Healthcare-associated Infection in Intensive Care Units: Overall Analysis of Patient Criticality by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV Scoring and Pathogenic Characteristics

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare-associated infection (HAI) can be defined as “an infection acquired in an acute care setting which was not present or incubating at the time of admission.”¹ It was also considered as infection that was not incubating at the time of admission and arising after 48 hours of admission.^2,3 According to the World Health Organization data, published on “The Burden of Health-Care Associated Infection Worldwide” from 1995 to 2008, the prevalence of HAI in developed countries varied between 5.1% and 11.6%. The burden of HAI is much higher in developing countries and among high-risk populations, such as patients admitted in critical care units.⁴ The incidence of these infections in critical care units is quite high in India ranging from 9.6% to 17.7%.^5,6 Several risk factors contributing to these infections include poor health status, catheterization, endotracheal intubation, re-intubation, tracheostomy, placement of nasogastric tube, mechanical ventilation, higher APACHE II score, and length of ICU stay among others.⁷

Among all ICU-related infections, respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections (UTIs) were more frequent.^5,8 The common organisms contributing to these HAIs include Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas, and Candida.^7,9 In addition, high prevalence of drug resistance in these organisms is a major problem. They contribute to higher morbidity and mortality of patients.^10–13 It is evident that HAIs in ICUs are an important cause of increased duration of hospital stay, cost of treatment, morbidity, and mortality. Hence, an additional study on this topic assumes greater importance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective observational study involving the patients admitted to the ICUs of a tertiary care teaching hospital. Six ICUs with a total of 72 beds were included in the study. They include ICU, medical intensive care unit (MICU), respiratory intensive care unit (RICU), neurosurgical intensive care unit (NSICU), surgical intensive care unit (SICU), step-down surgical intensive care unit (SDSICU).

Approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee was obtained prior to the study. Among 1,229 patients who were admitted in the ICUs for a period of 2.5 months (74 days), 767 patients stayed beyond 48 hours. They were monitored, and 87 of them who developed HAIs were included in the study. Those who had infection before 48 hours of admission were included in the uninfected group unless they showed a different infection or infection at a different site. Patients who were readmitted in the ICUs were considered as new admissions. Informed consent was obtained from eligible patients; however, in certain cases, due to the inability of the patient, consent was obtained from the guardian/relative.

The sample size was 87 patients who were followed up till their discharge, and adequate details pertaining to the study were collected. Details about the age of the patient, cause for admission, site from where the patient was brought to the ICU, prior hospitalization, comorbid conditions, alcohol intake, and smoking habits were obtained. Several physiological parameters were assessed on the first day, to determine the criticality and the prognosis of the patient. This was done using APACHE IV score and acute physiology score (APS), which also predict the mortality and length of stay in the ICU. The patients were followed up to know the duration of stay and mortality. The actual morality and the length of stay were compared with the predicted data, except for patients who opted for voluntary discharge. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV and APS scoring was calculated by using the following online website: https://intensivecarenetwork.com/Calculators/Files/Apache4.html. The data [e.g., bilirublin levels, FiO₂, blood pressure (BP), sodium levels, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)] were collected from all patients admitted to ICUs during the study period. The worst values of vitals and laboratory parameters of the first 24 hours were considered for calculation. However, the above scores were calculated only from study subjects who developed HAI 48 hours later. Additional information including admission information, operative status, and chronic health condition (as applicable to the above score calculator) was collected from these subjects.

The HAI was identified according to the latest Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definitions.¹ The HAI rates were expressed in terms of 1,000 patient days. Specific infections [e.g., VAP and surgical site infection (SSI)] were expressed in terms of the number of infections per 1,000 device days.

The organisms isolated from the infection site were identified according to standard operating procedures of the department of microbiology. Bacterial isolates were identified using gram staining, culture on routine media (e.g., blood agar and MacConkey agar), while selective media and biochemical tests were used wherever necessary. Fungal isolates were identified by cultures on Sabouraud dextrose agar, Sabouraud dextrose chloramphenicol agar along with gram staining, lactophenol cotton blue mount, and germ tube testing.^14,15 The antimicrobial sensitivity pattern was tested by Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method. The results of these tests were reported as per the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute Guidelines.¹⁶

The data that were collected in the study were analyzed using standard statistical methods. Qualitative data were expressed as number and percentage while quantitative data were expressed as mean with standard deviation (SD). In addition, the data analysis was performed by Mann–Whitney U and Spearman’s correlation test wherever necessary. A p value of %3C;0.05 was considered statistically significant. The accuracy of APACHE IV in predicting the mortality was assessed by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. SPSS version 19 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the analysis.

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Healthcare-associated infections are invariably associated with increased length of ICU stay and hospital stay.¹⁷ In addition, they contribute to a higher cost of medical treatment reaching around 3.5 billion dollars annually.¹⁸ Some studies have shown that there has not been increased mortality of patients with ICU-related infections,^7,8,19 while other studies have reported the contrary.^20–22 This study has shown that the mortality rate in infected patients to be almost twice as that of uninfected ICU patients. This can be attributed to the underlying conditions, comorbidities, cause for admission, age, criticality, and other factors apart from infection. Moreover, for a lot of patients, the cause for admission was trauma. According to a Swedish study, trauma with open fractures increased the risk of infection more than twice, mainly due to wound infections while infection prolonged length of stay 8–9 days and doubled the risk of death.²³ Our study also showed a high number of patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and associated habits like chronic smoking and alcoholism. However, comparative prospective studies with a larger sample size of infected and uninfected patients are required for understanding the impact of these factors.

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV scoring^24,25 to predict the length of stay and mortality of ICU patients was not found to be a good method in those who suffered HAI. In our study, there was a weak positive correlation between the score and observed length of stay. When comparing the predicted and actual length of stay of ICU stay, there was a statistically significant difference. Limitations of APACHE IV scoring, as explained by various studies, could be due to (a) estimations achieved based on American population function better when compared with other populations where the scores are not derived from²⁶ and the need for recalibration^26,27 and (b) other scoring methods are superior to APACHE IV in trauma patients.²⁸ The validity of these reasons can only be confirmed by comparative studies between infected vs uninfected groups, where the uninfected group would also show similar results. Another reason for the poor performance of the APACHE IV scoring could be the effect of infection itself. Increased mortality rate and longer duration of stay could explain the failure of scoring system in these selected subjects. Therefore, understanding the risk factors for infections and other limitations of APACHE IV scoring can aid in recalibrating the scoring system.

The study reports a high occurrence of HAIs in ICUs. Ventilator-associated pneumonia being the commonest infection was most commonly associated with Acinetobacter. It is in consistent with other studies.⁵ However, Klebsiella was the most prevalent organism overall. Among UTIs, Candida was the commonest isolate, similar to studies from the United States and China.^3,29 Gram-positive organisms were mostly associated with bloodstream infections. Drug resistance to various antimicrobials was seen to a large extent among the pathogens that were isolated. Non-fermenters and Enterobacteriaceae showed very high resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and aminoglycosides. Irrational use of antibiotics would lead to a higher prevalence of these organisms which leaves us with few antibiotics like tigecycline and colistin.

Therefore, ICU-related infections in hospitals have become a common problem worldwide, and they contribute significantly to morbidity and mortality. Efforts to prevent colonization of pathogens in device-related areas, following strict aseptic precautions, and hand hygiene are some measures to reduce the disease burden.³⁰

CONCLUSION

The HAI rate observed in this study was 15.7%. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was the most common type of infection. Klebsiella and Acinetobacter were the frequently isolated organisms. There was a high prevalence of drug resistance among these pathogens. The ICU mortality in infected patients was 21.83%, roughly twice as that of uninfected patients. Healthcare-associated infection was also associated with long duration of ICU stay. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV score was not found to be a good scoring system to predict the mortality and length of stay in the patients who had HAI.

REFERENCES

1. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control 2008;36(5):309–332. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2008.03.002.

2. Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988. Am J Infect Control 1988;16(3):128–140. DOI: 10.1016/0196-6553(88)90053-3.

3. Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Nosocomial infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit Care Med 1999;27(5):887–892. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199905000-00020.

4. World Health Organization. The Burden of Health Care-Associated Infection Worldwide-A Systematic Review. Available from: https://www.who.int/gpsc/country_work/summary_20100430_en.pdf ,accessed 23 August 2019.

5. Pradhan NP, Bhat SM, Ghadage DP. Nosocomial infections in the medical ICU: a retrospective study highlighting their prevalence, microbiological profile and impact on ICU stay and mortality. J Assoc Physicians India 2014;62(10):18–21.

6. Mythri H, Kashinath K. Nosocomial infections in patients admitted in intensive care unit of a tertiary health center, India. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2014;4(5):738–741. DOI: 10.4103/2141-9248.141540.

7. Dasgupta S, Das S, Chawan NS, Hazra A. Nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit: incidence, risk factors, outcome and associated pathogens in a public tertiary teaching hospital of Eastern India. Indian J Crit Care Med 2015;19(1):14–20. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.148633.

8. Choudhuri AH, Chakravarty M, Uppal R. Epidemiology and characteristics of nosocomial infections in critically ill patients in a tertiary care intensive care unit of Northern India. Saudi J Anaesth 2017;11(4):402–407. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_230_17.

9. Moolchandani K, Sastry AS, Deepashree R, Sistla S, Harish BN, Mandal J. Antimicrobial resistance surveillance among intensive care units of a tertiary care hospital in Southern India. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(2):DC01–DC07. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/23717.9247.

10. Esfahani BN, Basiri R, Mirhosseini SMM, Moghim S, Dolatkhah S. Nosocomial infections in intensive care unit: pattern of antibiotic-resistance in Iranian community. Adv Biomed Res 2017;6:54. DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.205527.

11. Al Johani SM, Akhter J, Balkhy H, El-Saed A, Younan M, Memish Z. Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative isolates in an adult intensive care unit at a tertiary care center in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 2010;30(5):364–369. DOI: 10.4103/0256-4947.67073.

12. Bhattacharya S, Mondal AS. Clinical microbiology in the intensive care unit: strategic and operational characteristics. Indian J Med Microbiol 2010;28(1):5–10. DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.58720.

13. Kallel H, Dammak H, Bahloul M, Ksibi H, Chelly H, Hamida CB, et al. Risk factors and outcomes of intensive care unit-acquired infections in a Tunisian ICU. Med Sci Monit 2010;16:PH69–PH75.

14. Collee JG, Miles RS, Watt B, In: Tests for identification of bacteria Mackie and McCartney Practical Medical Microbiology Collee JG, Duguid JP, Fraser AG, et al. 1989.vol. 2pp. 141–159.

15. Mackie TJ. Mackie and McCartney practical medical microbiology. Harcourt Health Sciences; 1996.

16. M100-S11, performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Clin Microbiol Newsl 2001;23:49. DOI: 10.1016/S0196-4399(01)88009-0.

17. Pittet D, Tarara D, Wenzel RP. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA 1994;271(20):1598–1601. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1994.03510440058033.

18. Correa L, Pittet D. Problems and solutions in hospital-acquired bacteraemia. J Hosp Infect 2000;46(2):89–95. DOI: 10.1053/jhin.2000.0803.

19. Rello J, Ochagavia A, Sabanes E, Roque M, Mariscal D, Reynaga E, et al. Evaluation of outcome of intravenous catheter-related infections in critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162 (3 Pt 1):1027–1030. DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.162.3.9911093.

20. Craven DE, Kunches LM, Lichtenberg DA, Kollisch NR, Barry MA, Heeren TC, et al. Nosocomial infection and fatality in medical and surgical intensive care unit patients. Arch Intern Med 1988;148(5):1161–1168. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.1988.00380050165024.

21. Bueno-Cavanillas A, Delgado-Rodríguez M, López-Luque A, Schaffino-Cano S, Gálvez-Vargas R. Influence of nosocomial infection on mortality rate in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1994;22(1):55–60. DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199401000-00013.

22. Fagon JY, Novara A, Stephan F, Girou E, Safar M. Mortality attributable to nosocomial infections in the ICU. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(7):428–434. DOI: 10.2307/30148490.

23. Appelgren P, Hellström I, Weitzberg E, Söderlund V, Bindslev L, Ransjö U. Risk factors for nosocomial intensive care infection: a long-term prospective analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001;45(6):710–719. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-6576.2001.045006710.x.

24. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM, Shaffer VL. Intensive care unit length of stay: benchmarking based on acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV. Crit Care Med 2006;34(10):2517–2529. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000240233.01711.D9.

25. Zimmerman JE, Kramer AA, McNair DS, Malila FM. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2006;34(5):1297–1310. DOI: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000215112.84523.F0.

26. Ghorbani M, Ghaem H, Rezaianzadeh A, Shayan Z, Zand F, Nikandish R. A study on the efficacy of APACHE-IV for predicting mortality and length of stay in an intensive care unit in Iran. F1000Res 2017;6:2032. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.12290.1.

27. Venkataraman R, Gopichandran V, Ranganathan L, Rajagopal S, Abraham BK, Ramakrishnan N. Mortality prediction using acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV scoring systems: is there a difference? Indian J Crit Care Med 2018;22(5):332–335. DOI: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_422_17.

28. Korkmaz Toker M, Gülleroğlu A, Karabay AG, Biçer İG, Demiraran Y. SAPS III or APACHE IV: Which score to choose for acute trauma patients in intensive care unit? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2019;25(3):247–252. DOI: 10.5505/tjtes.2018.22866.

29. Ding J-G, Sun Q-F, Li K-C, Zheng M-H, Miao X-H, Ni W, et al. Retrospective analysis of nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital in China during 2003 and 2007. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:115. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-9-115.

30. Majumdar SS, Padiglione AA. Nosocomial infections in the intensive care unit. Anaesth Intensive Care Med 2012;13:204–208. DOI: 10.1016/j.mpaic.2012.02.009.