08]), and SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14, 0.56]). In subgroup analyses, CP + CHG (RR, 0.36 [0.20,0.64]) was the most effective intervention for the acquisition of MDROs in the ICU setting, whereas SP + CP + ASP (RR, 0.35 [0.14,0.92]) was the most effective hospital-wide. Across subgroups, SP + CP + ENV (RR, 0.04 to 0.09 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.99]) was identified as the most effective intervention for MDROs infections. In the ICU setting, SP + CHG (RR, 0.28 [0.14,0.56]) demonstrated the highest effectiveness in reducing the colonization of MDROs, whereas SP + CP + ENV + CHG (RR, 0.15 [0.06,0.38]) was the most effective on a hospital-wide scale. SP + CP + DCL (RR, 0.28 [0.24, 0.32]) was associated with reduced CRE colonization. The results of this study were robust according to the sensitivity analysis. None of the analyses related to secondary outcomes were statistically significant. In terms of article quality assessment, 94.7% of the RCTs were medium to high risk, while 92.31% of the non-RCTs. The primary limitation of the RCTs were related to the randomization process, whereas the non-RCTs were primarily affected by confounding bias.

Conclusions: Effective interventions differ based on carriage status, intervention setting, and the resistant strain. Additionally, contact precautions is a crucial component of these combinations. Consequently, healthcare organizations can select appropriate interventions based on their unique resistance profiles to optimize precision and resource efficiency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infection
Infection 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
224
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Infection is a journal dedicated to serving as a global forum for the presentation and discussion of clinically relevant information on infectious diseases. Its primary goal is to engage readers and contributors from various regions around the world in the exchange of knowledge about the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of infectious diseases, both in outpatient and inpatient settings. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including: Etiology: The study of the causes of infectious diseases. Pathogenesis: The process by which an infectious agent causes disease. Diagnosis: The methods and techniques used to identify infectious diseases. Treatment: The medical interventions and strategies employed to treat infectious diseases. Public Health: Issues of local, regional, or international significance related to infectious diseases, including prevention, control, and management strategies. Hospital Epidemiology: The study of the spread of infectious diseases within healthcare settings and the measures to prevent nosocomial infections. In addition to these, Infection also includes a specialized "Images" section, which focuses on high-quality visual content, such as images, photographs, and microscopic slides, accompanied by brief abstracts. This section is designed to highlight the clinical and diagnostic value of visual aids in the field of infectious diseases, as many conditions present with characteristic clinical signs that can be diagnosed through inspection, and imaging and microscopy are crucial for accurate diagnosis. The journal's comprehensive approach ensures that it remains a valuable resource for healthcare professionals and researchers in the field of infectious diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信