Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Cost Savings of Universal Decolonization to Prevent Intensive Care Unit Infection: Implications of the REDUCE MRSA Trial

  • Susan S. Huang (a1), Edward Septimus (a2), Taliser R. Avery (a3), Grace M. Lee (a3), Jason Hickok (a4), Robert A. Weinstein (a5), Julia Moody (a4), Mary K. Hayden (a6), Jonathan B. Perlin (a4), Richard Platt (a3) and G. Thomas Ray (a7)...

Extract

Objective.

To estimate and compare the impact on healthcare costs of 3 alternative strategies for reducing bloodstream infections in the intensive care unit (ICU): methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares screening and isolation, targeted decolonization (ie, screening, isolation, and decolonization of MRSA carriers or infections), and universal decolonization (ie, no screening and decolonization of all ICU patients).

Design.

Cost analysis using decision modeling.

Methods.

We developed a decision-analysis model to estimate the health care costs of targeted decolonization and universal decolonization strategies compared with a strategy of MRSA nares screening and isolation. Effectiveness estimates were derived from a recent randomized trial of the 3 strategies, and cost estimates were derived from the literature.

Results.

In the base case, universal decolonization was the dominant strategy and was estimated to have both lower intervention costs and lower total ICU costs than either screening and isolation or targeted decolonization. Compared with screening and isolation, universal decolonization was estimated to save $171,000 and prevent 9 additional bloodstream infections for every 1,000 ICU admissions. The dominance of universal decolonization persisted under a wide range of cost and effectiveness assumptions.

Conclusions.

A strategy of universal decolonization for patients admitted to the ICU would both reduce bloodstream infections and likely reduce healthcare costs compared with strategies of MRSA nares screening and isolation or screening and isolation coupled with targeted decolonization.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Cost Savings of Universal Decolonization to Prevent Intensive Care Unit Infection: Implications of the REDUCE MRSA Trial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Cost Savings of Universal Decolonization to Prevent Intensive Care Unit Infection: Implications of the REDUCE MRSA Trial
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Cost Savings of Universal Decolonization to Prevent Intensive Care Unit Infection: Implications of the REDUCE MRSA Trial
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Vincent, JL, Relio, J, Marshall, J, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA 2009;302:23232329.
2. United States Government Accountability Office. Healthcare-Associate Infections in Hospitals. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, 2008.
3. Umscheid, CA, Mitchell, MD, Doshi, JA, Agarwal, R, Williams, K., Brennan, PJ. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2011 ;32:101114.
4. Lucet, JC, Paoletti, X, Lolom, I, et al. Successful long-term program for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 2005;31:10511057.
5. Huang, SS, Yokoe, DS, Hinrichsen, VL, et al. Impact of routine intensive care unit surveillance cultures and resultant barrier precautions on hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43:971978.
6. Bleasdale, SC, Trick, WE, Gonzalez, IM, Lyles, RD, Hayden, MK, Weinstein, RA. Effectiveness of chlorhexidine bathing to reduce catheter-associated bloodstream infections in medical intensive care unit patients. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:20732079.
7. Ridenour, G, Lampen, R, Federspiel, J, Kritchevsky, S, Wong, E, Climo, M. Selective use of intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing and the incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization and infection among intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:11551161.
8. Huskins, WC, Huckabee, CM, O'Grady, NP, et al. Intervention to reduce transmission of resistant bacteria in intensive care. N Engl J Med 2011;364:14071418.
9. Huang, SS, Septimus, E, Kleinman, K, et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N Engl J Med 2013;368:22552265.
10. Climo, MW, Yokoe, DS, Warren, DK, et al. Effect of daily chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired infection. N Engl J Med 2013;368:533542.
11. Derde, LP, Cooper, BS, Goossens, H, et al. Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;14:3139.
12. Perlin, JB, Hickok, JD, Septimus, EJ, Moody, JA, Englebright, JD, Bracken, RM. A bundled approach to reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in a system of community hospitals. J Healthc Qual 2013;35:5768.
13. Hassan, M, Tuckman, HP, Patrick, RH, Kountz, DS, Kohn, JL. Cost of hospital-acquired infection. Hosp Top 2010;88:8289.
14. Roberts, RR, Frutos, PW, Ciavarella, GG, et al. Distribution of variable vs fixed costs of hospital care. JAMA 1999;281:644649.
15. Nelson, RE, Samore, MH, Smith, KJ, Harbarth, S, Rubin, MA. Cost-effectiveness of adding decolonization to a surveillance strategy of screening and isolation for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers. Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16: 17401746.
16. Dasta, JF, McLaughlin, TP, Mody, SH, Piech, CT. Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 2005;33:12661271.
17. Graves, N. Economics and preventing hospital-acquired infection. Emerg Infect Dis 2004;10:561566.
18. Graves, N, Weinhold, D, Tong, E, et al. Effect of healthcare-acquired infection on length of hospital stay and cost. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:280292.
19. Richter, SS, Diekema, DJ, Heilmann, KP, et al. Activities of vancomycin, ceftaroline, and mupirocin against Staphylococcus aureus isolates collected in a 2011 national surveillance study in the United States. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2014;58(2):740745.
20. Desroches, M, Potier, J, Laurent, F, et al. Prevalence of mupirocin resistance among invasive coagulase-negative staphylococci and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in France: emergence of a mupirocin-resistant MRSA clone harbouring mupA. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013;68(8):17141717.
21. Kang, J, Mandsager, P, Biddle, AK, Weber, DJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of active surveillance screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an academic hospital setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:477486.
22. Puzniak, LA, Gillespie, KN, Leet, T, Kollef, M, Mundy, LM. A cost-benefit analysis of gown use in controlling vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus transmission: is it worth the price? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004;25:418424.
23. Morgan, DJ, Pineles, L, Shardell, M, et al. The effect of contact precautions on healthcare worker activity in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:6973.
24. Courville, XF, Tomek, IM, Kirkland, KB, Birhle, M, Kantor, SR, Finlayson, SR. Cost-effectiveness of preoperative nasal mupirocin treatment in preventing surgical site infection in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:152159.
25. Kilgore, M, Brossette, S. Cost of bloodstream infections. Am J Infect Control 2008;36:S172S173.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed