Skip to main page content

• HOME
• CURRENT ISSUE
• PAST ISSUES
• MOBILE
• ABOUT
• ACP
• SUBSCRIPTIONS
• E-MAIL ALERTS
• SUBMIT

RSS Feeds

1. Comparison of Device-Related Infection Rates Between Developing Countries and the United States

   • Rodrigo A Ribeiro, MD
   • Alexandre P. Zavascki, Sandra C. Fuchs

   Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre

   We read with great interest the article by Rosenthal and colleagues about intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections in developing countries(1). The results are of great concern, since high overall rates of device-related nosocomial infections were found in participating ICUs (24.1 ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) per 1000 mechanical ventilator days, 12.5 central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infections per 1000 CVC days, and 8.9 catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTI) per 1000 Foley catheter days). Furthermore, the authors found that these were far higher than those reported by National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) System in the Unites States(2).

   However, this comparison has some significant drawbacks. The comparator rates from NNIS presented(1) (4.0 CVC-related bloodstream infections, 5.4 VAP, and 3.9 catheter-associated UTIs per 1000 device days) are, in fact, only from the medical-surgical ICUs of major teaching hospitals(2). This subgroup of ICUs represents only about 16% of total NNIS ICUs, and accounted for less than 18% of total infections. Moreover, these ICUs are likely to be centers of excellence in infection control. The rates from these ICUs, for example, underestimated the weighted arithmetic mean of all ICUs from NNIS (4.85 per 1000 CVC days, 7.5 per 1000 mechanical ventilator days, and 4.9 per 1000 urinary catheter days). Although it is possible to compare the overall incidence of these infections, a wide range of infection rates among different ICU settings requires individual comparisons as done in NNIS report, where no pooled mean was calculated.

   The study by Rosenthal and colleagues gathered data from medical- surgical units (58%), coronary care units (12%), combined medical-surgical and coronary units (25%), and other types of adult ICUs (10%). We believe that it would be more appropriate to compare infection rates according to these strata, since they may result from different rates of device usage, different infection control practices and patients with different degrees of susceptibility to infections.

   Although the overall results described by Rosenthal and colleagues indicate higher incidence of device-associated nosocomial infections in developing countries, it might be overestimated. It called to our attention a wide range of rates among countries, especially regarding VAP, which ranged from 10.0 to 52.7 per 1000 mechanical ventilator days. We believe that the overall pooled mean rates are not well-suited to represent developing countries, since striking variations among countries may actually indicate differences in infection control measures, distinct practices and distinct care of patients in developing countries.

   References

   1. Rosenthal VD, Maki DG, Salomao R, Moreno CA, Mehta Y, Higuera F, Cuellar LE, Arikan OA, Abouqal R, Leblebicioglu H. International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium. Device-associated nosocomial infections in 55 intensive care units of 8 developing countries.Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:582-91.

   2. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through June 2004, issued October 2004. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32:470-85.

   Conflict of Interest:

   None declared

   Submit response
   Published November 14, 2006