• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Wed, 29.05.24

Search results

July 2014
Arie Soroksky MD, Sergey Nagornov MD, Eliezer Klinowski MD, Yuval Leonov MD, Eduard Ilgiyaev MD, Orit Yossepowitch MD and Galina Goltsman M

Background: The role of routine active surveillance cultures (ASCs) in predicting consequent blood stream infections is unclear.

Objectives: To determine prospectively whether routine screening ASCs obtained on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) can predict the causative agent of subsequent bloodstream infections.

Methods: We prospectively studied a cohort of 100 mechanically ventilated patients admitted consecutively to a 16-bed ICU. On admission, ASCs were obtained from four sites: skin cultures (swabs) from the axillary region, rectal swabs, nasal swabs, and deep tracheal aspirates. Thereafter, cultures were obtained from all four sites daily for the next 5 days of the ICU stay.

Results: Of the 100 recruited patients 31 (31%) had culture-proven bacteremia; the median time to development of bacteremia was 5 days (range 1–18). Patients with bacteremia had a longer median ICU stay than patients without bacteremia: 14 days (range 2–45) vs. 5 days (1–41) (P < 0.001). ICU and 28 day mortality were similar in patients with and without bacteremia. Most ASCs grew multiple organisms. However, there was no association between pathogens growing on ASCs and eventual development of bacteremia.

Conclusions: ASCs obtained on ICU admission did not identify the causative agents of most subsequent bacteremia events. Therefore, bloodstream infections could not be related to ASCs.

July 2013
D. Leibovici, S. Shikanov, O.N. Gofrit, G.P. Zagaja, Y. Shilo and A.L. Shalhav
 Background: Recommendations for active surveillance versus immediate treatment for low risk prostate cancer are based on biopsy and clinical data, assuming that a low volume of well-differentiated carcinoma will be associated will a low progression risk. However, the accuracy of clinical prediction of minimal prostate cancer (MPC) is unclear.

Objectives: To define preoperative predictors for MPC in prostatectomy specimens and to examine the accuracy of such prediction.

Methods: Data collected on 1526 consecutive radical prostatectomy patients operated in a single center between 2003 and 2008 included: age, body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen level, biopsy Gleason score, clinical stage, percentage of positive biopsy cores, and maximal core length (MCL) involvement. MPC was defined as < 5% of prostate volume involvement with organ-confined Gleason score ≤ 6. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to define independent predictors of minimal disease. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to define cutoff values for the predictors and measure the accuracy of prediction.

Results: MPC was found in 241 patients (15.8%). Clinical stage, biopsy Gleason`s score, percent of positive biopsy cores, and maximal involved core length were associated with minimal disease (OR 0.42, 0.1, 0.92, and 0.9, respectively). Independent predictors of MPC included: biopsy Gleason score, percent of positive cores and MCL (OR 0.21, 095 and 0.95, respectively). CART showed that when the MCL exceeded 11.5%, the likelihood of MPC was 3.8%. ;Conversely, when applying the most favorable preoperative conditions (Gleason ≤ 6, < 20% positive cores, MCL ≤ 11.5%) the chance of minimal disease was 41%.

Conclusions: Biopsy Gleason score, the percent of positive cores and MCL are independently associated with MPC. While preoperative prediction of significant prostate cancer was accurate, clinical prediction of MPC was incorrect 59% of the time. Caution is necessary when implementing clinical data as selection criteria for active surveillance. 

December 2011
M. Zoabi, Y. Keness, N. Titler and N. Bisharat

Background: The compliance of hospital staff with guidelines for the active surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Israel has not been determined.

Objectives: To evaluate the compliance of hospital staff with guidelines for the active surveillance of MRSA and assess its impact on the incidence of nosocomial MRSA bacteremia.

Methods: We assessed compliance with MRSA surveillance guidelines by assessing adherence to the screening protocol and reviewing medical and nursing charts of patients colonized with MRSA, and observed hand hygiene opportunities among health care workers and colonized patients. Rates of nosocomial MRSA bacteremia and of adherence with hand hygiene among overall hospital staff were obtained from archived data for the period 2001–2010.

Results: Only 32.4% of eligible patients were screened for MRSA carriage on admission, and 69.9% of MRSA carriers did not receive any eradication treatment. The mean rate of adherence to glove use among nurses and doctors was 69% and 31% respectively (P < 0.01) and to hand hygiene 59% and 41% respectively (P < 0.01). The hospital overall rate of adherence to hand hygiene increased from 42.3% in 2005 to 68.1% in 2010. Rates of nosocomial MRSA bacteremia decreased by 79.2%, from 0.48 (in 2001) to 0.1 (in 2010) per 1000 admissions (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The compliance of medical and nursing staff with guidelines for active MRSA surveillance was poor. The encouraging increase in adherence to hand hygiene and concomitant decrease in nosocomial MRSA bacteremia is gratifying. The deficiencies in compliance with MRSA infection control policy warrant an adjusted strategy based on the hospital resources.

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel