Guidelines Of Surgical Site Infections 1lt4e

Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999 •  Author(s): Alicia J. Mangram , MD; Teresa C. Horan , MPH, CIC; Michele L. Pearson , MD; Leah Christine Silver , BS; William R. Jarvis , MD; The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Source: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 20, No. 4 (April 1999), pp. 250-280 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/501620 . Accessed: 26/08/2014 12:38 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

AND

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

247

PREVENTION OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION, 1999

FOR

Alicia J. Mangram, MD; Teresa C. Horan, MPH, CIC; Michele L. Pearson, MD; Leah Christine Silver, BS; William R. Jarvis, MD; The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

Hospital Infections Program National Center for Infectious Diseases Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Public Health Service US Department of Health and Human Services

Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee hip List, January 1999

CHAIRMAN

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Elaine L. Larson, RN, PhD, FAAN, CIC Columbia University School of Nursing New York, New York

Michele L. Pearson, MD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Atlanta, Georgia

SURGICAL SITE INFECTION GUIDELINE SPONSOR

James T. Lee, MD, PhD, FACS University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota



Audrey B. Adams, RN, MPH Montefiore Medical Center Bronx, New York

Susan W. Forlenza, MD New York City Health Department New York, New York

Raymond Y. W. Chinn, MD Sharp Memorial Hospital San Diego, California

Ramon E. Moncada, MD Coronado Physician’s Medical Center Coronado, California

Alfred DeMaria, Jr, MD Massachusetts Department of Public Health Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts

William E. Scheckler, MD University of Wisconsin Medical School Madison, Wisconsin

Jane D. Siegel, MD University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas, Texas Marjorie A. Underwood, RN, BSN, CIC Mt. Diablo Medical Center Concord, California Robert A. Weinstein, MD Cook County Hospital Chicago, Illinois

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

248

AND

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

250

I. SURGICAL SITE INFECTION (SSI): AN OVERVIEW

251

A. Introduction B. Key Used in the Guideline 1. Criteria for defining SSIs 2. Operating suite 3. Operating room 4. Surgical personnel 5. Surgical team member C. Microbiology D. Pathogenesis E. Risk and Prevention 1. Patient characteristics a. Diabetes b. Nicotine use c. Steroid use d. Malnutrition e. Prolonged preoperative hospital stay f. Preoperative nares colonization with Staphylococcus aureus g. Perioperative transfusion 2. Operative characteristics: Preoperative issues a. Preoperative antiseptic showering b. Preoperative hair removal c. Patient skin preparation in the operating room d. Preoperative hand/forearm antisepsis e. Management of infected or colonized surgical personnel f. Antimicrobial prophylaxis 3. Operative characteristics: Intraoperative issues a. Operating room environment b. Surgical attire and drapes c. Asepsis and surgical technique 4. Operative characteristics: Postoperative issues a. Incision care b. Discharge planning F. SSI Surveillance 1. SSI risk stratification a. Concepts b. Issues 2. SSI surveillance methods a. Inpatient SSI surveillance b. Postdischarge SSI surveillance c. Outpatient SSI surveillance G. Guideline Evaluation Process

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

251 251 251 252 252 253 253 253 253 254 254 254 254 254 255 256 256 256 257 257 257 257 258 258 258 260 260 261 263 263 263 263 263 264 264 264 265 265 265 266 266

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION

A. Rationale B. Rankings C. Recommendations 1. Preoperative a. Preparation of the patient b. Hand/forearm antisepsis for surgical team c. Management of infected or colonized surgical personnel d. Antimicrobial prophylaxis 2. Intraoperative a. Ventilation b. Cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces c. Microbiologic sampling d. Sterilization of surgical instruments e. Surgical attire and drapes f. Asepsis and surgical technique 3. Postoperative incision care 4. Surveillance References Selected Readings Figure Table 1. Criteria for Defining a Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Table 2. Site-Specific Classifications of Organ/Space Surgical Site Infection Table 3. Distribution of Pathogens Isolated From Surgical Site Infections, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System, 1986 to 1996 Table 4. Operations, Likely Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Pathogens, and References on Use of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Table 5. Patient and Operation Characteristics That May Influence the Risk of Surgical Site Infection Development Table 6. Mechanism and Spectrum of Activity of Antiseptic Agents Commonly Used for Preoperative Skin Preparation and Surgical Scrubs Table 7. Surgical Wound Classification Table 8. Parameters for Operating Room Ventilation, American Institute of Architects, 1996 Table 9. Parameters for Flash Sterilization Cycles, Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation Table 10. Physical Status Classification, American Society of Anesthesiologists

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

249

266

266 266 266 266 266 267 267 267 267 267 267 268 268 268 268 268 268 269 277 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 259 260 262 264

250

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

Special Report

Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999 Alicia J. Mangram, MD; Teresa C. Horan, MPH, CIC; Michele L. Pearson, MD; Leah Christine Silver, BS; William R. Jarvis, MD; The Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The “Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999” presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.1,2 Part I, “Surgical Site Infection: An Over view,” describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis. Part II, “Recommendations for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection,” represents the consensus of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HIAC) regarding strategies for the prevention of SSIs.3 Whenever possible, the recommendations in Part II are based on data from well-designed scientific studies. However, there are a limited number of studies that clearly validate risk factors and prevention measures for SSI. By necessity, available studies have often been conducted in narrowly defined patient populations or for specific kinds of operations, making generalization of their findings to all specialties and types of operations potentially problematic. This is especially true regarding the implementation of SSI prevention measures. Finally, some of the infection control practices routinely used by surgical teams cannot be rigorously studied for ethical or logistical reasons (e.g., wearing vs not wearing gloves). Thus, some of the recommendations in Part II are based on a strong theoretical rationale and suggestive evidence in the absence of confirmatory scientific knowledge.

It has been estimated that approximately 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in “ambulatory,” “same-day,” or “outpatient” operating rooms by the turn of the century.4 In recommending various SSI prevention methods, this document makes no distinction between surgical care delivered in such settings and that provided in conventional inpatient operating rooms. This document is primarily intended for use by surgeons, operating room nurses, postoperative inpatient and clinic nurses, infection control professionals, anesthesiologists, healthcare epidemiologists, and other personnel directly responsible for the prevention of nosocomial infections. This document does not: ● Specifically address issues unique to burns, trauma, transplant procedures, or transmission of bloodborne pathogens from healthcare worker to patient, nor does it specifically address details of SSI prevention in pediatric surgical practice. It has been recently shown in a multicenter study of pediatric surgical patients that characteristics related to the operations are more important than those related to the physiologic status of the patients.5 In general, all SSI prevention measures effective in adult surgical care are indicated in pediatric surgical care. ● Specifically address procedures performed outside of the operating room (e.g., endoscopic procedures), nor does it provide guidance for infection prevention for invasive procedures such as cardiac catheterization or interventional radiology. Nonetheless, it is likely that many SSI prevention strategies also could be applied or adapted to reduce infectious complications associated with these procedures. ● Specifically recommend SSI prevention methods

From the Hospital Infections Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia. The Hospital Infection Control Practices Committee thanks the following subject-matter experts for reviewing a preliminary draft of this guideline: Carol Applegeet, RN, MSN, CNOR, CNAA, FAAN; Ona Baker, RN, MSHA; Philip Barie, MD, FACS; Arnold Berry, MD; Col. Nancy Bjerke, BSN, MPH, CIC; John Bohnen, MD, FRCSC, FACS; Robert Condon, MS, MD, FACS; E. Patchen Dellinger, MD, FACS; Terrie Lee, RN, MS, MPH, CIC; Judith Mathias, RN; Anne Matlow, MD, MS, FRC; C. Glen Mayhall, MD; Rita McCormick, RN, CIC; Ronald Nichols, MD, FACS; Barbara Pankratz, RN; William Rutala, PhD, MPH, CIC; Julie Wagner, RN; Samuel Wilson, MD, FACS. The opinions of all the reviewers might not be reflected in all the recommendations contained in this document. The authors thank Connie Alfred, Estella Cormier, Karen Friend, Charlene Gibson, and Geraldine Jones for providing invaluable assistance. Dr. Mangram is currently d with the University of Texas Medical Center, Houston, Texas. Published simultaneously in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, the American Journal of Infection Control, and the Journal of Surgical Outcomes. This document is not copyright-protected and may be photocopied. Address reprint requests to SSI Guideline, Hospital Infections Program, Mailstop E69, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333. The “Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999” is available online at www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip. 99-SR-024. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, Silver LC, Jarvis WR, the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:247-280.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

251

unique to minimally invasive operations (i.e., laparoscopic surgery). Available SSI surveillance data indicate that laparoscopic operations generally have a lower or comparable SSI risk when contrasted to open operations.6-11 SSI prevention measures applicable in open operations (e.g., open cholecystectomy) are indicated for their laparoscopic counterparts (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). ● Recommend specific antiseptic agents for patient preoperative skin preparations or for healthcare worker hand/forearm antisepsis. Hospitals should choose from products recommended for these activities in the latest Food and Drug istration (FDA) monograph.12 I. SURGICAL SITE INFECTION (SSI): AN OVERVIEW A. INTRODUCTION

Before the mid-19th century, surgical patients commonly developed postoperative “irritative fever,” followed by purulent drainage from their incisions, overwhelming sepsis, and often death. It was not until the late 1860s, after Joseph Lister introduced the principles of antisepsis, that postoperative infectious morbidity decreased substantially. Lister’s work radically changed surgery from an activity associated with infection and death to a discipline that could eliminate suffering and prolong life. Currently, in the United States alone, an estimated 27 million surgical procedures are performed each year.13 The CDC’s National Nosocomial Infections Sur veillance (NNIS) system, established in 1970, monitors reported trends in nosocomial infections in U.S. acute-care hospitals. Based on NNIS system reports, SSIs are the third most frequently reported nosocomial infection, ing for 14% to 16% of all nosocomial infections among hospitalized patients.14 During 1986 to 1996, hospitals conducting SSI surveillance in the NNIS system reported 15,523 SSIs following 593,344 operations (CDC, unpublished data). Among surgical patients, SSIs were the most common nosocomial infection, ing for 38% of all such infections. Of these SSIs, two thirds were confined to the incision, and one third involved organs or spaces accessed during the operation. When surgical patients with nosocomial SSI died, 77% of the deaths were reported to be related to the infection, and the majority (93%) were serious infections involving organs or spaces accessed during the operation. In 1980, Cruse estimated that an SSI increased a patient’s hospital stay by approximately 10 days and cost an additional $2,000.15,16 A 1992 analysis showed that each SSI resulted in 7.3 additional postoperative hospital days, adding $3,152 in extra charges.17 Other studies corroborate that increased length of hospital stay and cost are associated with SSIs.18,19 Deep SSIs involving organs or spaces, as compared to SSIs confined to the incision, are associated with even greater increases in hospital stays and costs.20,21 Advances in infection control practices include improved operating room ventilation, sterilization methods, barriers, surgical technique, and availability of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Despite these activities, SSIs remain a

FIGURE. Cross-section of abdominal wall depicting CDC classifications of surgical site infection.22

substantial cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. This may be partially explained by the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens and the increased numbers of surgical patients who are elderly and/or have a wide variety of chronic, debilitating, or immunocompromising underlying diseases. There also are increased numbers of prosthetic implant and organ transplant operations performed. Thus, to reduce the risk of SSI, a systematic but realistic approach must be applied with the awareness that this risk is influenced by characteristics of the patient, operation, personnel, and hospital. B. KEY USED IN THE GUIDELINE

1. Criteria for Defining SSIs The identification of SSI involves interpretation of clinical and laboratory findings, and it is crucial that a surveillance program use definitions that are consistent and standardized; otherwise, inaccurate or uninterpretable SSI rates will be computed and reported. The CDC’s NNIS system has developed standardized surveillance criteria for defining SSIs (Table 1).22 By these criteria, SSIs are classified as being either incisional or organ/space. Incisional SSIs are further divided into those involving only skin and subcutaneous tissue (superficial incisional SSI) and those involving deeper soft tissues of the incision (deep incisional SSI). Organ/space SSIs involve any part of the anatomy (e.g., organ or space) other than incised body wall layers, that was opened or manipulated during an operation (Figure). Table 2 lists site-specific classifications used to differentiate organ/space SSIs. For example, in a patient who had an appendectomy and subsequently developed an intraabdominal abscess not draining through the incision, the infection would be reported as an organ/space SSI at the intra-abdominal site. Failure to use objective criteria to define SSIs has been shown to substantially affect reported SSI rates.23,24 The CDC NNIS definitions of SSIs have been applied consistently by surveillance and surgical personnel in many settings and currently are a de facto national standard.22,25

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

252

TABLE 1 CRITERIA FOR DEFINING

A

AND

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

SURGICAL SITE INFECTION (SSI)*

Superficial Incisional SSI Infection occurs within 30 days after the operation and infection involves only skin or subcutaneous tissue of the incision and at least one of the following: 1. Purulent drainage, with or without laboratory confirmation, from the superficial incision. 2. Organisms isolated from an aseptically obtained culture of fluid or tissue from the superficial incision. 3. At least one of the following signs or symptoms of infection: pain or tenderness, localized swelling, redness, or heat and superficial incision is deliberately opened by surgeon, unless incision is culture-negative. 4. Diagnosis of superficial incisional SSI by the surgeon or attending physician. Do not report the following conditions as SSI: 1. Stitch abscess (minimal inflammation and discharge confined to the points of suture penetration). 2. Infection of an episiotomy or newborn circumcision site. 3. Infected burn wound. 4. Incisional SSI that extends into the fascial and muscle layers (see deep incisional SSI). Note: Specific criteria are used for identifying infected episiotomy and circumcision sites and burn wounds.433 Deep Incisional SSI Infection occurs within 30 days after the operation if no implant† is left in place or within 1 year if implant is in place and the infection appears to be related to the operation and infection involves deep soft tissues (e.g., fascial and muscle layers) of the incision and at least one of the following: 1. Purulent drainage from the deep incision but not from the organ/space component of the surgical site. 2. A deep incision spontaneously dehisces or is deliberately opened by a surgeon when the patient has at least one of the following signs or symptoms: fever (>38ºC), localized pain, or tenderness, unless site is culture-negative. 3. An abscess or other evidence of infection involving the deep incision is found on direct examination, during reoperation, or by histopatholog ic or radiologic examination. 4. Diagnosis of a deep incisional SSI by a surgeon or attending physician. Notes: 1. Report infection that involves both superficial and deep incision sites as deep incisional SSI. 2. Report an organ/space SSI that drains through the incision as a deep incisional SSI. Organ/Space SSI Infection occurs within 30 days after the operation if no implant† is left in place or within 1 year if implant is in place and the infection appears to be related to the operation and infection involves any part of the anatomy (e.g., organs or spaces), other than the incision, which was opened or manipulated during an operation and at least one of the following: 1. Purulent drainage from a drain that is placed through a stab wound‡ into the organ/space. 2. Organisms isolated from an aseptically obtained culture of fluid or tissue in the organ/space. 3. An abscess or other evidence of infection involving the organ/space that is found on direct examination, during reoperation, or by histopathologic or radiologic examination. 4. Diagnosis of an organ/space SSI by a surgeon or attending physician. * Horan TC et al.22 † National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance definition: a nonhuman-derived implantable foreign body (e.g., prosthetic heart valve, nonhuman vascular graft, mechanical heart, or hip prosthesis) that is permanently placed in a patient during surgery. ‡ If the area around a stab wound becomes infected, it is not an SSI. It is considered a skin or soft tissue infection, depending on its depth.

2. Operating Suite A physically separate area that comprises operating rooms and their interconnecting hallways and ancillar y work areas such as scrub sink rooms. No distinction is made between operating suites located in conventional inpatient hospitals and those used for “same-day” sur-

gical care, whether in a hospital or a free-standing facility. 3. Operating Room A room in an operating suite where operations are performed.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

GUIDELINE

Vol. 20 No. 4

FOR

4. Surgical Personnel Any healthcare worker who provides care to surgical patients during the pre-, intra-, or postoperative periods. 5. Surgical Team Member Any healthcare worker in an operating room during the operation who has a surgical care role. of the surgical team may be “scrubbed” or not; scrubbed have direct with the sterile operating field or sterile instruments or supplies used in the field (refer to “Preoperative Hand/Forearm Antisepsis” section). C. MICROBIOLOGY

According to data from the NNIS system, the distribution of pathogens isolated from SSIs has not changed markedly during the last decade (Table 3).26,27 Staphylococcus aureus, coagulase-negative staphylococci, Enterococcus spp., and Escherichia coli remain the most frequently isolated pathogens. An increasing proportion of SSIs are caused by antimicrobial-resistant pathogens, such as methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA),28,29 or by Candida albicans.30 From 1991 to 1995, the incidence of fungal SSIs among patients at NNIS hospitals increased from 0.1 to 0.3 per 1,000 discharges.30 The increased proportion of SSIs caused by resistant pathogens and Candida spp. may reflect increasing numbers of severely ill and immunocompromised surgical patients and the impact of widespread use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents. Outbreaks or clusters of SSIs have also been caused by unusual pathogens, such as Rhizopus oryzae, Clostridium perfringens, Rhodococcus bronchialis, Nocardia farcinica, Legionella pneumophila and Legionella dumof fii, and Pseudomonas multivorans. These rare outbreaks have been traced to contaminated adhesive dressings,31 elastic bandages,32 colonized surgical personnel,33,34 tap water,35 or contaminated disinfectant solutions.36 When a cluster of SSIs involves an unusual organism, a formal epidemiologic investigation should be conducted. D. PATHOGENESIS

Microbial contamination of the surgical site is a necessary precursor of SSI. The risk of SSI can be conceptualized according to the following relationship37,38: Dose of bacterial contamination ⫻ virulence = Risk of surgical site infection Resistance of the host patient

Quantitatively, it has been shown that if a surgical site is contaminated with >105 microorganisms per gram of tissue, the risk of SSI is markedly increased.39 However, the dose of contaminating microorganisms required to produce infection may be much lower when foreign material is present at the site (i.e., 100 staphylococci per gram of tissue introduced on silk sutures).40-42 Microorganisms may contain or produce toxins and other substances that increase their ability to invade a host, produce damage within the host, or survive on or in host tissue. For example, many gram-negative bacteria produce

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

TABLE 2 SITE-SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATIONS INFECTION*

253

OF

ORGAN/SPACE SURGICAL SITE

Arterial or venous infection Breast abscess or mastitis Disc space Ear, mastoid Endocarditis Endometritis Eye, other than conjunctivitis Gastrointestinal tract Intra-abdominal, not specified elsewhere Intracranial, brain abscess or dura t or bursa Mediastinitis Meningitis or ventriculitis Myocarditis or pericarditis Oral cavity (mouth, tongue, or gums) Osteomyelitis Other infections of the lower respiratory tract (e.g., abscess or empyema) Other male or female reproductive tract Sinusitis Spinal abscess without meningitis Upper respiratory tract Vaginal cuff * Horan TC et al.22

endotoxin, which stimulates cytokine production. In turn, cytokines can trigger the systemic inflammatory response syndrome that sometimes leads to multiple system organ failure.43-45 One of the most common causes of multiple system organ failure in modern surgical care is intraabdominal infection.46,47 Some bacterial surface components, notably polysaccharide capsules, inhibit phagocytosis,48 a critical and early host defense response to microbial contamination. Certain strains of clostridia and streptococci produce potent exotoxins that disrupt cell membranes or alter cellular metabolism.49 A variety of microorganisms, including gram-positive bacteria such as coagulasenegative staphylococci, produce glycocalyx and an associated component called “slime,”50-55 which physically shields bacteria from phagocytes or inhibits the binding or penetration of antimicrobial agents.56 Although these and other virulence factors are well defined, their mechanistic relationship to SSI development has not been fully determined. For most SSIs, the source of pathogens is the endogenous flora of the patient’s skin, mucous membranes, or hollow viscera.57 When mucous membranes or skin is incised, the exposed tissues are at risk for contamination with endogenous flora.58 These organisms are usually aerobic gram-positive cocci (e.g., staphylococci), but may include fecal flora (e.g., anaerobic bacteria and gramnegative aerobes) when incisions are made near the perineum or groin. When a gastrointestinal organ is opened

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

254

AND

TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF PATHOGENS ISOLATED* FROM SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS, NATIONAL NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, 1986 TO 1996

Pathogen

Percentage of Isolates 1986-1989179 1990-199626 (N=16,727) (N=17,671)

Staphylococcus aureus Coagulase-negative staphylococci Enterococcus spp. Escherichia coli Pseudomonas aeruginosa Enterobacter spp. Proteus mirabilis Klebsiella pneumoniae Other Streptococcus spp. Candida albicans Group D streptococci (non-enterococci) Other gram-positive aerobes Bacteroides fragilis

17 12 13 10 8 8 4 3 3 2 — — —

20 14 12 8 8 7 3 3 3 3 2 2 2

*Pathogens representing less than 2% of isolates are excluded.

during an operation and is the source of pathogens, gramnegative bacilli (e.g., E. coli), gram-positive organisms (e.g., enterococci), and sometimes anaerobes (e.g., Bacillus fragilis) are the typical SSI isolates. Table 4 lists operations and the likely SSI pathogens associated with them. Seeding of the operative site from a distant focus of infection can be another source of SSI pathogens,59-68 particularly in patients who have a prosthesis or other implant placed during the operation. Such devices provide a nidus for attachment of the organism.50,69-73 Exogenous sources of SSI pathogens include surgical personnel (especially of the surgical team),74-78 the operating room environment (including air), and all tools, instruments, and materials brought to the sterile field during an operation (refer to “Intraoperative Issues” section). Exogenous flora are primarily aerobes, especially gram-positive organisms (e.g., staphylococci and streptococci). Fungi from endogenous and exogenous sources rarely cause SSIs, and their pathogenesis is not well understood.79 E. RISK AND PREVENTION

The term risk factor has a particular meaning in epidemiology and, in the context of SSI pathophysiology and prevention, strictly refers to a variable that has a significant, independent association with the development of SSI after a specific operation. Risk factors are identified by multivariate analyses in epidemiologic studies. Unfortunately, the term risk factor often is used in the surgical literature in a broad sense to include patient or operation features which, although associated with SSI development in univariate analysis, are not necessarily independent predictors.80 The literature cited in the sections that follow

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

includes risk factors identified by both univariate and multivariate analyses. Table 5 lists patient and operation characteristics that may influence the risk of SSI development. These characteristics are useful in two ways: (1) they allow stratification of operations, making surveillance data more comprehensible; and, (2) knowledge of risk factors before certain operations may allow for targeted prevention measures. For example, if it is known that a patient has a remote site infection, the surgical team may reduce SSI risk by scheduling an operation after the infection has resolved. An SSI prevention measure can be defined as an action or set of actions intentionally taken to reduce the risk of an SSI. Many such techniques are directed at reducing opportunities for microbial contamination of the patient’s tissues or sterile surgical instruments; others are adjunctive, such as using antimicrobial prophylaxis or avoiding unnecessar y traumatic tissue dissection. Optimum application of SSI prevention measures requires that a variety of patient and operation characteristics be carefully considered. 1. Patient Characteristics In certain kinds of operations, patient characteristics possibly associated with an increased risk of an SSI include coincident remote site infections59-68 or colonization,81-83 diabetes,84-87 cigarette smoking,85,88-92 systemic steroid use,84,87,93 obesity (>20% ideal body weight),85-87,94-97 extremes of age,92,98-102 poor nutritional status,85,94,98,103-105 and perioperative transfusion of certain blood products.106-109 a. Diabetes The contribution of diabetes to SSI risk is controversial,84-86,98,110 because the independent contribution of diabetes to SSI risk has not typically been assessed after controlling for potential confounding factors. Recent preliminary findings from a study of patients who underwent coronary artery by graft showed a significant relationship between increasing levels of HgA1c and SSI rates.111 Also, increased glucose levels (>200 mg/dL) in the immediate postoperative period (⭐48 hours) were associated with increased SSI risk.112,113 More studies are needed to assess the efficacy of perioperative blood glucose control as a prevention measure. b. Nicotine use Nicotine use delays primary wound healing and may increase the risk of SSI.85 In a large prospective study, current cigarette smoking was an independent risk factor for sternal and/or mediastinal SSI following cardiac surgery.85 Other studies have corroborated cigarette smoking as an important SSI risk factor.88-92 The limitation of these studies, however, is that like current cigarette smoking and active smokers are not always defined. To appropriately determine the contribution of tobacco use to SSI risk, standardized definitions of smoking history must be adopted and used in studies designed to control for confounding variables. c. Steroid use Patients who are receiving steroids or other immuno-

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

GUIDELINE

Vol. 20 No. 4

FOR

TABLE 4 OPERATIONS, LIKELY SURGICAL SITE INFECTION (SSI) PATHOGENS, Operations

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

ON

USE

255

AND

REFERENCES

Likely

Pathogens†‡

References

Staphylococcus aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci; streptococci; gram-negative bacilli

269,282-284,290 251-253,462,463 241,249,258,259,261,464,465 242,248 466

S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci; gramnegative bacilli

60,243-246,254,255,467-473

OF

ANTIMICROBIAL PROPHYLAXIS*

Placement of all grafts, prostheses, or implants Cardiac Neurosurgery Breast Ophthalmic Limited data; however, commonly used in procedures such as anterior segment resection, vitrectomy, and scleral buckles Orthopedic Total t replacement Closed fractures/use of nails, bone plates, other internal fixation devices Functional repair without implant/device Trauma Noncardiac thoracic Thoracic (lobectomy, pneumonectomy, wedge resection, other noncardiac mediastinal procedures) Closed tube thoracostomy Vascular Appendectomy Biliary tract Colorectal Gastroduodenal

S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci; Streptococcus pneumoniae; gram-negative bacilli

240,247,474,475

S. aureus; coagulase-negative staphylococci Gram-negative bacilli; anaerobes Gram-negative bacilli; anaerobes Gram-negative bacilli; anaerobes Gram-negative bacilli; streptococci; oropharyngeal

250,463,476,477 263,452,478 260,262,479-484 200,239,256,287-289,485-490 256,257,491-493

Head and neck (major procedures with incision through oropharyngeal mucosa) Obstetric and gynecologic

anaerobes (e.g., peptostreptococci) S. aureus; streptococci; oropharyngeal anaerobes (e.g., peptostreptococci) Gram-negative bacilli; enterococci; group B

270-280,435

streptococci; anaerobes Gram-negative bacilli

267

Urologic May not be beneficial if urine is sterile

494-497

* Refer to “Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery,” The Medical Letter, 1997,266 for current recommendations of antimicrobial agents and doses. † Likely pathogens from both endogenous and exogenous sources. ‡ Staphylococci will be associated with SSI following all types of operations.

suppressive drugs preoperatively may be predisposed to developing SSI,84,87 but the data ing this relationship are contradictory. In a study of long-term steroid use in patients with Crohn’s disease, SSI developed significantly more often in patients receiving preoperative steroids (12.5%) than in patients without steroid use (6.7%).93 In contrast, other investigations have not found a relationship between steroid use and SSI risk.98,114,115 d. Malnutrition For some types of operations, severe protein-calorie malnutrition is crudely associated with postoperative nosocomial infections, impaired wound healing dynamics, or death.116-124 The National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council (NAS/NRC),94 Study on the Efficacy of Infection Control (SENIC),125 and NNIS126 schemes for SSI risk stratification do not explicitly incorporate nutritional status as a predictor variable, although it may be represented indirectly in the latter two. In a widely quoted 1987

study of 404 high-risk general surgery operations, Christou and coworkers derived an SSI probability index in which final predictor variables were patient age, operation duration, serum albumin level, delayed hypersensitivity test score, and intrinsic wound contamination level.117 Although this index predicted SSI risk satisfactorily for 404 subsequent patients and was generally received as a significant advance in SSI risk stratification, it is not widely used in SSI surveillance data analysis, surgical infection research, or analytic epidemiology. Theoretical arguments can be made for a belief that severe preoperative malnutrition should increase the risk of both incisional and organ/space SSI. However, an epidemiologic association between incisional SSI and malnutrition is difficult to demonstrate consistently for all surgical subspecialties.118-120,124,127-131 Multivariate logistic regression modeling has shown that preoperative proteincalorie malnutrition is not an independent predictor of

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

256

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

TABLE 5 PATIENT AND OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE RISK OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION DEVELOPMENT Patient Age Nutritional status Diabetes Smoking Obesity Coexistent infections at a remote body site Colonization with microorganisms Altered immune response Length of preoperative stay Operation Duration of surgical scrub Skin antisepsis Preoperative shaving Preoperative skin prep Duration of operation Antimicrobial prophylaxis Operating room ventilation Inadequate sterilization of instruments Foreign material in the surgical site Surgical drains Surgical technique Poor hemostasis Failure to obliterate dead space Tissue trauma Adapted from references 25, 37.

mediastinitis after cardiac by operations.85,132 In the modern era, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and total enteral alimentation (TEA) have enthusiastic acceptance by surgeons and critical care specialists.118,133-137 However, the benefits of preoperative nutritional repletion of malnourished patients in reducing SSI risk are unproven. In two randomized clinical trials, preoperative “nutritional therapy” did not reduce incisional and organ/space SSI risk.138-141 In a recent study of high-risk pancreatectomy patients with cancer, the provision of TPN preoperatively had no beneficial effect on SSI risk.142 A randomized prospective trial involving 395 general and thoracic surgery patients compared outcomes for malnourished patients preoperatively receiving either a 7- to 15-day TPN regimen or a regular preoperative hospital diet. All patients were followed for 90 days postoperatively. There was no detectable benefit of TPN istration on the incidence of incisional or organ/space SSI.143 istering TPN or TEA may be indicated in a number of circumstances, but such repletion cannot be viewed narrowly as a prevention measure for organ/space or incisional SSI risk. When a major elective operation is necessary in a severely malnourished patient, experienced surgeons often use both pre- and postoperative nutritional in consideration of the major morbidity associated with numerous potential

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

complications, only one of which is organ/space SSI.118,124,130,133,137,138,144-149 In addition, postoperative nutritional is important for certain major oncologic operations,135,136 after many operations on major trauma victims,134 or in patients suffering a variety of catastrophic surgical complications that preclude eating or that trigger a hypermetabolic state. Randomized clinical trials will be necessary to determine if nutritional alters SSI risk in specific patient-operation combinations. e. Prolonged preoperative hospital stay Prolonged preoperative hospital stay is frequently suggested as a patient characteristic associated with increased SSI risk. However, length of preoperative stay is likely a surrogate for severity of illness and co-morbid conditions requiring inpatient work-up and/or therapy before the operation.16,26,65,85,94,100,150,151 f. Preoperative nares colonization with Staphylococcus aureus S. aureus is a frequent SSI isolate. This pathogen is carried in the nares of 20% to 30% of healthy humans.81 It has been known for years that the development of SSI involving S. aureus is definitely associated with preoperative nares carriage of the organism in surgical patients.81 A recent multivariate analysis demonstrated that such carriage was the most powerful independent risk factor for SSI following cardiothoracic operations.82 Mupirocin ointment is effective as a topical agent for eradicating S. aureus from the nares of colonized patients or healthcare workers. A recent report by Kluytmans and coworkers suggested that SSI risk was reduced in patients who had cardiothoracic operations when mupirocin was applied preoperatively to their nares, regardless of carrier status.152 In this study, SSI rates for 752 mupirocin-treated patients were compared with those previously observed for an untreated group of 928 historical control patients, and the significant SSI rate reduction was attributed to the mupirocin treatment. Concerns have been raised regarding the comparability of the two patient groups.153 Additionally, there is concern that mupirocin resistance may emerge, although this seems unlikely when treatment courses are brief.81 A prospective, randomized clinical trial will be necessary to establish definitively that eradication of nasal carriage of S. aureus is an effective SSI prevention method in cardiac surgery. Such a trial has recently been completed on 3,909 patients in Iowa.83 Five types of operations in two facilities were observed. Preliminary analysis showed a significant association between nasal carriage of S. aureus and subsequent SSI development. The effect of mupirocin on reducing SSI risk is yet to be determined. g. Perioperative transfusion It has been reported that perioperative transfusion of leukocyte-containing allogeneic blood components is an apparent risk factor for the development of postoperative bacterial infections, including SSI.106 In three of five randomized trials conducted in patients undergoing elective colon resection for cancer, the risk of SSI was at least doubled in patients receiving blood transfusions.107-109 However, on the basis of detailed epidemiologic reconsid-

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

GUIDELINE

Vol. 20 No. 4

TABLE 6 MECHANISM SCRUBS

AND

Agent

Alcohol Chlorhexidine Iodine/Iodophors

PCMX Triclosan

SPECTRUM

OF

ACTIVITY

OF

PREVENTION

OF

ANTISEPTIC AGENTS COMMONLY USED

FOR

FOR

SSI

257

PREOPERATIVE SKIN PREPARATION

AND

SURGICAL

Gram-

Gram-

Mechanism of

Positive

Negative

Rapidity

Residual

Action

Bacteria

Bacteria

Mtb

Fungi

Virus

of Action

Activity

Denature proteins Disrupt cell membrane Oxidation/substitution by free iodine

E E

E G

G P

G F

G G

Most rapid Intermediate

None E

E

G

G

G

G

G G

F* G

F G

F P

F U

Intermediate Minimal Absorption from skin with possible toxicity, skin irritation Intermediate G More data needed Intermediate E More data needed

Disrupt cell wall Disrupt cell wall

Toxicity

Uses

Drying, volatile SP, SS Ototoxicity, keratitis SP, SS SP, SS

SS SS

Abbreviations: E, excellent; F, fair; G, good; Mtb, Mycobacterium tuberculosis; P, poor; PCMX, para-chloro-meta-xylenol; SP, skin preparation; SS, surgical scrubs; U, unknown. Data from Larson E.176 * Fair, except for Pseudomonas spp.; activity improved by addition of chelating agent such as EDTA.

erations, as many as 12 confounding variables may have influenced the reported association, and any effect of transfusion on SSI risk may be either small or nonexistent.106 Because of methodologic problems, including the timing of transfusion, and use of nonstandardized SSI definitions, interpretation of the available data is limited. A metaanalysis of published trials will probably be required for resolution of the controversy.154 There is currently no scientific basis for withholding necessary blood products from surgical patients as a means of either incisional or organ/space SSI risk reduction. 2. Operative Characteristics: Preoperative Issues a. Preoperative antiseptic showering A preoperative antiseptic shower or bath decreases skin microbial colony counts. In a study of >700 patients who received two preoperative antiseptic showers, chlorhexidine reduced bacterial colony counts ninefold (2.8⫻102 to 0.3), while povidone-iodine or triclocarbanmedicated soap reduced colony counts by 1.3- and 1.9-fold, respectively.155 Other studies corroborate these findings.156,157 Chlorhexidine gluconate-containing products require several applications to attain maximum antimicrobial benefit, so repeated antiseptic showers are usually indicated.158 Even though preoperative showers reduce the skin’s microbial colony counts, they have not definitively been shown to reduce SSI rates.159-165 b. Preoperative hair removal Preoperative shaving of the surgical site the night before an operation is associated with a significantly higher SSI risk than either the use of depilatory agents or no hair removal.16,100,166-169 In one study, SSI rates were 5.6% in patients who had hair removed by razor shave compared to a 0.6% rate among those who had hair removed by depilatory or who had no hair removed.166 The increased SSI risk associated with shaving has been attributed to microscopic cuts in the skin that later serve as foci for bacterial multi-

plication. Shaving immediately before the operation compared to shaving within 24 hours preoperatively was associated with decreased SSI rates (3.1% vs 7.1%); if shaving was performed >24 hours prior to operation, the SSI rate exceeded 20%.166 Clipping hair immediately before an operation also has been associated with a lower risk of SSI than shaving or clipping the night before an operation (SSI rates immediately before = 1.8% vs night before = 4.0%).170-173 Although the use of depilatories has been associated with a lower SSI risk than shaving or clipping,166,167 depilatories sometimes produce hypersensitivity reactions.166 Other studies showed that preoperative hair removal by any means was associated with increased SSI rates and suggested that no hair be removed.100,174,175 c. Patient skin preparation in the operating room Several antiseptic agents are available for preoperative preparation of skin at the incision site (Table 6). The iodophors (e.g., povidone-iodine), alcohol-containing products, and chlorhexidine gluconate are the most commonly used agents. No studies have adequately assessed the comparative effects of these preoperative skin antiseptics on SSI risk in well-controlled, operation-specific studies. Alcohol is defined by the FDA as having one of the following active ingredients: ethyl alcohol, 60% to 95% by volume in an aqueous solution, or isopropyl alcohol, 50% to 91.3% by volume in an aqueous solution.12 Alcohol is readily available, inexpensive, and remains the most effective and rapid-acting skin antiseptic.176 Aqueous 70% to 92% alcohol solutions have germicidal activity against bacteria, fungi, and viruses, but spores can be resistant.176,177 One potential disadvantage of the use of alcohol in the operating room is its flammability.176-178 Both chlorhexidine gluconate and iodophors have broad spectra of antimicrobial activity.177,179-181 In some comparisons of the two antiseptics when used as preoperative hand scrubs, chlorhexidine gluconate achieved greater reductions in skin microflora than did povidone-iodine and

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

258

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

also had greater residual activity after a single application.182-184 Further, chlorhexidine gluconate is not inactivated by blood or serum proteins.176,179,185,186 Iodophors may be inactivated by blood or serum proteins, but exert a bacteriostatic effect as long as they are present on the skin.178,179 Before the skin preparation of a patient is initiated, the skin should be free of gross contamination (i.e., dirt, soil, or any other debris).187 The patient’s skin is prepared by applying an antiseptic in concentric circles, beginning in the area of the proposed incision. The prepared area should be large enough to extend the incision or create new incisions or drain sites, if necessary.1,177,187 The application of the skin preparation may need to be modified, depending on the condition of the skin (e.g., burns) or location of the incision site (e.g., face). There are reports of modifications to the procedure for preoperative skin preparation which include: (1) removing or wiping off the skin preparation antiseptic agent after application, (2) using an antiseptic-impregnated adhesive drape, (3) merely painting the skin with an antiseptic in lieu of the skin preparation procedure described above, or (4) using a “clean” versus a “sterile” surgical skin preparation kit.188-191 However, none of these modifications has been shown to represent an advantage. d. Preoperative hand/forearm antisepsis of the surgical team who have direct with the sterile operating field or sterile instruments or supplies used in the field wash their hands and forearms by performing a traditional procedure known as scrubbing (or the surgical scrub) immediately before donning sterile gowns and gloves. Ideally, the optimum antiseptic used for the scrub should have a broad spectrum of activity, be fastacting, and have a persistent effect.1,192,193 Antiseptic agents commercially available in the United States for this purpose contain alcohol, chlorhexidine, iodine/iodophors, parachloro-meta-xylenol, or triclosan (Table 6).176,177,179,194,195 Alcohol is considered the gold standard for surgical hand preparation in several European countries.196-199 Alcoholcontaining products are used less frequently in the United States than in Europe, possibly because of concerns about flammability and skin irritation. Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate are the current agents of choice for most U.S. surgical team .177 However, when 7.5% povidone-iodine or 4% chlorhexidine gluconate was compared to alcoholic chlorhexidine (60% isopropanol and 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropanol), alcoholic chlorhexidine was found to have greater residual antimicrobial activity.200,201 No agent is ideal for every situation, and a major factor, aside from the efficacy of any product, is its acceptability by operating room personnel after repeated use. Unfortunately, most studies evaluating surgical scrub antiseptics have focused on measuring hand bacterial colony counts. No clinical trials have evaluated the impact of scrub agent choice on SSI risk.195,202-206 Factors other than the choice of antiseptic agent influence the effectiveness of the surgical scrub. Scrubbing technique, the duration of the scrub, the condition of the

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

hands, or the techniques used for drying and gloving are examples of such factors. Recent studies suggest that scrubbing for at least 2 minutes is as effective as the traditional 10-minute scrub in reducing hand bacterial colony counts,207-211 but the optimum duration of scrubbing is not known. The first scrub of the day should include a thorough cleaning underneath fingernails (usually with a brush).180,194,212 It is not clear that such cleaning is a necessary part of subsequent scrubs during the day. After performing the surgical scrub, hands should be kept up and away from the body (elbows in flexed position) so that water runs from the tips of the fingers toward the elbows. Sterile towels should be used for drying the hands and forearms before the donning of a sterile gown and gloves.212 A surgical team member who wears artificial nails may have increased bacterial and fungal colonization of the hands despite performing an adequate hand scrub.212,213 Hand carriage of gram-negative organisms has been shown to be greater among wearers of artificial nails than among non-wearers.213 An outbreak of Serratia marcescens SSIs in cardiovascular surgery patients was found to be associated with a surgical nurse who wore artificial nails.214 While the relationship between nail length and SSI risk is unknown, long nails—artificial or natural— may be associated with tears in surgical gloves.177,180,212 The relationship between the wearing of nail polish or jewelry by surgical team and SSI risk has not been adequately studied.194,212,215-217 e. Management of infected or colonized surgical personnel Surgical personnel who have active infections or are colonized with certain microorganisms have been linked to outbreaks or clusters of SSIs.33,34,76,218-237 Thus, it is important that healthcare organizations implement policies to prevent transmission of microorganisms from personnel to patients. These policies should address management of jobrelated illnesses, provision of postexposure prophylaxis after job-related exposures and, when necessary, exclusion of ill personnel from work or patient . While work exclusion policies should be enforceable and include a statement of authority to exclude ill personnel, they should also be designed to encourage personnel to report their illnesses and exposures and not penalize personnel with loss of wages, benefits, or job status.238 f. Antimicrobial prophylaxis Surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) refers to a very brief course of an antimicrobial agent initiated just before an operation begins.239-265 AMP is not an attempt to sterilize tissues, but a critically timed adjunct used to reduce the microbial burden of intraoperative contamination to a level that cannot overwhelm host defenses. AMP does not pertain to prevention of SSI caused by postoperative contamination.265 Intravenous infusion is the mode of AMP delivery used most often in modern surgical practice.20,26,242,266-281 Essentially all confirmed AMP indications pertain to elective operations in which skin incisions are closed in the operating room.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

GUIDELINE

Vol. 20 No. 4

FOR

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

259

TABLE 7 SURGICAL WOUND CLASSIFICATION Class I/Clean: An uninfected operative wound in which no inflammation is encountered and the respiratory, alimentary, genital, or uninfected urinary tract is not entered. In addition, clean wounds are primarily closed and, if necessary, drained with closed drainage. Operative incisional wounds that follow nonpenetrating (blunt) trauma should be included in this category if they meet the criteria. Class II/Clean-Contaminated: An operative wound in which the respiratory, alimentary, genital, or urinary tracts are entered under controlled conditions and without unusual contamination. Specifically, operations involving the biliary tract, appendix, vagina, and oropharynx are included in this category, provided no evidence of infection or major break in technique is encountered. Class III/Contaminated: Open, fresh, accidental wounds. In addition, operations with major breaks in sterile technique (e.g., open cardiac massage) or gross spillage from the gastrointestinal tract, and incisions in which acute, nonpurulent inflammation is encountered are included in this category. Class IV/Dirty-Infected: Old traumatic wounds with retained devitalized tissue and those that involve existing clinical infection or perforated viscera. This definition suggests that the organisms causing postoperative infection were present in the operative field before the operation. Garner JS1 and Simmons BP.2

Four principles must be followed to maximize the benefits of AMP: ● Use an AMP agent for all operations or classes of operations in which its use has been shown to reduce SSI rates based on evidence from clinical trials or for those operations after which incisional or organ/space SSI would represent a catastrophe.266,268,269,282-284 ● Use an AMP agent that is safe, inexpensive, and bactericidal with an in vitro spectrum that covers the most probable intraoperative contaminants for the operation. ● Time the infusion of the initial dose of antimicrobial agent so that a bactericidal concentration of the drug is established in serum and tissues by the time the skin is incised.285 ● Maintain therapeutic levels of the antimicrobial agent in both serum and tissues throughout the operation and until, at most, a few hours after the incision is closed in the operating room.179,266-268,282,284,286 Because clotted blood is present in all surgical wounds, therapeutic serum levels of AMP agents are logically important in addition to therapeutic tissue levels. Fibrin-enmeshed bacteria may be resistant to phagocytosis or to with antimicrobial agents that diffuse from the wound space. Table 4 summarizes typical SSI pathogens according to operation type and cites studies that establish AMP efficacy for these operations. A simple way to organize AMP indications is based on using the surgical wound classification scheme shown in Table 7, which employs descriptive case features to postoperatively grade the degree of intraoperative microbial contamination. A surgeon makes the decision to use AMP by anticipating preoperatively the surgical wound class for a given operation. AMP is indicated for all operations that entail entry into a hollow viscus under controlled conditions. The most frequent SSI pathogens for such clean-contaminated operations are listed in Table 4. Certain clean-contaminated operations, such as elective colon resection, low anterior resection of the rectum, and abdominoperineal resection of the rectum, also require an additional preoperative protective maneuver called “preparation of the colon,” to empty the

bowel of its contents and to reduce the levels of live microorganisms.200,239,256,268,284,287 This maneuver includes the istration of enemas and cathartic agents followed by the oral istration of nonabsorbable antimicrobial agents in divided doses the day before the operation.200,288,289 AMP is sometimes indicated for operations that entail incisions through normal tissue and in which no viscus is entered and no inflammation or infection is encountered. Two well-recognized AMP indications for such clean operations are: (1) when any intravascular prosthetic material or a prosthetic t will be inserted, and (2) for any operation in which an incisional or organ/space SSI would pose catastrophic risk. Examples are all cardiac operations, including cardiac pacemaker placement,290 vascular operations involving prosthetic arterial graft placement at any site or the revascularization of the lower extremity, and most neurosurgical operations (Table 4). Some have advocated use of AMP during all operations on the breast.80,242,264 By definition, AMP is not indicated for an operation classified in Table 7 as contaminated or dirty. In such operations, patients are frequently receiving therapeutic antimicrobial agents perioperatively for established infections. Cephalosporins are the most thoroughly studied AMP agents.284 These drugs are effective against many gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. They also share the features of demonstrated safety, acceptable pharmacokinetics, and a reasonable cost per dose.242 In particular, cefazolin is widely used and generally viewed as the AMP agent of first choice for clean operations.266 If a patient is unable to receive a cephalosporin because of penicillin allergy, an alternative for gram-positive bacterial coverage is either clindamycin or vancomycin. Cefazolin provides adequate coverage for many clean-contaminated operations,268,291 but AMP for operations on the distal intestinal tract mandates use of an agent such as cefoxitin (or some other second-generation cephalosporin) that provides anaerobic coverage. If a patient cannot safely receive a cephalosporin because of allergy, a reasonable alternative for gram-negative cover-

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

260

AND

TABLE 8 PARAMETERS FOR OPERATING ROOM VENTILATION, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1996 Temperature Relative humidity Air movement Air changes

68-73ºF, depending on normal ambient temperatures 30%-60% From “clean to less clean” areas Minimum 15 total air changes per hour Minimum 3 air changes of outdoor air per hour

American Institute of Architects.299

age is aztreonam. However, an agent such as clindamycin or metronidazole should also be included to ensure anaerobic coverage. The aminoglycosides are seldom recommended as first choices for AMP, either as single drugs or as components of combination regimens.242,264 References cited in Table 4 provide many details regarding AMP choices and dosages, antimicrobial spectra and properties, and other practical clinical information. The routine use of vancomycin in AMP is not recommended for any kind of operation.242,266,283,292 However, vancomycin may be the AMP agent of choice in certain clinical circumstances, such as when a cluster of MRSA mediastinitis or incisional SSI due to methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci has been detected. A threshold has not been scientifically defined that can the decision to use vancomycin in AMP. The decision should involve consideration of local frequencies of MRSA isolates, SSI rates for particular operations, review of infection prevention practices for compliance, and consultation between surgeons and infectious disease experts. An effective SSI surveillance program must be operational, with careful and timely culturing of SSI isolates to determine species and AMP agent susceptibilities.80 Agents most commonly used for AMP (i.e., cephalosporins) exhibit time-dependent bactericidal action. The therapeutic effects of such agents are probably maximized when their levels continuously exceed a threshold value best approximated by the minimal bactericidal concentration value observed for the target pathogens in vitro. When the duration of an operation is expected to exceed the time in which therapeutic levels of the AMP agent can be maintained, additional AMP agent should be infused. That time point for cefazolin is estimated as 3 to 4 hours. In general, the timing of a second (or third, etc.) dose of any AMP drug is estimated from three parameters: tissue levels achieved in normal patients by a standard therapeutic dose, the approximate serum half-life of the drug, and awareness of approximate MIC90 values for anticipated SSI pathogens. References in Table 6 should be consulted for these details and important properties of antimicrobial agents used for AMP in various specialties. Basic “rules of thumb” guide decisions about AMP dose sizes and timing. For example, it is believed that a full

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

therapeutic dose of cefazolin (1-2 g) should be given to adult patients no more than 30 minutes before the skin is incised.242,285 There are a few exceptions to this basic guide. With respect to dosing, it has been demonstrated that larger doses of AMP agents are necessary to achieve optimum effect in morbidly obese patients.293 With respect to timing, an exception occurs for patients undergoing cesarean section in whom AMP is indicated: the initial dose is istered immediately after the umbilical cord is clamped.266,272,273 If vancomycin is used, an infusion period of approximately 1 hour is required for a typical dose. Clearly, the concept of “on-call” infusion of AMP is flawed simply because delays in transport or schedule changes can mean that suboptimal tissue and serum levels may be present when the operation starts.242,294 Simple protocols of AMP timing and oversight responsibility should be locally designed to be practical and effective. 3. Operative characteristics: Intraoperative issues a. Operating room environment (1) Ventilation Operating room air may contain microbial-laden dust, lint, skin squames, or respiratory droplets. The microbial level in operating room air is directly proportional to the number of people moving about in the room.295 Therefore, efforts should be made to minimize personnel traffic during operations. Outbreaks of SSIs caused by group A beta-hemolytic streptococci have been traced to airborne transmission of the organism from colonized operating room personnel to patients.233,237,296,297 In these outbreaks, the strain causing the outbreak was recovered from the air in the operating room.237,296 It has been demonstrated that exercising and changing of clothing can lead to airborne dissemination of group A streptococci from vaginal or rectal carriage.233,234,237,297 Operating rooms should be maintained at positive pressure with respect to corridors and adjacent areas.298 Positive pressure prevents airflow from less clean areas into more clean areas. All ventilation or air conditioning systems in hospitals, including those in operating rooms, should have two filter beds in series, with the efficiency of the first filter bed being ⭓30% and that of the second filter bed being ⭓90%.299 Conventional operating room ventilation systems produce a minimum of about 15 air changes of filtered air per hour, three (20%) of which must be fresh air.299,300 Air should be introduced at the ceiling and exhausted near the floor.300,301 Detailed ventilation parameters for operating rooms have been published by the American Institute of Architects in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Table 8).299 Laminar airflow and use of UV radiation have been suggested as additional measures to reduce SSI risk for certain operations. Laminar airflow is designed to move particle-free air (called “ultraclean air”) over the aseptic operating field at a uniform velocity (0.3 to 0.5 µm/sec), sweeping away particles in its path. Laminar airflow can be directed vertically or horizontally, and recirculated air is usually ed through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

filter.302,303 HEPA filters remove particles ⭓0.3µm in diameter with an efficiency of 99.97%.64,300,302,304 Most of the studies examining the efficacy of ultraclean air involve only orthopedic operations.298,305-311 Charnley and Eftaknan studied vertical laminar airflow systems and exhaust-ventilated clothing and found that their use decreased the SSI rate from 9% to 1%.305 However, other variables (i.e., surgeon experience and surgical technique) changed at the same time as the type of ventilation, which may have confounded the associations. In a multicenter study examining 8,000 total hip and knee replacements, Lidwell et al. compared the effects of ultraclean air alone, antimicrobial prophylaxis alone, and ultraclean air in combination with antimicrobial prophylaxis on the rate of deep SSIs.307 The SSI rate following operations in which ultraclean air alone was used decreased from 3.4% to 1.6%, whereas the rate for those who received only antimicrobial prophylaxis decreased from 3.4% to 0.8%. When both interventions were used in combination, the SSI rate decreased from 3.4% to 0.7%. These findings suggest that both ultraclean air and antimicrobial prophylaxis can reduce the incidence of SSI following orthopedic implant operations, but antimicrobial prophylaxis is more beneficial than ultraclean air. Intraoperative UV radiation has not been shown to decrease overall SSI risk.94,312 (2) Environmental surfaces Environmental surfaces in U.S. operating rooms (e.g., tables, floors, walls, ceilings, lights) are rarely implicated as the sources of pathogens important in the development of SSIs. Nevertheless, it is important to perform routine cleaning of these surfaces to reestablish a clean environment after each operation.180,212,300,302 There are no data to routine disinfecting of environmental surfaces or equipment between operations in the absence of contamination or visible soiling. When visible soiling of surfaces or equipment occurs during an operation, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved hospital disinfectant should be used to decontaminate the affected areas before the next operation.180,212,300-302,313-315 This is in keeping with the Occupational Safety and Health istration (OSHA) requirement that all equipment and environmental surfaces be cleaned and decontaminated after with blood or other potentially infectious materials.315 Wet-vacuuming of the floor with an EPAapproved hospital disinfectant is performed routinely after the last operation of the day or night. Care should be taken to ensure that medical equipment left in the operating room be covered so that solutions used during cleaning and disinfecting do not sterile devices or equipment.316 There are no data to special cleaning procedures or closing of an operating room after a contaminated or dirty operation has been performed.300,301 Tacky mats placed outside the entrance to an operating room/suite have not been shown to reduce the number of organisms on shoes or stretcher wheels, nor do they reduce the risk of SSI.1,179,295,301 (3) Microbiologic sampling Because there are no standardized parameters by which to compare microbial levels obtained from cultures

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

261

of ambient air or environmental surfaces in the operating room, routine microbiologic sampling cannot be justified. Such environmental sampling should only be performed as part of an epidemiologic investigation. (4) Conventional sterilization of surgical instruments Inadequate sterilization of surgical instruments has resulted in SSI outbreaks.302,317,318 Surgical instruments can be sterilized by steam under pressure, dry heat, ethylene oxide, or other approved methods. The importance of routinely monitoring the quality of sterilization procedures has been established.1,180,212,299 Microbial monitoring of steam autoclave performance is necessary and can be accomplished by use of a biological indicator.212,314,319 Detailed recommendations for sterilization of surgical instruments have been published.212,314,320,321 (5) Flash sterilization of surgical instruments The Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation defines flash sterilization as “the process designated for the steam sterilization of patient care items for immediate use.”321 During any operation, the need for emergency sterilization of equipment may arise (e.g., to reprocess an inadvertently dropped instrument). However, flash sterilization is not intended to be used for either reasons of convenience or as an alternative to purchasing additional instrument sets or to save time. Also, flash sterilization is not recommended for implantable devices(*) because of the potential for serious infections.314,320,321 Flash sterilization is not recommended as a routine sterilization method because of the lack of timely biologic indicators to monitor performance, absence of protective packaging following sterilization, possibility for contamination of processed items during transportation to operating rooms, and use of minimal sterilization cycle parameters (i.e., time, temperature, pressure).319 To address some of these concerns, many hospitals have placed equipment for flash sterilization in close proximity to operating rooms and new biologic indicators that provide results in 1 to 3 hours are now available for flash-sterilized items.322-325 Nevertheless, flash sterilization should be restricted to its intended purpose until studies are performed that can demonstrate comparability with conventional sterilization methods regarding risk of SSI. Sterilization cycle parameters for flash sterilization are shown in Table 9. b. Surgical attire and drapes In this section the term surgical attire refers to scrub suits, caps/hoods, shoe covers, masks, gloves, and gowns. Although experimental data show that live microorganisms are shed from hair, exposed skin, and mucous membranes of operating room personnel,75,181,326-330 few controlled clinical studies have evaluated the relationship between the use of surgical attire and SSI risk. Nevertheless, the use of barriers seems prudent to minimize a patient’s exposure to the skin, mucous membranes, or hair of surgical team mem* According to the FDA, an implantable device is a “device that is placed into a surgically or naturally formed cavity of the human body if it is intended to remain there for a period of 30 days or more.”321

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

INFECTION CONTROL

262

TABLE 9 PARAMETERS

FOR

FLASH STERILIZATION CYCLES, ASSOCIATION

Gravity-Displacement

AND

FOR THE

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

ADVANCEMENT

OF

MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION

Minimum Exposure Time and Temperature Nonporous items Nonporous and porous items

Prevacuum

April 1999

3 min at 132ºC (270ºF) 10 min at 132ºC (270ºF)

Minimum Exposure Time and Temperature Nonporous items Nonporous and porous items

3 min at 132ºC (270ºF) 4 min at 132ºC (270ºF)

Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.321

bers, as well as to protect surgical team from exposure to blood and bloodborne pathogens (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis viruses). (1) Scrub suits Surgical team often wear a uniform called a “scrub suit” that consists of pants and a shirt. Policies for laundering, wearing, covering, and changing scrub suits vary greatly. Some policies restrict the laundering of scrub suits to the facility, while other facilities have policies that allow laundering by employees. There are no wellcontrolled studies evaluating scrub suit laundering as an SSI risk factor.331 Some facilities have policies that restrict the wearing of scrub suits to the operating suite, while other facilities allow the wearing of cover gowns over scrub suits when personnel leave the suite. The Association of Operating Room Nurses recommends that scrub suits be changed after they become visibly soiled and that they be laundered only in an approved and monitored laundry facility.212 Additionally, OSHA regulations require that “if a garment(s) is penetrated by blood or other potentially infectious materials, the garment(s) shall be removed immediately or as soon as feasible.”315 (2) Masks The wearing of surgical masks during operations to prevent potential microbial contamination of incisions is a longstanding surgical tradition. However, some studies have raised questions about the efficacy and cost-benefit of surgical masks in reducing SSI risk.328,332-338 Nevertheless, wearing a mask can be beneficial since it protects the wearer’s nose and mouth from inadvertent exposures (i.e., splashes) to blood and other body fluids. OSHA regulations require that masks in combination with protective eyewear, such as goggles or glasses with solid shields, or chinlength face shields be worn whenever splashes, spray, spatter, or droplets of blood or other potentially infectious material may be generated and eye, nose, or mouth contamination can be reasonably anticipated.315 In addition, a respirator certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health with protection factor N95 or higher is required when the patient has or is suspected of having infectious tuberculosis.339 (3) Surgical caps/hoods and shoe covers Surgical caps/hoods are inexpensive and reduce contamination of the surgical field by organisms shed from

the hair and scalp. SSI outbreaks have occasionally been traced to organisms isolated from the hair or scalp (S. aureus and group A Streptococcus),75,76 even when caps were worn by personnel during the operation and in the operating suites. The use of shoe covers has never been shown to decrease SSI risk or to decrease bacteria counts on the operating room floor.340,341 Shoe covers may, however, protect surgical team from exposure to blood and other body fluids during an operation. OSHA regulations require that surgical caps or hoods and shoe covers or boots be worn in situations when gross contamination can reasonably be anticipated (e.g., orthopedic operations, penetrating trauma cases).315 (4) Sterile gloves Sterile gloves are put on after donning sterile gowns. A strong theoretical rationale s the wearing of sterile gloves by all scrubbed of the surgical team. Sterile gloves are worn to minimize transmission of microorganisms from the hands of team to patients and to prevent contamination of team ’ hands with patients’ blood and body fluids. If the integrity of a glove is compromised (e.g., punctured), it should be changed as promptly as safety permits.315,342,343 Wearing two pairs of gloves (double-gloving) has been shown to reduce hand with patients’ blood and body fluids when compared to wearing only a single pair.344,345 (5) Gowns and drapes Sterile surgical gowns and drapes are used to create a barrier between the surgical field and potential sources of bacteria. Gowns are worn by all scrubbed surgical team and drapes are placed over the patient. There are limited data that can be used to understand the relationship of gown or drape characteristics with SSI risk. The wide variation in the products and study designs make interpretation of the literature difficult.329,346-350 Gowns and drapes are classified as disposable (single use) or reusable (multiple use). Regardless of the material used to manufacture gowns and drapes, these items should be impermeable to liquids and viruses.351,352 In general, only gowns reinforced with films, coatings, or membranes appear to meet standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials.351-353 However, such “liquid-proof” gowns may be uncomfortable because

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

they also inhibit heat loss and the evaporation of sweat from the wearer’s body. These factors should be considered when selecting gowns.353,354 A discussion of the role of gowns and drapes in preventing the transmission of bloodborne pathogens is beyond the scope of this document.355 c. Asepsis and surgical technique (1) Asepsis Rigorous adherence to the principles of asepsis by all scrubbed personnel is the foundation of surgical site infection prevention. Others who work in close proximity to the sterile surgical field, such as anesthesia personnel who are separated from the field only by a drape barrier, also must abide by these principles. SSIs have occurred in which anesthesia personnel were implicated as the source of the pathogen.34,231,234,356-358 Anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists perform a variety of invasive procedures such as placement of intravascular devices and endotracheal tubes, and istration of intravenous drugs and solutions. Lack of adherence to the principles of asepsis during such procedures,359 including use of common syringes360,361 and contaminated infusion pumps,359,362-364 and the assembly of equipment and solutions in advance of procedures,316,360 have been associated with outbreaks of postoperative infections, including SSI. Recommendations for infection control practices in anesthesiology have been published.212,365-367 (2) Surgical technique Excellent surgical technique is widely believed to reduce the risk of SSI.26,49,179,180,368,369 Such techniques include maintaining effective hemostasis while preserving adequate blood supply, preventing hypothermia, gently handling tissues, avoiding inadvertent entries into a hollow viscus, removing devitalized (e.g., necrotic or charred) tissues, using drains and suture material appropriately, eradicating dead space, and appropriately managing the postoperative incision. Any foreign body, including suture material, a prosthesis, or drain, may promote inflammation at the surgical site94 and may increase the probability of SSI after otherwise benign levels of tissue contamination. Extensive research compares different types of suture material and their presumed relationships to SSI risk.370-379 In general, monofilament sutures appear to have the lowest infectionpromoting effects.3,94,179,180 A discussion of appropriate surgical drain use and details of drain placement exceed the scope of this document, but general points should be briefly noted. Drains placed through an operative incision increase incisional SSI risk.380 Many authorities suggest placing drains through a separate incision distant from the operative incision.283,381 It appears that SSI risk also decreases when closed suction drains are used rather than open drains.174 Closed suction drains can effectively evacuate postoperative hematomas or seromas, but timing of drain removal is important. Bacterial colonization of initially sterile drain tracts increases with the duration of time the drain is left in place.382 Hypothermia in surgical patients, defined as a core body temperature below 36ºC, may result from general anesthesia, exposure to cold, or intentional cooling such as

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

263

is done to protect the myocardium and central nervous system during cardiac operations.302,383,384 In one study of patients undergoing colorectal operations, hypothermia was associated with an increased SSI risk.385 Mild hypothermia appears to increase incisional SSI risk by causing vasoconstriction, decreased delivery of oxygen to the wound space, and subsequent impairment of function of phagocytic leukocytes (i.e., neutrophils).386-390 In animal models, supplemental oxygen istration has been shown to reverse the dysfunction of phagocytes in fresh incisions.391 In recent human experiments, controlled local heating of incisions with an electrically powered bandage has been shown to improve tissue oxygenation.392 Randomized clinical trials are needed to establish that measures which improve wound space oxygenation can reduce SSI risk. 4. Operative Characteristics: Postoperative Issues a. Incision care The type of postoperative incision care is determined by whether the incision is closed primarily (i.e., the skin edges are re-approximated at the end of the operation), left open to be closed later, or left open to heal by second intention. When a surgical incision is closed primarily, as most are, the incision is usually covered with a sterile dressing for 24 to 48 hours.393,394 Beyond 48 hours, it is unclear whether an incision must be covered by a dressing or whether showering or bathing is detrimental to healing. When a surgical incision is left open at the skin level for a few days before it is closed (delayed primary closure), a surgeon has determined that it is likely to be contaminated or that the patient’s condition prevents primary closure (e.g., edema at the site). When such is the case, the incision is packed with a sterile dressing. When a surgical incision is left open to heal by second intention, it is also packed with sterile moist gauze and covered with a sterile dressing. The American College of Surgeons, CDC, and others have recommended using sterile gloves and equipment (sterile technique) when changing dressings on any type of surgical incision.180,395-397 b. Discharge planning In current practice, many patients are discharged very soon after their operation, before surgical incisions have fully healed.398 The lack of optimum protocols for home incision care dictates that much of what is done at home by the patient, family, or home care agency practitioners must be individualized. The intent of discharge planning is to maintain integrity of the healing incision, educate the patient about the signs and symptoms of infection, and advise the patient about whom to to report any problems. F. SSI SURVEILLANCE

Surveillance of SSI with of appropriate data to surgeons has been shown to be an important component of strategies to reduce SSI risk.16,399,400 A successful surveillance program includes the use of epidemiologically sound infection definitions (Tables 1 and 2) and effective

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

264

INFECTION CONTROL

TABLE 10 PHYSICAL STATUS CLASSIFICATION, AMERICAN SOCIETY Code 1 2 3 4 5

OF

AND

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

ANESTHESIOLOGISTS*

Patient’s Preoperative Physical Status Normally healthy patient Patient with mild systemic disease Patient with severe systemic disease that is not incapacitating Patient with an incapacitating systemic disease that is a constant threat to life Moribund patient who is not expected to survive for 24 hours with or without operation

* Reference 406. Note: The above is the version of the ASA Physical Status Classification System that was current at the time of development of, and still is used in, the NNIS Risk Index. Meanwhile, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has revised their classification system; the most recent version is available at http://www.asahq.org/profinfo/physicalstatus.html.

surveillance methods, stratification of SSI rates according to risk factors associated with SSI development, and data .25 1. SSI Risk Stratification a. Concepts Three categories of variables have proven to be reliable predictors of SSI risk: (1) those that estimate the intrinsic degree of microbial contamination of the surgical site, (2) those that measure the duration of an operation, and (3) those that serve as markers for host susceptibility.25 A widely accepted scheme for classifying the degree of intrinsic microbial contamination of a surgical site was developed by the 1964 NAS/NRC Cooperative Research Study and modified in 1982 by CDC for use in SSI surveillance (Table 7).2,94 In this scheme, a member of the surgical team classifies the patient’s wound at the completion of the operation. Because of its ease of use and wide availability, the surgical wound classification has been used to predict SSI risk.16,94,126,401-405 Some researchers have suggested that surgeons compare clean wound SSI rates with those of other surgeons.16,399 However, two CDC efforts—the SENIC Project and the NNIS system—incorporated other predictor variables into SSI risk indices. These showed that even within the category of clean wounds, the SSI risk varied by risk category from 1.1% to 15.8% (SENIC) and from 1.0% to 5.4% (NNIS).125,126 In addition, sometimes an incision is incorrectly classified by a surgical team member or not classified at all, calling into question the reliability of the classification. Therefore, reporting SSI rates stratified by wound class alone is not recommended. Data on 10 variables collected in the SENIC Project were analyzed by using logistic regression modeling to develop a simple additive SSI risk index.125 Four of these were found to be independently associated with SSI risk: (1) an abdominal operation, (2) an operation lasting >2 hours, (3) a surgical site with a wound classification of either contaminated or dirty/infected, and (4) an operation performed on a patient having ⭓3 discharge diagnoses. Each of these equally weighted factors contributes a point when present, such that the risk index values range from 0 to 4. By using these factors, the SENIC index predicted SSI risk twice as well as the traditional wound classification scheme alone.

The NNIS risk index is operation-specific and applied to prospectively collected surveillance data. The index values range from 0 to 3 points and are defined by three independent and equally weighted variables. One point is scored for each of the following when present: (1) American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification of >2 (Table 10), (2) either contaminated or dirty/infected wound classification (Table 7), and (3) length of operation >T hours, where T is the approximate 75th percentile of the duration of the specific operation being performed.126 The ASA class replaced discharge diagnoses of the SENIC risk index as a surrogate for the patient’s underlying severity of illness (host susceptibility)406,407 and has the advantage of being readily available in the chart during the patient’s hospital stay. Unlike SENIC’s constant 2-hour cut-point for duration of operation, the operation-specific cut-points used in the NNIS risk index increase its discriminatory power compared to the SENIC index.126 b. Issues Adjustment for variables known to confound rate estimates is critical if valid comparisons of SSI rates are to be made between surgeons or hospitals.408 Risk stratification, as described above, has proven useful for this purpose, but relies on the ability of surveillance personnel to find and record data consistently and correctly. For the three variables used in the NNIS risk index, only one study has focused on how accurately any of them are recorded. Cardo et al. found that surgical team ’ accuracy in assessing wound classification for general and trauma surgery was 88% (95% CI: 82%-94%).409 However, there are sufficient ambiguities in the wound class definitions themselves to warrant concern about the reproducibility of Cardo’s results. The accuracy of recording the duration of operation (i.e., time from skin incision to skin closure) and the ASA class has not been studied. In an unpublished report from the NNIS system, there was evidence that overreporting of high ASA class existed in some hospitals. Further validation of the reliability of the recorded risk index variables is needed. Additionally, the NNIS risk index does not adequately discriminate the SSI risk for all types of operations.27,410 It seems likely that a combination of risk factors specific to patients undergoing an operation will be more predictive. A

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

few studies have been performed to develop procedurespecific risk indices218,411-414 and research in this area continues within CDC’s NNIS system. 2. SSI Surveillance Methods SSI surveillance methods used in both the SENIC Project and the NNIS system were designed for monitoring inpatients at acute-care hospitals. Over the past decade, the shift from inpatient to outpatient surgical care (also called ambulatory or day surgery) has been dramatic. It has been estimated that 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in outpatient settings by the year 2000.4 While it may be appropriate to use common definitions of SSI for inpatients and outpatients,415 the types of operations monitored, the risk factors assessed, and the case-finding methods used may differ. New predictor variables may emerge from analyses of SSIs among outpatient surgery patients, which may lead to different ways of estimating SSI risk in this population. The choice of which operations to monitor should be made tly by surgeons and infection control personnel. Most hospitals do not have the resources to monitor all surgical patients all the time, nor is it likely that the same intensity of surveillance is necessary for certain low-risk procedures. Instead, hospitals should target surveillance efforts toward high-risk procedures.416 a. Inpatient SSI sur veillance Two methods, alone or together, have been used to identify inpatients with SSIs: (1) direct observation of the surgical site by the surgeon, trained nurse surveyor, or infection control personnel16,97,399,402,409,417-420 and (2) indirect detection by infection control personnel through review of laboratory reports, patient records, and discussions with primary care providers.15,84,399,402,404,409,418,421-427 The surgical literature suggests that direct observation of surgical sites is the most accurate method to detect SSIs, although sensitivity data are lacking.16,399,402,417,418 Much of the SSI data reported in the infection control literature has been generated by indirect case-finding methods,125,126,422,425,426,428-430 but some studies of direct methods also have been conducted.97,409 Some studies use both methods of detection.84,409,424,427,431 A study that focused solely on the sensitivity and specificity of SSIs detected by indirect methods found a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI: 75.7%91.9%) and a specificity of 99.8% (95% CI: 99%-100%).409 Another study showed that chart review triggered by a computer-generated report of antibiotic orders for postcesarean section patients had a sensitivity of 89% for detecting endometritis.432 Indirect SSI detection can readily be performed by infection control personnel during surveillance rounds. The work includes gathering demographic, infection, surgical, and laboratory data on patients who have undergone operations of interest.433 These data can be obtained from patients’ medical records, including microbiology, histopathology, laboratory, and pharmacy data; radiology reports; and records from the operating room. Additionally, inpatient issions, emergency room, and clinic visit

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

265

records are sources of data for those postdischarge surgical patients who are reitted or seek follow-up care. The optimum frequency of SSI case-finding by either method is unknown and varies from daily to ⭐3 times per week, continuing until the patient is discharged from the hospital. Because duration of hospitalization is often very short, postdischarge SSI surveillance has become increasingly important to obtain accurate SSI rates (refer to “Postdischarge SSI Surveillance” section). To calculate meaningful SSI rates, data must be collected on all patients undergoing the operations of interest (i.e., the population at risk). Because one of its purposes is to develop strategies for risk stratification, the NNIS system collects the following data on all surgical patients surveyed: operation date; NNIS operative procedure category;434 surgeon identifier; patient identifier; age and sex; duration of operation; wound class; use of general anesthesia; ASA class; emergency; trauma; multiple procedures; endoscopic approach; and discharge date.433 With the exception of discharge date, these data can be obtained manually from operating room logs or be electronically ed into surveillance software, thereby substantially reducing manual transcription and data entr y errors.433 Depending on the needs for risk-stratified SSI rates by personnel in infection control, surgery, and quality assurance, not all data elements may be pertinent for every type of operation. At minimum, however, variables found to be predictive of increased SSI risk should be collected (refer to “SSI Risk Stratification” section). b. Postdischarge SSI sur veillance Between 12% and 84% of SSIs are detected after patients are discharged from the hospital.98,337,402,428,435-454 At least two studies have shown that most SSIs become evident within 21 days after operation.446,447 Since the length of postoperative hospitalization continues to decrease, many SSIs may not be detected for several weeks after discharge and may not require reission to the operating hospital. Dependence solely on inpatient case-finding will result in underestimates of SSI rates for some operations (e.g., coronary artery by graft) (CDC/NNIS system, unpublished data, 1998). Any comparison of SSI rates must take into whether case-finding included SSIs detected after discharge. For comparisons to be valid, even in the same institution over time, the postdischarge surveillance methods must be the same. Postdischarge surveillance methods have been used with varying degrees of success for different procedures and among hospitals and include (1) direct examination of patients’ wounds during follow-up visits to either surgery clinics or physicians’ offices,150,399,402,404,430,436,440,441,447,452,455 (2) review of medical records of surger y clinic patients,404,430,439 (3) patient sur veys by mail or telephone,435,437,438,441,442,444,445,448,449,455-457 or (4) surgeon surveys by mail or telephone.98,428,430,437-439,443,444,446,448,450,451,455 One study found that patients have difficulty assessing their own wounds for infection (52% specificity, 26% positive predictive value),458 suggesting that data obtained by patient questionnaire may inaccurately represent actual SSI rates.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

266

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

Recently, Sands et al. performed a computerized search of three databases to determine which best identified SSIs: ambulatory encounter records for diagnostic, testing, and treatment codes; pharmacy records for specific antimicrobial prescriptions; and istrative records for rehospitalizations and emergency room visits.446 This study found that pharmacy records indicating a patient had received antimicrobial agents commonly used to treat soft tissue infections had the highest sensitivity (50%) and positive predictive value (19%), although even this approach alone was not very effective. As integrated health information systems expand, tracking surgical patients through the entire course of care may become more feasible, practical, and effective. At this time, no consensus exists on which postdischarge surveillance methods are the most sensitive, specific, and practical. Methods chosen will necessarily reflect the hospital’s unique mix of operations, personnel resources, and data needs. c. Outpatient SSI sur veillance Both direct and indirect methods have been used to detect SSIs that complicate outpatient operations. One 8year study of operations for hernia and varicose veins used home visits by district health nurses combined with a survey completed by the surgeon at the patient’s 2-week postoperative clinic visit to identify SSIs.459 While ascertainment was essentially 100%, this method is impractical for widespread implementation. High response rates have been obtained from questionnaires mailed to surgeons (72%->90%).443,444,446,455,459-461 Response rates from telephone questionnaires istered to patients were more variable (38%,444 81%,457 and 85%455), and response rates from questionnaires mailed to patients were quite low (15%455 and 33%446). At this time, no single detection method can be recommended. Available resources and data needs determine which method(s) should be used and which operations should be monitored. Regardless of which detection method is used, it is recommended that the CDC NNIS definitions of SSI (Tables 1 and 2) be used without modification in the outpatient setting. G. GUIDELINE EVALUATION PROCESS

The value of the HIAC guidelines is determined by those who use them. To help assess that value, HIAC is developing an evaluation tool to learn how guidelines meet expectations, and how and when these guidelines are disseminated and implemented. II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF SURGICAL SITE INFECTION A. RATIONALE

The Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999, provides recommendations concerning reduction of surgical site infection risk. Each recommendation is categorized on the basis of existing scientific data, theoretical rationale, and applicability. However, the previous CDC system for categorizing recommendations has been modified slightly.

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

Category I recommendations, including IA and IB, are those recommendations that are viewed as effective by HIAC and experts in the fields of surgery, infectious diseases, and infection control. Both Category IA and IB recommendations are applicable for, and should be adopted by, all healthcare facilities; IA and IB recommendations differ only in the strength of the ing scientific evidence. Category II recommendations are ed by less scientific data than Category I recommendations; such recommendations may be appropriate for addressing specific nosocomial problems or specific patient populations. No recommendation is offered for some practices, either because there is a lack of consensus regarding their efficacy or because the available scientific evidence is insufficient to their adoption. For such unresolved issues, practitioners should use judgement to determine a policy regarding these practices within their organization. Recommendations that are based on federal regulation are denoted with an asterisk. B. RANKINGS

Category IA.Strongly recommended for implementation and ed by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiological studies. Category IB.Strongly recommended for implementation and ed by some experimental, clinical, or epidemiological studies and strong theoretical rationale. Category II. Suggested for implementation and ed by suggestive clinical or epidemiological studies or theoretical rationale. No recommendation; unresolved issue. Practices for which insufficient evidence or no consensus regarding efficacy exists. Practices required by federal regulation are denoted with an asterisk (*). C. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Preoperative a. Preparation of the patient 1. Whenever possible, identify and treat all infections remote to the surgical site before elective operation and postpone elective operations on patients with remote site infections until the infection has resolved. Category IA 2. Do not remove hair preoperatively unless the hair at or around the incision site will interfere with the operation. Category IA 3. If hair is removed, remove immediately before the operation, preferably with electric clippers. Category IA 4. Adequately control serum blood glucose levels in all diabetic patients and particularly avoid hyperglycemia perioperatively. Category IB 5. Encourage tobacco cessation. At minimum, instruct patients to abstain for at least 30 days before elective operation from smoking cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or any other form of tobacco consumption (e.g., chewing/dipping). Category IB 6. Do not withhold necessary blood products from surgical patients as a means to prevent SSI. Category IB

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

7. Require patients to shower or bathe with an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operative day. Category IB 8. Thoroughly wash and clean at and around the incision site to remove gross contamination before performing antiseptic skin preparation. Category IB 9. Use an appropriate antiseptic agent for skin preparation (Table 6). Category IB 10. Apply preoperative antiseptic skin preparation in concentric circles moving toward the periphery. The prepared area must be large enough to extend the incision or create new incisions or drain sites, if necessary. Category II 11. Keep preoperative hospital stay as short as possible while allowing for adequate preoperative preparation of the patient. Category II 12. No recommendation to taper or discontinue systemic steroid use (when medically permissible) before elective operation. Unresolved issue 13. No recommendation to enhance nutritional for surgical patients solely as a means to prevent SSI. Unresolved issue 14. No recommendation to preoperatively apply mupirocin to nares to prevent SSI. Unresolved issue 15. No recommendation to provide measures that enhance wound space oxygenation to prevent SSI. Unresolved issue b. Hand/forearm antisepsis for surgical team 1. Keep nails short and do not wear artificial nails. Category IB 2. Perform a preoperative surgical scrub for at least 2 to 5 minutes using an appropriate antiseptic (Table 6). Scrub the hands and forearms up to the elbows. Category IB 3. After performing the surgical scrub, keep hands up and away from the body (elbows in flexed position) so that water runs from the tips of the fingers toward the elbows. Dry hands with a sterile towel and don a sterile gown and gloves. Category IB 4. Clean underneath each fingernail prior to performing the first surgical scrub of the day. Category II 5. Do not wear hand or arm jewelry. Category II 6. No recommendation on wearing nail polish. Unresolved Issue c. Management of infected or colonized surgical personnel 1. Educate and encourage surgical personnel who have signs and symptoms of a transmissible infectious illness to report conditions promptly to their supervisory and occupational health service personnel. Category IB 2. Develop well-defined policies concerning patientcare responsibilities when personnel have potentially transmissible infectious conditions. These policies should govern (a) personnel responsibility in using the health service and reporting illness, (b) work restrictions, and (c) clearance to resume work after an illness that required work restriction. The policies also should identify persons who have the authority to remove personnel from duty. Category IB 3. Obtain appropriate cultures from, and exclude

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

267

from duty, surgical personnel who have draining skin lesions until infection has been ruled out or personnel have received adequate therapy and infection has resolved. Category IB 4. Do not routinely exclude surgical personnel who are colonized with organisms such as S. aureus (nose, hands, or other body site) or group A Streptococcus, unless such personnel have been linked epidemiologically to dissemination of the organism in the healthcare setting. Category IB d. Antimicrobial prophylaxis 1. ister a prophylactic antimicrobial agent only when indicated, and select it based on its efficacy against the most common pathogens causing SSI for a specific operation (Table 4) and published recommendations.266,268,269,282-284 Category IA 2. ister by the intravenous route the initial dose of prophylactic antimicrobial agent, timed such that a bactericidal concentration of the drug is established in serum and tissues when the incision is made. Maintain therapeutic levels of the agent in serum and tissues throughout the operation and until, at most, a few hours after the incision is closed in the operating room. Category IA 3. Before elective colorectal operations in addition to d2 above, mechanically prepare the colon by use of enemas and cathartic agents. ister nonabsorbable oral antimicrobial agents in divided doses on the day before the operation. Category IA 4. For high-risk cesarean section, ister the prophylactic antimicrobial agent immediately after the umbilical cord is clamped. Category IA 5. Do not routinely use vancomycin for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Category IB 2. Intraoperative a. Ventilation 1. Maintain positive-pressure ventilation in the operating room with respect to the corridors and adjacent areas. Category IB 2. Maintain a minimum of 15 air changes per hour, of which at least 3 should be fresh air. Category IB 3. Filter all air, recirculated and fresh, through the appropriate filters per the American Institute of Architects’ recommendations.299 Category IB 4. Introduce all air at the ceiling, and exhaust near the floor. Category IB 5. Do not use UV radiation in the operating room to prevent SSI. Category IB 6. Keep operating room doors closed except as needed for age of equipment, personnel, and the patient. Category IB 7. Consider performing orthopedic implant operations in operating rooms supplied with ultraclean air. Category II 8. Limit the number of personnel entering the operating room to necessary personnel. Category II b. Cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

268

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

1. When visible soiling or contamination with blood or other body fluids of surfaces or equipment occurs during an operation, use an EPA-approved hospital disinfectant to clean the affected areas before the next operation. Category IB* 2. Do not perform special cleaning or closing of operating rooms after contaminated or dirty operations. Category IB 3. Do not use tacky mats at the entrance to the operating room suite or individual operating rooms for infection control. Category IB 4. Wet vacuum the operating room floor after the last operation of the day or night with an EPA-approved hospital disinfectant. Category II 5. No recommendation on disinfecting environmental surfaces or equipment used in operating rooms between operations in the absence of visible soiling. Unresolved issue c. Microbiologic sampling 1. Do not perform routine environmental sampling of the operating room. Perform microbiologic sampling of operating room environmental surfaces or air only as part of an epidemiologic investigation. Category IB d. Sterilization of surgical instruments 1. Sterilize all surgical instruments according to published guidelines.212,299,314,321 Category IB 2. Perform flash sterilization only for patient care items that will be used immediately (e.g., to reprocess an inadvertently dropped instrument). Do not use flash sterilization for reasons of convenience, as an alternative to purchasing additional instrument sets, or to save time. Category IB e. Surgical attire and drapes 1. Wear a surgical mask that fully covers the mouth and nose when entering the operating room if an operation is about to begin or already under way, or if sterile instruments are exposed. Wear the mask throughout the operation. Category IB* 2. Wear a cap or hood to fully cover hair on the head and face when entering the operating room. Category IB* 3. Do not wear shoe covers for the prevention of SSI. Category IB* 4. Wear sterile gloves if a scrubbed surgical team member. Put on gloves after donning a sterile gown. Category IB* 5. Use surgical gowns and drapes that are effective barriers when wet (i.e., materials that resist liquid penetration). Category IB 6. Change scrub suits that are visibly soiled, contaminated, and/or penetrated by blood or other potentially infectious materials. Category IB* 7. No recommendations on how or where to launder scrub suits, on restricting use of scrub suits to the operating suite, or for covering scrub suits when out of the operating suite. Unresolved issue f. Asepsis and surgical technique 1. Adhere to principles of asepsis when placing * Federal regulation: OSHA.

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

intravascular devices (e.g., central venous catheters), spinal or epidural anesthesia catheters, or when dispensing and istering intravenous drugs. Category IA 2. Assemble sterile equipment and solutions immediately prior to use. Category II 3. Handle tissue gently, maintain effective hemostasis, minimize devitalized tissue and foreign bodies (i.e., sutures, charred tissues, necrotic debris), and eradicate dead space at the surgical site. Category IB 4. Use delayed primary skin closure or leave an incision open to heal by second intention if the surgeon considers the surgical site to be heavily contaminated (e.g., Class III and Class IV). Category IB 5. If drainage is necessary, use a closed suction drain. Place a drain through a separate incision distant from the operative incision. Remove the drain as soon as possible. Category IB 3. Postoperative incision care a. Protect with a sterile dressing for 24 to 48 hours postoperatively an incision that has been closed primarily. Category IB b. Wash hands before and after dressing changes and any with the surgical site. Category IB c. When an incision dressing must be changed, use sterile technique. Category II d. Educate the patient and family regarding proper incision care, symptoms of SSI, and the need to report such symptoms. Category II e. No recommendation to cover an incision closed primarily beyond 48 hours, nor on the appropriate time to shower or bathe with an uncovered incision. Unresolved issue 4. Surveillance a. Use CDC definitions of SSI (Table 1) without modification for identifying SSI among surgical inpatients and outpatients. Category IB b. For inpatient case-finding (including reissions), use direct prospective obser vation, indirect prospective detection, or a combination of both direct and indirect methods for the duration of the patient’s hospitalization. Category IB c. When postdischarge surveillance is performed for detecting SSI following certain operations (e.g., coronary artery by graft), use a method that accommodates available resources and data needs. Category II d. For outpatient case-finding, use a method that accommodates available resources and data needs. Category IB e. Assign the surgical wound classification upon completion of an operation. A surgical team member should make the assignment. Category II f. For each patient undergoing an operation chosen for surveillance, record those variables shown to be associated with increased SSI risk (e.g., surgical wound class, ASA class, and duration of operation). Category IB g. Periodically calculate operation-specific SSI rates

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

stratified by variables shown to be associated with increased SSI risk (e.g., NNIS risk index). Category IB h. Report appropriately stratified, operation-specific SSI rates to surgical team . The optimum frequency and format for such rate computations will be determined by stratified case-load sizes (denominators) and the objectives of local, continuous quality improvement initiatives. Category IB i. No recommendation to make available to the infection control committee coded surgeon-specific data. Unresolved issue REFERENCES 1. Garner JS. CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Supercedes guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections published in 1982. (Originally published in 1995). Revised. Infect Control 1986;7(3):193-200. 2. Simmons BP. Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections. Infect Control 1982;3:185-196. 3. Garner JS. The CDC Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:160-2. 4. Hecht AD. Creating greater efficiency in ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 1995;7:581-4. 5. Horwitz JR, Chwals WJ, Doski JJ, Suescun EA, Cheu HW, Lally KP. Pediatric wound infections: a prospective multicenter study. Ann Surg 1998;227:553-8. 6. Golub R, Siddiqui F, Pohl D. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:545-53. 7. Mayol J, Garcia-Aguilar J, Ortiz-Oshiro E, De-Diego Carmona JA, Ferndandez-Represa JA. Risks of the minimal access approach for laparoscopic surgery: multivariate analysis of morbidity related to umbilical trocar insertion. World J Surg 1997;21:529-33. 8. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S, Grande L, Fuster J, Tabet J, et al. Postoperative complications of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc 1997;11:119-22. 9. Pagni S, Salloum EJ, Tobin GR, VanHimbergen DJ, Spence PA. Serious wound infections after minimally invasive coronary by procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:92-4. 10. The Southern Surgeons Club. A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1073-8. 11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1997, issued May 1997. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:477-87. 12. Food and Drug istration. Topical antimicrobial drug products for over-the-counter human use: tentative final monograph for health-care antiseptic drug products—proposed rule (21 CFR Parts 333 and 369). Federal 1994;59:31441-52. 13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and Health Statistics, Detailed Diagnoses and Procedures, National Hospital Discharge Survey, 1994. Vol 127. Hyattsville, Maryland: DHHS Publication; 1997. 14. Emori TG, Gaynes RP. An overview of nosocomial infections, including the role of the microbiology laborator y. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993;6(4):428-42. 15. Cruse P. Wound infection surveillance. Rev Infect Dis 1981;4(3):734-7. 16. Cruse PJ, Foord R. The epidemiology of wound infection: a 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 1980;60(1): 27-40. 17. Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Culver DH, Haley RW. Incidence and nature of endemic and epidemic nosocomial infections. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1992. p. 577-96. 18. Boyce JM, Potter-Bynoe G, Dziobek L. Hospital reimbursement patterns among patients with surgical wound infections following open heart surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11(2):89-93. 19. Poulsen KB, Bremmelgaard A, Sorensen AI, Raahave D, Petersen JV. Estimated costs of postoperative wound infections. A case-control study of marginal hospital and social security costs. Epidemiol Infect 1994;113(2):283-95. 20. Vegas AA, Jodra VM, Garcia ML. Nosocomial infection in surgery wards: a controlled study of increased duration of hospital stays and direct cost of hospitalization. Eur J Epidemiol 1993;9(5):504-10. 21. Albers BA, Patka P, Haarman HJ, Kostense PJ. Cost effectiveness of preventive antibiotic istration for lowering risk of infection by 0.25%. [German]. Unfallchirurg 1994;97(12):625-8.

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

269

22. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13(10):606-8. 23. Ehrenkranz NJ, Richter EI, Phillips PM, Shultz JM. An apparent excess of operative site infections: analyses to evaluate false-positive diagnoses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16(12):712-6. 24. Taylor G, McKenzie M, Kirkland T, Wiens R. Effect of surgeon’s diagnosis on surgical wound infection rates. Am J Infect Control 1990;18(5):295-9. 25. SHEA, APIC, CDC, SIS. Consensus paper on the surveillance of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13(10): 599-605. 26. Nooyen SM, Overbeek BP, Brutel de la Riviere A, Storm AJ, Langemeyer JM. Prospective randomised comparison of single-dose versus multiple-dose cefuroxime for prophylaxis in coronary artery by grafting. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1994;13:1033-7. 27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) report, data summary from October 1986-April 1996, issued May 1996. A report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:380-8. 28. Schaberg DR. Resistant gram-positive organisms. Ann Emerg Med 1994;24(3):462-4. 29. Schaberg DR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Major trends in the microbial etiology of nosocomial infection. Am J Med 1991;91(3B):72S-5S. 30. Jarvis WR. Epidemiology of nosocomial fungal infections, with emphasis on Candida species. Clin Infect Dis 1995;20:1526-30. 31. Centers for Disease Control. Nosocomial outbreak of Rhizopus infections associated with Elastoplast wound dressings—Minnesota. MMWR 1978;27:33-4. 32. Pearson RD, Valenti WM, Steigbigel RT. Clostridium perfringens wound infections associated with elastic bandages. JAMA 1980;244:1128-30. 33. Richet HM, Craven PC, Brown JM, Lasker BA, Cox CD, McNeil MM, et al. A cluster of Rhodococcus (Gordona) bronchialis sternal-wound infections after coronar y-arter y by surger y. N Engl J Med 1991;324:104-9. 34. Wenger PN, Brown JM, McNeil MM, Jarvis WR. Nocardia farcinica sternotomy site infections in patients following open heart surgery. J Infect Dis 1998;178:1539-43. 35. Lowry PW, Blankenship RJ, Gridley W, Troup NJ, Tompkins LS. A cluster of Legionella sternal-wound infections due to postoperative topical exposure to contaminated tap water. N Engl J Med 1991;324: 109-13. 36. Bassett DC, Stokes KJ, Thomas WR. Wound infection with Pseudomonas multivorans: a water-borne contaminant of disinfectant solutions. Lancet 1970;1:1188-91. 37. Cruse PJ. Surgical wound infection. In: Wonsiewicz MJ, ed. Infectious Diseases. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1992. p. 758-64. 38. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR. Surgical infection. In: Moyer CA, Rhoads JE, Allen JG, Harkins HN, eds. Surgery, principles and practice. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1965. p. 51-77. 39. Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg 1975;130:579-84. 40. Elek SD, Conen PE. The virulence of Staphylococcus pyogenes for man: a study of problems with wound infection. Br J Exp Pathol 1957;38: 573-86. 41. Noble WC. The production of subcutaneous staphylococcal skin lesions in mice. Br J Exp Pathol 1965;46:254-62. 42. James RC, MacLeod CJ. Induction of staphylococcal infections in mice with small inocula introduced on sutures. Br J Exp Pathol 1961;42: 266-77. 43. Henderson B, Poole S, Wilson M. Microbial/host interactions in health and disease: who controls the cytokine network? Immunopharmacology 1996;35:1-21. 44. Morrison DC, Ryan JL. Endotoxins and disease mechanisms. Ann Rev Med 1987;38:417-32. 45. Demling R, LaLonde C, Saldinger P, Knox J. Multiple-organ dysfunction in the surgical patient: pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment. Curr Probl Surg 1993;30:345-414. 46. Eiseman B, Beart R, Norton L. Multiple organ failure. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977;14:323-6. 47. Fry DE, Pearlstein L, Fulton RL, Polk HC, Jr. Multiple system organ failure: the role of uncontrolled infection. Arch Surg 1980;115:136-40. 48. Kasper DL. Bacterial capsule—old dogmas and new tricks. J Infect Dis 1986;153:407-15. 49. Dellinger EP. Surgical infections and choice of antibiotics. In: Sabiston DC, ed. Textbook of Surgery. The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 15th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1997. p. 264-80. 50. Goeau-Brissonniere O, Leport C, Guidoin R, Lebrault C, Pechere JC,

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

270

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

Bacourt F. Experimental colonization of an expanded polytetrafluoroethylene vascular graft with Staphylococcus aureus: a quantitative and morphologic study. J Vasc Surg 1987;5(5):743-8. 51. Bergamini TM, Corpus RA Jr., Brittian KR, Peyton JC, Cheadle WG. The natural history of bacterial biofilm graft infection. J Surg Res 1994;56:393-6. 52. Baddour LM, Christensen GD, Hester MG, Bisno AL. Production of experimental endocarditis by coagulase-negative staphylococci: variability in species virulence. J Infect Dis 1984;150:721-7. 53. Christensen GD, Baddour LM, Simpson WA. Phenotypic variation of Staphylococcus epidermidis slime production in vitro and in vivo. Infect Immun 1987;55:2870-7. 54. Mayberry-Carson KJ, Tober-Meyer B, Smith JK, Lambe DW Jr., Costerton JW. Bacterial adherence and glycocalyx formation in osteomyelitis experimentally induced with Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Immun 1984;43:825-33. 55. Mills J, Pulliam L, Dall L, Marzouk J, Wilson W, Costerton JW. Exopolysaccharide production by viridans streptococci in experimental endocarditis. Infect Immun 1984;43:359-67. 56. Kaebnick HW, Bandyk DF, Bergamini TM, Towne JB. The microbiology of explanted vascular prostheses. Surgery 1987;102:756-61. 57. Altemeier WA, Culbertson WR, Hummel RP. Surgical considerations of endogenous infections—sources, types, and methods of control. Surg Clin North Am 1968;48:227-40. 58. Wiley AM, Ha’eri GB. Routes of infection: a study of using “tracer particles” in the orthopedic operating room. Clin Orthop 1979;139: 150-5. 59. Slaughter L, Morris JE, Starr A. Prosthetic valvular endocarditis. A 12year review. Circulation 1973;47:1319-26. 60. Carlsson AK, Lidgren L, Lindberg L. Prophylactic antibiotics against early and late deep infections after total hip replacements. Acta Orthop Scand 1977;48:405-10. 61. Hunter JG, Padilla M, Cooper-Vastola S. Late Clostridium perfringens breast implant infection after dental treatment. Ann Plast Surg 1996;36(3):309-12. 62. Stuesse DC, Robinson JH, Durzinsky DS. A late sternal wound infection caused by hematogenous spread of bacteria. Chest 1995;108(6):1742-3. 63. Howe CW. Experimental wound sepsis from transient Escherichia coli bacteremia. Surgery 1969;66:570-4. 64. Velasco E, Thuler LC, Martins CA, Dias LM, Conalves VM. Risk factors for infectious complications after abdominal surgery for malignant disease. Am J Infect Control 1996;24(1):1-6. 65. Bruun JN. Post-operative wound infection. Predisposing factors and the effect of a reduction in the dissemination of staphylococci. Acta Med Scand Suppl 1970;514(Suppl):3-89. 66. Simchen E, Rozin R, Wax Y. The Israeli Study of Surgical Infection of drains and the risk of wound infection in operations for hernia. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1990;170:331-7. 67. Edwards LD. The epidemiology of 2056 remote site infections and 1966 surgical wound infections occurring in 1865 patients: a four year study of 40,923 operations at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Hospital, Chicago. Ann Surg 1976;184:758-66. 68. Valentine RJ, Weigelt JA, Dryer D, Rodgers C. Effect of remote infections on clean wound infection rates. Am J Infect Control 1986;14:64-7. 69. Cioffi GA, Terezhalmy GT, Taybos GM. Total t replacement: a consideration for antimicrobial prophylaxis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1988;66(1):124-9. 70. Heggeness MH, Esses SI, Errico T, Yuan HA. Late infection of spinal instrumentation by hematogenous seeding. Spine 1993;18(4):492-6. 71. Mont MA, Waldman B, Banerjee C, Pacheco IH, Hungerford DS. Multiple irrigation, debridement, and retention of components in infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997;12(4):426-33. 72. Ozuna RM, Delamarter RB. Pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis and postsurgical disc space infections. Ortho Clin North Am 1996;27(1): 87-94. 73. Schmalzried TP, Amstutz HC, Au MK, Dorey FJ. Etiology of deep sepsis in total hip arthroplasty. The significance of hematogenous and recurrent infections. Clin Orthop 1992;280:200-7. 74. Calia FM, Wolinsky E, Mortimer EA Jr., Abrams JS, Rammelkamp CH Jr. Importance of the carrier state as a source of Staphylococcus aureus in wound sepsis. J Hyg (Lond) 1969;67:49-57. 75. Dineen P, Drusin L. Epidemics of postoperative wound infections associated with hair carriers. Lancet 1973;2(7839):1157-9. 76. Mastro TD, Farley TA, Elliott JA, Facklam RR, Perks JR, Hadler JL, et al. An outbreak of surgical-wound infections due to group A streptococcus carried on the scalp. N Engl J Med 1990;323:968-72. 77. Ford CR, Peterson DE, Mitchell CR. An appraisal of the role of surgical face masks. Am J Surg 1967;113:787-90. 78. Letts RM, Doermer E. Conversation in the operating theater as a cause of airborne bacterial contamination. J Bone t Surg [Am] 1983;65:357-62.

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

79. Giamarellou H, Antoniadou A. Epidemiology, diagnosis, and therapy of fungal infections in surger y. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17(8):558-64. 80. Lee JT. Surgical wound infections: surveillance for quality improvement. In: Fry DE, ed. Surgical Infections. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1995. p. 145-59. 81. Perl TM, Golub JE. New approaches to reduce Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial infection rates: treating S. aureus nasal carriage. Ann Pharmacother 1998;32:S7-S16. 82. Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, Ijzerman EP, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Maat AW, Wagenvoort JH, et al. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus as a major risk factor for wound infections after cardiac surgery. J Infect Dis 1995;171:216-9. 83. Perl TM, Cullen JJ, Pfaller MA, Wenzel RP, Herwaldt LA, The MARS Study Team. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of intranasal mupirocin ointment (IM) for prevention of S. aureus surgical site infections (SSI) [abstract]. Abstracts of the IDSA 36th Annual Meeting 1998;91(88). 84. Gil-Egea MJ, Pi-Sunyer MT, Verdaguer A, Sanz F, Sitges-Serra A, Eleizegui LT. Surgical wound infections: prospective study of 4,486 clean wounds. Infect Control 1987;8(7):277-80. 85. Nagachinta T, Stephens M, Reitz B, Polk BF. Risk factors for surgicalwound infection following cardiac surgery. J Infect Dis 1987;156:967-73. 86. Lilienfeld DE, Vlahov D, Tenney JH, McLaughlin JS. Obesity and diabetes as risk factors for postoperative wound infections after cardiac surgery. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:3-6. 87. Slaughter MS, Olson MM, Lee JT Jr., Ward HB. A fifteen-year wound surveillance study after coronary artery by. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56(5):1063-8. 88. Bryan AJ, Lamarra M, Angelini GD, West RR, Breckenridge IM. Median sternotomy wound dehiscence: a retrospective case control study of risk factors and outcome. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1992;37:305-8. 89. Jones JK, Triplett RG. The relationship of cigarette smoking to impaired intraoral wound healing: a review of evidence and implications for patient care. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1992;50(3):237-9; discussion 239-40. 90. Vinton AL, Traverso LW, Jolly PC. Wound complications after modified radical mastectomy compared with tylectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Am J Surg 1991;161(5):584-8. 91. Holley DT, Toursarkissian B, Vansconez HC, Wells MD, Kenady DE, Sloan DA. The ramifications of immediate reconstruction in the management of breast cancer. Am Surg 1995;61(1):60-5. 92. Beitsch P, Balch C. Operative morbidity and risk factor assessment in melanoma patients undergoing inguinal lymph node dissection. Am J Surg 1992;164(5):462-6; discussion 465-6. 93. Post S, Betzler M, vonDitfurth B, Schurmann G, Kuppers P, Herfarth C. Risks of intestinal anastomoses in Crohn’s disease. Ann Surg 1991;213(1):37-42. 94. B’erard F, Gandon J. Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 1964;160(Suppl 1):1-192. 95. Nystrom PO, Jonstam A, Hojer H, Ling L. Incisional infection after colorectal surgery in obese patients. Acta Chir Scand 1987;153:225-7. 96. He GW, Ryan WH, Acuff TE, Bowman RT, Douthit MB, Yang CQ, et al. Risk factors for operative mortality and sternal wound infection in bilateral internal mammary artery grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;107(1):196-202. 97. Barber GR, Miransky J, Brown AE, Coit DG, Lewis FM, Thaler HT, et al. Direct observations of surgical wound infections at a comprehensive cancer center. Arch Surg 1995;130(10):1042-7. 98. Cruse PJ, Foord R. A five-year prospective study of 23,649 surgical wounds. Arch Surg 1973;107:206-10. 99. Claesson BE, Holmlund DE. Predictors of intraoperative bacterial contamination and postoperative infection in elective colorectal surgery. J Hosp Infect 1988;11:127-35. 100. Mishriki SF, Law DJ, Jeffery PJ. Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative wound infection. J Hosp Infect 1990;16:223-30. 101. Doig CM, Wilkinson AW. Wound infection in a children’s hospital. Br J Surg 1976;63:647-50. 102. Sharma LK, Sharma PK. Postoperative wound infection in a pediatric surgical service. J Pediatr Surg 1986;21:889-91. 103. Casey J, Flinn WR, Yao JS, Fahey V, Pawlowski J, Bergan JJ. Correlation of immune and nutritional status with wound complications in patients undergoing vascular operations. Surgery 1983;93(6):822-7. 104. Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total t patients. Relationship to postoperative wound complications. J Arthroplasty 1991;6(4):321-5. 105. Weber TR. A prospective analysis of factors influencing outcome after fundoplication. J Pediatr Surg 1995;30(7):1061-3; discussion 1063-4. 106. Vamvakas EC, Carven JH. Transfusion of white-cell-containing allogeneic blood components and postoperative wound infection: effect of

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

confounding factors. Transfus Med 1998;8:29-36. 107. Vamvakas EC, Carven JH, Hibberd PL. Blood transfusion and infection after colorectal cancer surgery. Transfusion 1996;36:1000-8. 108. Jensen LS, Kissmeyer-Nielsen P, Wolff B, Qvist N. Randomised comparison of leucocyte-depleted versus buffy-coat-poor blood transfusion and complications after colorectal surgery. Lancet 1996;348:841-5. 109. Heiss MM, Mempel W, Jauch KW, Delanoff C, Mayer G, Mempel M, et al. Beneficial effect of autologous blood transfusion on infectious complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Lancet 1993;342:1328-33. 110. Lidgren L. Postoperative orthopaedic infections in patients with diabetes mellitus. Acta Orthop Scand 1973;44:149-51. 111. Gordon SM, Serkey JM, Barr C, Cosgrove D, Potts W. The relationship between glycosylated hemoglobin (HgA1c) levels and postoperative infections in patients undergoing primary coronary artery by surgery (CABG) [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997; 18(No. 5, Part 2):29(58). 112. Zerr KJ, Furnary AP, Grunkemeier GL, Bookin S, Kanhere V, Starr A. Glucose control lowers the risk of wound infection in diabetics after open heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1997;63(2):356-61. 113. Terranova A. The effects of diabetes mellitus on wound healing. Plast Surg Nurs 1991;11(1):20-5. 114. Ziv Y, Church JM, Fazio VW, King TM, Lavery IC. Effect of systemic steroids on ileal pouch-anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39(5):504-8. 115. Pons VG, Denlinger SL, Guglielmo BJ, Octavio J, Flaherty J, Derish PA, et al. Ceftizoxime versus vancomycin and gentamicin in neurosurgical prophylaxis: a randomized, prospective, blinded clinical study. Neurosurgery 1993;33(3):416-22; discussion 422-3. 116. Brown IW Jr, Moor GF, Hummel BW, Marshall WG Jr, Collins JP. Toward further reducing wound infections in cardiac operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62(6):1783-9. 117. Christou NV, Nohr CW, Meakins JL. Assessing operative site infection in surgical patients. Arch Surg 1987;122:165-9. 118. Hu SS, Fontaine F, Kelly B, Bradford DS. Nutritional depletion in staged spinal reconstructive surgery. The effect of total parenteral nutrition. Spine 1998;23:1401-5. 119. Schackert HK, Betzler M, Zimmermann GF, Decker R, Geelhaar H, Edler L, et al. The predictive role of delayed cutaneous hypersensitivity testing in postoperative complications. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:563-8. 120. Katelaris PH, Bennett GB, Smith RC. Prediction of postoperative complications by clinical and nutritional assessment. Aust N Z J Surg 1986;56:743-7. 121. Leite JF, Antunes CF, Monteiro JC, Pereira BT. Value of nutritional parameters in the prediction of postoperative complications in elective gastrointestinal surgery. Br J Surg 1987;74:426-9. 122. Mullen JL, Gertner MH, Buzby GP, Goodhart GL, Rosato EF. Implications of malnutrition in the surgical patient. Arch Surg 1979;114:121-5. 123. Buzby GP, Mullen JL, Matthews DC, Hobbs CL, Rosato EF. Prognostic nutritional index in gastrointestinal surgery. Am J Surg 1980;139:160-7. 124. Ellis LM, Copeland EM 3rd, Souba WW. Perioperative nutritional . Surg Clin North Am 1991;71:493-507. 125. Haley RW, Culver DH, Morgan WM, White JW, Emori TG, Hooton TM. Identifying patients at high risk of surgical wound infection. A simple multivariate index of patient susceptibility and wound contamination. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:206-15. 126. Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):152S-7S. 127. Windsor JA, Hill GL. Weight loss with physiologic impairment. A basic indicator of surgical risk. Ann Surg 1988;207:290-6. 128. Campos AC, Meguid MM. A critical appraisal of the usefulness of perioperative nutritional . Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:117-30. 129. Mhee IB, Williams RP, Swanson CE. Factors influencing wound healing after surgery for metastatic disease of the spine. Spine 1998;23: 726-33; discussion 732-3. 130. Mullen JL, Buzby GP, Matthews DC, Smale BF, Rosato EF. Reduction of operative morbidity and mortality by combined preoperative and postoperative nutritional . Ann Surg 1980;192:604-13. 131. Windsor JA, Hill GL. Protein depletion and surgical risk. Aust N Z J Surg 1988;58:711-5. 132. Ulicny KS Jr, Hiratzka LF, Williams RB, Grunkemeier GL, Flege JB Jr, Wright CB, et al. Sternotomy infection: poor prediction by acute phase response and delayed hypersensitivity. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;50:949-58. 133. Shukla HS, Rao RR, Banu N, Gupta RM, Yadav RC. Enteral hyperalimentation in malnourished surgical patients. Indian J Med Res 1984;80:339-46. 134. Moore EE, Jones TN. Benefits of immediate jejunostomy feeding after major abdominal trauma—a prospective, randomized study. J Trauma

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

271

1986;26:874-81. 135. Daly JM, Lieberman MD, Goldfine J, Shou J, Weintraub F, Rosato EF, et al. Enteral nutrition with supplemental arginine, RNA, and omega-3 fatty acids in patients after operation: immunologic, metabolic, and clinical outcome. Surgery 1992;112:56-67. 136. Daly JM, Weintraub FN, Shou J, Rosato EF, Lucia M. Enteral nutrition during multimodality therapy in upper gastrointestinal cancer patients. Ann Surg 1995;221:327-38. 137. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, McArdle AH, Booth FV, Morgenstein-Wagner TB, et al. Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications. The results of a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1992;216:172-83. 138. Starker PM, Lasala PA, Askanazi J, Gump FE, Forse RA, Kinney JM. The response to TPN: a form of nutritional assessment. Ann Surg 1983;198:720-4. 139. Muller JM, Brenner U, Dienst C, Pichlmaier H. Preoperative parenteral feeding in patients with gastrointestinal carcinoma. Lancet 1982;1: 68-71. 140. Holter AR, Fischer JE. The effects of perioperative hyperalimentation on complications in patients with carcinoma and weight loss. J Surg Res 1977;23:31-4. 141. Thompson BR, Julian TB, Stremple JF. Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. J Surg Res 1981;30: 497-500. 142. Brennan MF, Pisters PW, Posner M, Quesada O, Shike M. A prospective randomized trial of total parenteral nutrition after major pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 1994;220:436-41; discussion 441-4. 143. The Veterans Affairs Total Parenteral Nutrition Cooperative Study Group. Perioperative total parenteral nutrition in surgical patients. N Engl J Med 1991;325:525-32. 144. Starker PM, LaSala PA, Askanazi J, Todd G, Hensle TW, Kinney JM. The influence of preoperative total parenteral nutrition upon morbidity and mortality. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:569-74. 145. Senkal M, Mumme A, Eickhoff U, Geier B, Spath G, Wulfert D, et al. Early postoperative enteral immunonutrition: clinical outcome and costcomparison analysis in surgical patients. Crit Care Med 1997;25:1489-96. 146. Heatley RV, Williams RH, Lewis MH. Pre-operative intravenous feeding—a controlled trial. Postgrad Med J 1979;55:541-5. 147. Muller JM, Keller HW, Brenner U, Walter M, Holzmuller W. Indications and effects of preoperative parenteral nutrition. World J Surg 1986;10: 53-63. 148. Daly JM, Massar E, Giacco G, Frazier OH, Mountain CF, Dudrick SJ, et al. Parenteral nutrition in esophageal cancer patients. Ann Surg 1982;196:203-8. 149. Klein JD, Hey LA, Yu CS, Klein BB, Coufal FJ, Young EP, et al. Perioperative nutrition and postoperative complications in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Spine 1996;21:2676-82. 150. Garibaldi RA, Cushing D, Lerer T. Risk factors for postoperative infection. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):158S-63S. 151. Lee JT. Operative complications and quality improvement. Am J Surg 1996;171:545-7. 152. Kluytmans JA, Mouton JW, VandenBergh MF, Manders MJ, Maat AP, et al. Reduction of surgical-site infections in cardiothoracic surgery by elimination of nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:780-5. 153. Boyce JM. Preventing staphylococcal infections by eradicating nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: proceeding with caution. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:775-9. 154. Blajchman MA. Allogeneic blood transfusions, immunomodulation, and postoperative bacterial infection: do we have the answers yet? Transfusion 1997;37:121-5. 155. Garibaldi RA. Prevention of intraoperative wound contamination with chlorhexidine shower and scrub. J Hosp Infect 1988;11(Suppl B):5-9. 156. Paulson DS. Efficacy evaluation of a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as a full-body shower wash. Am J Infect Control 1993;21(4):205-9. 157. Hayek LJ, Emerson JM, Gardner AM. A placebo-controlled trial of the effect of two preoperative baths or showers with chlorhexidine detergent on postoperative wound infection rates. J Hosp Infect 1987;10: 165-72. 158. Kaiser AB, Kernodle DS, Barg NL, Petracek MR. Influence of preoperative showers on staphylococcal skin colonization: a comparative trial of antiseptic skin cleansers. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;45:35-8. 159. Rotter ML, Larsen SO, Cooke EM, Dankert J, Daschner F, Greco D, et al. A comparison of the effects of preoperative whole-body bathing with detergent alone and with detergent containing chlorhexidine gluconate on the frequency of wound infections after clean surgery. The European Working Party on Control of Hospital Infections. J Hosp Infect 1988;11:310-20. 160. Leigh DA, Stronge JL, Marriner J, Sedgwick J. Total body bathing with ‘Hibiscrub’ (chlorhexidine) in surgical patients: a controlled trial. J Hosp Infect 1983;4:229-35.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

272

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

161. Ayliffe GA, Noy MF, Babb JR, Davies JG, Jackson J. A comparison of pre-operative bathing with chlorhexidine-detergent and non-medicated soap in the prevention of wound infection. J Hosp Infect 1983;4:237-44. 162. Lynch W, Davey PG, Malek M, Byrne DJ, Napier A. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of chlorhexidine detergent in preoperative wholebody disinfection in wound infection prophylaxis. J Hosp Infect 1992;21:179-91. 163. Brady LM, Thomson M, Palmer MA, Harkness JL. Successful control of endemic MRSA in a cardiothoracic surgical unit. Med J Aust 1990;152:240-5. 164. Tuffnell DJ, Croton RS, Hemingway DM, Hartley MN, Wake PN, Garvey RJ. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; the role of antisepsis in the control of an outbreak. J Hosp Infect 1987;10:255-9. 165. Bartzokas CA, Paton JH, Gibson MF, Graham F, McLoughlin GA, Croton RS. Control and eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus on a surgical unit. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1422-5. 166. Seropian R, Reynolds BM. Wound infections after preoperative depilatory versus razor preparation. Am J Surg 1971;121:251-4. 167. Hamilton HW, Hamilton KR, Lone FJ. Preoperative hair removal. Can J Surg 1977;20:269-71, 274-5. 168. Olson MM, MacCallum J, McQuarrie DG. Preoperative hair removal with clippers does not increase infection rate in clean surgical wounds. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:181-2. 169. Mehta G, Prakash B, Karmoker S. Computer assisted analysis of wound infection in neurosurgery. J Hosp Infect 1988;11:244-52. 170. Alexander JW, Fischer JE, Boyajian M, Palmquist J, Morris MJ. The influence of hair-removal methods on wound infections. Arch Surg 1983;118(3):347-52. 171. Masterson TM, Rodeheaver GT, Morgan RF, Edlich RF. Bacteriologic evaluation of electric clippers for surgical hair removal. Am J Surg 1984;148:301-2. 172. Sellick JA Jr., Stelmach M, Mylotte JM. Surveillance of surgical wound infections following open heart surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12(10):591-6. 173. Ko W, Lazenby WD, Zelano JA, Isom W, Krieger KH. Effects of shaving methods and intraoperative irrigation on suppurative mediastinitis after by operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;53:301-5. 174. Moro ML, Carrieri MP, Tozzi AE, Lana S, Greco D. Risk factors for surgical wound infections in clean surgery: a multicenter study. Italian PRINOS Study Group. Ann Ital Chir 1996;67:13-9. 175. Winston KR. Hair and neurosurgery. Neurosurgery 1992;31(2):320-9. 176. Larson E. Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:253-66. 177. Hardin WD, Nichols RL. Handwashing and patient skin preparation. In: Malangoni MA, ed. Critical Issues in Operating Room Management. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 133-49. 178. Ritter MA, French ML, Eitzen HE, Gioe TJ. The antimicrobial effectiveness of operative-site preparative agents: a microbiological and clinical study. J Bone t Surg Am 1980;62(5):826-8. 179. Mayhall CG. Surgical infections including burns. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1993. p. 614-64. 180. Committee on Control of Surgical Infections of the Committee on Preand Postoperative Care, American College of Surgeons. Manual on Control of Infection in Surgical Patients. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co; 1984. 181. Hardin WD, Nichols RL. Aseptic technique in the operating room. In: Fry DE, ed. Surgical Infections. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1995. p. 109-18. 182. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA. Use of 4 percent chlorhexidine detergent solution (Hibiscrub) and other methods of skin disinfection. Br Med J 1973;1:510-5. 183. Aly R, Maibach HI. Comparative antibacterial efficacy of a 2-minute surgical scrub with chlorhexidine gluconate, povidone-iodine, and chloroxylenol sponge-brushes. Am J Infect Control 1988;16:173-7. 184. Peterson AF, Rosenberg A, Alatary SD. Comparative evaluation of surgical scrub preparations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978;146:63-5. 185. Brown TR, Ehrlich CE, Stehman FB, Golichowski AM, Madura JA, Eitzen HE. A clinical evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate spray as compared with iodophor scrub for preoperative skin preparation. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1984;158:363-6. 186. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA. The effect of blood on disinfection of surgeons’ hands. Br J Surg 1974;61:19-21. 187. Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for skin preparation of patients. AORN J 1996;64(5):813-6. 188. Kutarski PW, Grundy HC. To dry or not to dry? An assessment of the possible degradation in efficiency of preoperative skin preparation caused by wiping skin dry. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75(3):181-5. 189. Gauthier DK, O’Fallon PT, Coppage D. Clean vs sterile surgical skin preparation kits. Cost, safety, effectiveness. AORN J 1993;58(3):486-95. 190. Hagen KS, Treston-Aurand J. A comparison of two skin preps used in

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

cardiac surgical procedures. AORN J 1995;62(3):393-402. 191. Shirahatti RG, Joshi RM, Vishwanath YK, Shinkre N, Rao S, Sankpal JS, et al. Effect of pre-operative skin preparation on post-operative wound infection. J Postgrad Med 1993;39(3):134-6. 192. Larson EL, Butz AM, Gullette DL, Laughon BA. Alcohol for surgical scrubbing? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11(3):139-43. 193. Faoagali J, Fong J, George N, Mahoney P, O’Rouke V. Comparison of the immediate, residual, and cumulative antibacterial effects of Novaderm R*, Novascrub R*, Betadine Surgical Scrub, Hibiclens, and liquid soap. Am J Infect Control 1995;23(6):337-43. 194. Larson EL. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69. 195. Rubio PA. Septisol antiseptic foam: a sensible alternative to the conventional surgical scrub. Int Surg 1987;72(4):243-6. 196. Lowbury EJ, Lilly HA, Ayliffe GA. Preoperative disinfection of surgeons’ hands: use of alcoholic solutions and effects of gloves on skin flora. Br Med J 1974;4:369-72. 197. Rotter ML. Hygienic hand disinfection. Infect Control 1984;5:18-22. 198. Ayliffe GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control 1984;5:23-7. 199. Lilly HA, Lowbury EJ, Wilkins MD, Zaggy A. Delayed antimicrobial effects of skin disinfection by alcohol. J Hyg (Lond) 1979;82:497-500. 200. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Garcia RY, Waterman RS, Holmes JW. Current practices of preoperative bowel preparation among North American colorectal surgeons. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:609-19. 201. Wade JJ, Casewell MW. The evaluation of residual antimicrobial activity on hands and its clinical relevance. J Hosp Infect 1991;18(Suppl B):23-8. 202. Babb JR, Davies JG, Ayliffe GA. A test procedure for evaluating surgical hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 1991;18(Suppl B):41-9. 203. Holloway PM, Platt JH, Reybrouck G, Lilly HA, Mehtar S, Drabu Y. A multi-centre evaluation of two chlorhexidine-containing formulations for surgical hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 1990;16:151-9. 204. Kobayashi H. Evaluation of surgical scrubbing. J Hosp Infect 1991;18(Suppl B):29-34. 205. Nicoletti G, Boghossian V, Borland R. Hygienic hand disinfection: a comparative study with chlorhexidine detergents and soap. J Hosp Infect 1990;15:323-37. 206. Rotter ML, Koller W. Surgical hand disinfection: effect of sequential use of two chlorhexidine preparations. J Hosp Infect 1990;16:161-6. 207. O’Shaughnessy M, O’Malley VP, Corbett G, Given HF. Optimum duration of surgical scrub-time. Br J Surg 1991;78(6):685-6. 208. Hingst V, Juditzki I, Heeg P, Sonntag HG. Evaluation of the efficacy of surgical hand disinfection following a reduced application time of 3 instead of 5 min. J Hosp Infect 1992;20(2):79-86. 209. Wheelock SM, Lookinland S. Effect of surgical hand scrub time on subsequent bacterial growth. AORN J 1997;65:1087-92, 1094-8. 210. Deshmukh N, Kramer JW, Kjellberg SI. A comparison of 5-minute povidone-iodine scrub and 1-minute povidone-iodine scrub followed by alcohol foam. Mil Med 1998;163:145-7. 211. Masterson BJ. Cleansing the surgeon’s hands. Scientific American Surgeon 1996;2:3-9. 212. Association of Operating Room Nurses. Standards, Recommended Practices, Guidelines. Denver: Association of Operating Room Nurses; 1999. 213. Pottinger J, Burns S, Manske C. Bacterial carriage by artificial versus natural nails. Am J Infect Control 1989;17:340-4. 214. aro DJ, Waring L, Armstrong R, Bolding F, Bouvier B, Rosenberg J, et al. Postoperative Serratia marcescens wound infections traced to an out-of-hospital source. J Infect Dis 1997;175(4):992-5. 215. Baumgardner CA, Maragos CS, Walz J, Larson E. Effects of nail polish on microbial growth of fingernails. Dispelling sacred cows. AORN J 1993;58:84-8. 216. Jacobson G, Thiele JE, McCune JH, Farrell LD. Handwashing: ringwearing and number of microorganisms. Nurs Res 1985;34:186-8. 217. Hoffman PN, Cooke EM, McCarville MR, Emmerson AM. Microorganisms isolated from skin under wedding rings worn by hospital staff. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1985;290:206-7. 218. Richet HM, Chidiac C, Prat A, Pol A, David M, Maccario M, et al. Analysis of risk factors for surgical wound infections following vascular surgery. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):170S-172S. 219. Centers for Disease Control. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in an ophthalmology clinic—California. MMWR 1990;39:598-601. 220. Ford E, Nelson KE, Warren D. Epidemiology of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis. Epidemiol Rev 1987;9:244-61. 221. Birenbaum E, Linder N, Varsano N, Azar R, Kuint J, Spierer A, et al. Adenovirus type 8 conjunctivitis outbreak in a neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child 1993;68(5 Spec No):610-1. 222. Warren D, Nelson KE, Farrar JA, Hurwitz E, Hierholzer J, Ford E, et al. A large outbreak of epidemic keratoconjunctivitis: problems in controlling nosocomial spread. J Infect Dis 1989;160:938-43. 223. Jernigan JA, Lowry BS, Hayden FG, Kyger SA, Conway BP, Groschel

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

DH, et al. Adenovirus type 8 epidemic keratoconjunctivitis in an eye clinic: risk factors and control. J Infect Dis 1993;167:1307-13. 224. Boyce JM. Should we vigorously try to contain and control methicillinresistant Staphylococcus aureus? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:46-54. 225. Boyce JM, Opal SM, Potter-Bynoe G, Medeiros AA. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a hospital after exposure to a health care worker with chronic sinusitis. Clin Infect Dis 1993;17: 496-504. 226. Sheretz RJ, Reagan DR, Hampton KD, Robertson KL, Streed SA, Hoen HM, et al. A cloud adult: the Staphylococcus aureus-virus interaction revisited. Ann Intern Med 1996;124:539-47. 227. Belani A, Sherertz RJ, Sullivan ML, Russell BA, Reumen PD. Outbreak of staphylococcal infection in two hospital nurseries traced to a single nasal carrier. Infect Control 1986;7:487-90. 228. Kreiswirth BN, Kravitz GR, Schlievert PM, Novick RP. Nosocomial transmission of a strain of Staphylococcus aureus causing toxic shock syndrome. Ann Intern Med 1986;105:704-7. 229. Weber DJ, Rutala WA, Denny FW Jr. Management of healthcare workers with pharyngitis or suspected streptococcal infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:753-61. 230. Viglionese A, Nottebart VF, Bodman HA, Platt R. Recurrent group A streptococcal carriage in a health care worker associated with widely separated nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Med 1991;91(3B):329S-33S. 231. Paul SM, Genese C, Spitalny K. Postoperative group A beta-hemolytic streptococcus outbreak with the pathogen traced to a member of a healthcare worker’s household. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:643-6. 232. Ridgway EJ, Allen KD. Clustering of group A streptococcal infections on a burns unit: important lessons in outbreak management. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:173-82. 233. Berkelman RL, Martin D, Graham DR, Mowry J, Freisem R, Weber JA, et al. Streptococcal wound infection caused by a vaginal carrier. JAMA 1982;247:2680-2. 234. Schaffner W, Lefkowitz LB Jr., Goodman JS, Koenig MG. Hospital outbreak of infections with group A streptococci traced to an asymptomatic anal carrier. N Engl J Med 1969;280:1224-5. 235. Richman DD, Breton SJ, Goldman DA. Scarlet fever and group A streptococcal surgical wound infection traced to an anal carrier. J Pediatr 1977;90:387-90. 236. Stromberg A, Schwan A, Cars O. Throat carrier rates of beta-hemolytic streptococci among healthy adults and children. Scand J Infect Dis 1988;20:411-7. 237. Stamm WE, Feeley JC, Facklam RR. Wound infection due to group A streptococcus traced to a vaginal carrier. J Infect Dis 1978;138:287-92. 238. Bolyard EA, Tablan OC, Williams WW, Pearson ML, Shapiro CN, Deitchman SD, et al. Guideline for infection control in healthcare personnel, 1998. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:289-354. 239. Nichols RL, Holmes JW. Prophylaxis in bowel surgery. Curr Clin Top Infect Dis 1995;15:76-96. 240. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Muzik AC, Love EJ, McSwain NE, Timberlake G, et al. Preventive antibiotic usage in traumatic thoracic injuries requiring closed tube thoracostomy. Chest 1994;106(5):1493-8. 241. Bullock R, van Dellen JR, Ketelbey W, Reinach SG. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of perioperative prophylactic antibiotics for elective neurosurgery. J Neurosurg 1988;69(5):687-91. 242. Page , Bohnen JM, Fletcher JR, McManus AT, Solomkin JS, Wittmann DH. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgical wounds. Guidelines for clinical care. Arch Surg 1993;128(1):79-88. 243. McQueen M, Littlejohn A, Hughes SP. A comparison of systemic cefuroxime and cefuroxime loaded bone cement in the prevention of early infection after total t replacement. Int Orthop 1987;11:241-3. 244. Henley MB, Jones RE, Wyatt RWB, Hofmann A, Cohen RL. Prophylaxis with cefamandole nafate in elective orthopedic surgery. Clin Orthop 1986;209:249-54. 245. Buckley R, Hughes GN, Snodgrass T, Huchcroft SA. Perioperative cefazolin prophylaxis in hip fracture surgery. Can J Surg 1990;33:122-7. 246. Boyd RJ, Burke JF, Colton T. A double-blind clinical trial of prophylactic antibiotic in hip fractures. J Bone t Surg [Am] 1973;55A:1251-8. 247. Bernard A, Pillet M, Goudet P, Viard H. Antibiotic prophylaxis in pulmonary surgery. A prospective randomized double-blind trial of flash cefuroxime versus forty-eight-hour cefuroxime. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;107(3):896-900. 248. Platt R, Zucker JR, Zaleznik DF, Hopkins CC, Dellinger EP, Karchmer AW, et al. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis and wound infection following breast surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993;31(Suppl B):43-8. 249. Rimoldi RL, Haye W. The use of antibiotics for wound prophylaxis in spinal surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 1996;27(1):47-52. 250. Bennion RS, Hiatt JR, Williams RA, Wilson SE. A randomized, prospective study of perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis for vascular access

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

273

surgery. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1985;26:270-4. 251. Kaiser AB, Petracek MR, Lea JW 4th, Kernodle DS, Roach AC, Alford WC Jr, et al. Efficacy of cefazolin, cefamandole, and gentamicin as prophylactic agents in cardiac surgery. Results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial in 1030 patients. Ann Surg 1987;206(6):791-7. 252. Miedzinski LJ, Callaghan JC, Fanning EA, Gelfand ET, Goldsand G, Modry D, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for open heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;50:800-7. 253. Doebbeling BN, Pfaller MA, Kuhns KR, Massanari RM, Behrendt DM, Wenzel RP. Cardiovascular surgery prophylaxis. A randomized, controlled comparison of cefazolin and cefuroxime. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;99:981-9. 254. Madsen MS, Neumann L, Andersen JA. Penicillin prophylaxis in complicated wounds of hands and feet: a randomized, double-blind trial. Injury 1996;27(4):275-8. 255. Burnett JW, Gustilo RB, Williams DN, Kind AC. Prophylactic antibiotics in hip fractures. A double-blind, prospective study. J Bone t Surg [Am]1980;62(3):457-62. 256. Nichols RL, Webb WR, Jones JW, Smith JW, LoCicero J 3rd. Efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis in high risk gastroduodenal operations. Am J Surg 1982;143:94-8. 257. Lewis RT, Goodall RG, Marien B, Park M, Lloyd-Smith W, Wiegand FM. Efficacy and distribution of single-dose preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk gastroduodenal surgery. Can J Surg 1991;34:117-22. 258. Young RF, Lawner PM. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of postoperative neurosurgical infections. A randomized clinical trial. J Neurosurg 1987;66:701-5. 259. Djindjian M, Lepresle E, Homs JB. Antibiotic prophylaxis during prolonged clean neurosurgery. Results of a randomized double-blind study using oxacillin. J Neurosurg 1990;73:383-6. 260. Targarona EM, Garau J, Munoz-Ramos C, Roset F, Lite J, Matas E, et al. Single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in patients at high risk for infection in biliary surgery: a prospective and randomized study comparing cefonicid with mezlocillin. Surgery 1990;107:327-34. 261. van Ek B, Dijkmans BA, van Dulken H, van Furth R. Antibiotic prophylaxis in craniotomy: a prospective double-blind placebo-controlled study. Scand J Infect Dis 1988;20:633-9. 262. Krige JE, Isaacs S, Stapleton GN, McNally J. Prospective, randomized study comparing amoxycillin-clavulanic acid and cefamandole for the prevention of wound infection in high-risk patients undergoing elective biliary surgery. J Hosp Infect 1992;22 (Suppl A):33-41. 263. Browder W, Smith JW, Vivoda LM, Nicholas RL. Nonperforative appendicitis: a continuing surgical dilemma. J Infect Dis 1989;159(6):1088-94. 264. Platt R. Guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Abrutyn E, Goldmann DA, Scheckler WE, eds. Saunders Infection Control Reference Service. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1997. p. 229-34. 265. Sanderson PJ. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: microbiological factors. J Antimicrob Chemother 1993;31(Suppl B):1-9. 266. Anonymous. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery. Med Lett Drugs Ther 1997;39(1012):97-102. 267. Scher KS. Studies on the duration of antibiotic istration for surgical prophylaxis. Am Surg 1997;63:59-62. 268. Nichols RL. Antibiotic prophylaxis in surger y. J Chemother 1989;1(3):170-8. 269. Ehrenkranz NJ. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery: mechanisms, misconceptions, and mischief. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14(2):99-106. 270. Berkeley AS, Freedman KS, Ledger WJ, Orr JW, Benigno BB, Gordon SF, et al. Comparison of cefotetan and cefoxitin prophylaxis for abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158: 706-9. 271. Ehrenkranz NJ, Blackwelder WC, Pfaff SJ, Poppe D, Yerg DE, Kaslow RA. Infections complicating low-risk cesarean sections in community hospitals: efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;162(2):337-43. 272. Soper DE. Infections following cesarean section. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1993;5(4):517-20. 273. Enkin M, Enkin E, Chalmers I, Hemminki E. Prophylactic antibiotics in association with caesarean section. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ, eds. Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth. London: Oxford University; 1989. p. 1246-69. 274. Allen JL, Rampon JF, Wheeless CR. Use of a prophylactic antibiotic in elective major gynecologic operations. Obstet Gynecol 1972;39:218-24. 275. The Multicenter Study Group. Single dose prophylaxis in patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy: cefamandole versus cefotaxime. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1198-201. 276. Roy S, Wilkins J, Galaif E, Azen C. Comparative efficacy and safety of cefmetazole or cefoxitin in the prevention of postoperative infection following vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;23(Suppl D):109-17. 277. Friese S, Willems FT, Loriaux SM, Meewis JM. Prophylaxis in gynae-

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

274

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

cological surgery: a prospective randomized comparison between single dose prophylaxis with amoxycillin/clavulanate and the combination of cefuroxime and metronidazole. J Antimicrob Chemother 1989;24(Suppl B):213-6. 278. Senior CC, Steigrad SJ. Are preoperative antibiotics helpful in abdominal hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;154:1004-8. 279. Hemsell DL, Martin JN Jr, Pastorek JG 2d, Nobles BJ, Hemsell PG, Helman N, et al. Single dose antimicrobial prophylaxis at abdominal hysterectomy. Cefamandole vs. cefotaxime. J Reprod Med 1988;33: 939-44. 280. Hemsell DL, Hemsell PG, Heard ML, Nobles BJ. Preoperative cefoxitin prophylaxis for elective abdominal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985;153:225-6. 281. DiPiro JT, Cheung RP, Bowden TA Jr, Mansberger JA. Single dose systemic antibiotic prophylaxis of surgical wound infections. Am J Surg 1986;152:552-9. 282. Trilla A, Mensa J. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1993. p. 665-82. 283. Ehrenkranz NJ, Meakins JL. Surgical infections. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1992. p. 685-710. 284. Nichols RL. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis. Med Clin North Am 1995;79(3):509-22. 285. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Horn SD, Menlove RL, Burke JP. The timing of prophylactic istration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326(5):281-6. 286. McDonald M, Grabsch E, Marshall C, Forbes A. Single- versus multiple-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for major surgery: a systematic review. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:388-96. 287. Clarke JS, Condon RE, Bartlett JG, Gorbach SL, Nichols RL, Ochi S. Preoperative oral antibiotics reduce septic complications of colon operations: results of prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical study. Ann Surg 1977;186:251-9. 288. Condon RE, Bartlett JG, Greenlee H, Schulte WJ, Ochi S, Abbe R, et al. Efficacy of oral and systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in colorectal operations. Arch Surg 1983;118:496-502. 289. Bartlett JG, Condon RE, Gorbach SL, Clarke JS, Nichols RL, Ochi S. Veterans istration Cooperative Study on bowel preparation for elective colorectal operation: impact of oral antibiotic regimen on colonic flora, wound irrigation cultures and bacteriology of septic complications. Ann Surg 1978;188:249-54. 290. Da Costa A, Kirkorian G, Cucherat M, Delahaye F, Chevalier P, Cerisier A, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for permanent pacemaker implantation: a meta-analysis. Circulation 1998;97:1796-801. 291. Bumpous JM, Johnson JT. The infected wound and its management. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1995;28(5):987-1001. 292. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisor y Committee. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16(2):105-13. 293. Forse RA, Karam B, MacLean LD, Christou NV. Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgery in morbidly obese patients. Surgery 1989;106:750-7. 294. Polk HC, Wilson MA. Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in surgery. In: Fry DE, ed. Surgical Infections. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1995. p. 127-33. 295. Ayliffe GA. Role of the environment of the operating suite in surgical wound infection. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(Suppl 10):S800-4. 296. Gryska PF, O’Dea AE. Postoperative streptococcal wound infection. The anatomy of an epidemic. JAMA 1970;213:1189-91. 297. McIntyre DM. An epidemic of Streptococcus pyogenes puerperal and postoperative sepsis with an unusual carrier site—the anus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1968;101:308-14. 298. Lidwell OM. Clean air at operation and subsequent sepsis in the t. Clin Orthop 1986;211:91-102. 299. American Institute of Architects. Guidelines for design and construction of hospital and health care facilities. Washington (DC): American Institiute of Architects Press; 1996. 300. Nichols RL. The operating room. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1992. p. 461-73. 301. Laufman H. The operating room. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 2nd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1986. p. 315-23. 302. Sessler DI, McGuire J, Hynson J, Moayeri A, Heier T. Thermoregulatory vasoconstriction during isoflurane anesthesia minimally decreases cutaneous heat loss. Anesthesiology 1992;76:670-5. 303. Hambraeus A. Aerobiology in the operating room—a review. J Hosp Infect 1988;11(Suppl A):68-76 304. Babb JR, Lynam P, Ayliffe GA. Risk of airborne transmission in an operating theatre containing four ultraclean air units. J Hosp Infect 1995;31(3):159-68.

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

305. Charnley J. Post-operative infection after total hip replacement with special reference to contamination in the operating room. Internal Publication 38, Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, Lancs., UK; 1972. 306. Friberg B. Ultraclean laminar airflow ORs. AORN J 1998;67:841-51. 307. Lidwell OM, Elson RA, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, et al. Ultraclean air and antibiotics for prevention of postoperative infection. A multicenter study of 8,052 t replacement operations. Acta Orthop Scand 1987;58:4-13. 308. Nelson JP. The operating room environment and its influence on deep wound infection. J Bone t Surg 1976;1-11. 309. Whyte W. Infection control in hospital operating rooms. Cleanrooms 1993 Proceedings 1993;157-66. 310. Charnley J. A clean-air operating enclosure. Br J Surg 1964;51:202-5. 311. Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Stanley SJ, Lowe D. Effect of ultraclean air in operating rooms on deep sepsis in the t after total hip or knee replacement: a randomised study. Br Med J 1982;285:10-4. 312. Taylor GJ, Bannister GC, Leeming JP. Wound disinfection with ultraviolet radiation. J Hosp Infect 1995;30(2):85-93. 313. Bueno Cavanillas A, Rodriguez-Contreras R, Delgado Rodriguez M, Moreno Abril O, Lopez Gigosos R, Guillen Solvas J, et al. Preoperative stay as a risk factor for nosocomial infection. Eur J Epidemiol 1991;7(6):670-6. 314. Favero MS, Bond W. Sterilization, disinfection, and antisepsis in the hospital. In: Balows A, Hausler WJ Jr, Herrmann KL, Isenberg HD, Shadomy HJ, eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. 5th ed. Washington (DC): American Society of Microbiology; 1991. p. 183-200. 315. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health istration. Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens; final rule (29 CFR Part 1910.1030). Federal 1991;56:64004-182. 316. Rudnick JR, Beck-Sague CM, Anderson RL, Schable B, Miller JM, Jarvis WR. Gram-negative bacteremia in open-heart-surgery patients traced to probable tap-water contamination of pressure-monitoring equipment. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17(5):281-5. 317. Centers for Disease Control. Postsurgical infections associated with nonsterile implantable devices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1992;41(15):263. 318. Soto LE, Bobadilla M, Villalobos Y, Sifuentes J, Avelar J, Arrieta M, et al. Post-surgical nasal cellulitis outbreak due to Mycobacterium chelonae. J Hosp Infect 1991;19(2):99-106. 319. Favero MS, Manian FA. Is eliminating flash sterilization practical? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14(8):479-80. 320. American Society for Healthcare Central Ser vice Personnel. Recommended practices for central service. Section one, continuous quality improvement. Chicago: American Hospital Association; 1993. 321. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Flash sterilization: steam sterilization of patient care items for immediate use (ANSI/AAMI ST37-1996). Arlington (VA): Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996. 322. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Evaluation of a rapid readout biological indicator for flash sterilization with three biological indicators and three chemical indicators. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14(7):390-4. 323. Vesley D, Langholz AC, Rohlfing SR, Foltz WE. Fluorimetric detection of a Bacillus stearothermophilus spore-bound enzyme, alpha-D-glucosidase, for rapid indication of flash sterilization failure. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;58:717-9. 324. Rutala WA, Jones SM, Weber DJ. Comparison of a rapid readout biological indicator for steam sterilization with four conventional biological indicators and five chemical indicators. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1996;17:423-8. 325. Vesley D, Nellis MA, Allwood PB. Evaluation of a rapid readout biological indicator for 121 degrees C gravity and 132 degrees C vacuumassisted steam sterilization cycles. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:281-6. 326. Smith RF. What is the purpose of the scrub suit? [letter]. AORN J 1980;31(5):769. 327. Dineen P. The role of impervious drapes and gowns preventing surgical infection. Clin Orthop 1973;96:210-2. 328. Ha’eri GB, Wiley AM. The efficacy of standard surgical face masks: an investigation using “tracer particles.” Clin Orthop 1980;148:160-2. 329. Moylan JA, Fitzpatrick KT, Davenport KE. Reducing wound infections. Improved gown and drape barrier performance. Arch Surg 1987;122:152-7. 330. Moylan JA, Balish E, Chan J. Intraoperative bacterial transmission. Surg Forum 1974;25:29-30. 331. Copp G, Mailhot CB, Zalar M, Slezak L, Copp AJ. Covergowns and the control of operating room contamination. Nurs Res 1986;35:263-8. 332. Beck WC. The surgical mask: another ‘sacred cow’? AORN J 1992;55:955-7.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

333. Mitchell NJ, Hunt S. Surgical face masks in modern operating rooms— a costly and unnecessary ritual? J Hosp Infect 1991;18:239-42. 334. Tunevall TG, Jorbeck H. Influence of wearing masks on the density of airborne bacteria in the vicinity of the surgical wound. Eur J Surg 1992;158(5):263-6. 335. Tunevall TG. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: a controlled study. World J Surg 1991;15:383-8. 336. Orr NW. Is a mask necessary in the operating theatre? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1981;63(6):390-2. 337. Lee JT. Making surgical care better: hard work, small gains [editorial]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:6-8. 338. Jarvis WR, Bolyard EA, Bozzi CJ, Burwen DR, Dooley SW, Martin LS, et al. Respirators, recommendations, and regulations: the controversy surrounding protection of health care workers from tuberculosis. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:142-6. 339. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Protect yourself against tuberculosis: a respiratory protection guide for health care workers (Publication No. 96-102). Cincinnati: Department of Health and Human Services (NIOSH); 1995. 340. Humphreys H, Marshall RJ, Ricketts VE, Russell AJ, Reeves DS. Theatre over-shoes do not reduce operating theatre floor bacterial counts. J Hosp Infect 1991;17:117-23. 341. Weightman NC, Banfield KR. Protective over-shoes are unnecessary in a day surgery unit. J Hosp Infect 1994;28:1-3. 342. Whyte W, Hambraeus A, Laurell G, Hoborn J. The relative importance of routes and sources of wound contamination during general surgery. I. Non-airborne. J Hosp Infect 1991;18(2):93-107. 343. Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM, Duffy SR, Barker SG, Thomas MH. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg 1988;75(10):966-8. 344. Tokars JI, Culver DH, Mendelson MH, Sloan EP, Farber BF, Fligner DJ, et al. Skin and mucous membrane s with blood during surgical procedures: risk and prevention. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:703-11. 345. Short LJ, Bell DM. Risk of occupational infection with blood-borne pathogens in operating and delivery room settings. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:343-50. 346. Garibaldi RA, Maglio S, Lerer T, Becker D, Lyons R. Comparison of nonwoven and woven gown and drape fabric to prevent intraoperative wound contamination and postoperative infection. Am J Surg 1986;152(5):505-9. 347. Muller W, Jiru P, Mach R, Polaschek F, Fasching W. The use of disposable draping materials in the operating room and its effect on the postoperative wound infection rate. Wein Klin Wochenschr 1989;101: 837-42. 348. Smith JW, Nichols RL. Barrier efficiency of surgical gowns. Are we really protected from our patients’ pathogens? Arch Surg 1991;126(6): 756-63. 349. Artz , Conn JH, Howard HS. Protection of the surgical wound with a new plastic film. JAMA 1960;174(14):1865-8. 350. Chiu KY, Lau SK, Fung B, Ng KH, Chow SP. Plastic adhesive drapes and wound infection after hip fracture surgery. Aust N Z J Surg 1993;63(10):798-801. 351. American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing to Penetration by Synthetic Blood. American Society for Testing Materials 1998;F1670-98. 352. American Society for Testing Materials. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Materials Used in Protective Clothing to Penetration by Blood-borne Pathogens Using Phi-X174 Bacteriophage Penetration as a Test System. American Society for Testing Materials 1997; F1671-976. 353. McCullough EA. Methods for determining the barrier efficacy of surgical gowns. Am J Infect Control 1993;21:368-74. 354. Lewis JA, Brown PL. Breaking the comfort barrier in impervious gowns. Surgical Services Management 1998;4(2):29-38. 355. Granzow JW, Smith JW, Nichols RL, Waterman RS, Muzik AC. Evaluation of the protective value of hospital gowns against blood strike-through and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus penetration Am J Infect Control 1998;26:85-93. 356. Walter CW, Kundsin RB, Harding AL, Page LK. The infector on the surgical team. Clin Neurosurg 1966;14:361-79. 357. Payne RW. Severe outbreak of surgical sepsis due to Staphylococcus aureus of unusual type and origin. Br Med J 1967;4:17-20. 358. Centers for Disease Control. Hospital outbreak of streptococcal wound infection—Utah. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1976;25:141. 359. Herwaldt LA, Pottinger J, Coffin SA. Nosocomial infections associated with anesthesia. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 655-75. 360. Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, Arduino MJ, Villarino ME, Perrotta DM, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med 1995;333:147-54. 361. Froggatt JW, Dwyer DM, Stephens MA. Hospital outbreak of hepatitis

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

275

B in patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy [abstract]. Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago 1991;157:(347). 362. Centers for Disease Control. Postsurgical infections associated with an extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent—California, Illinois, Maine, and Michigan, 1990. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;39:426-7,433. 363. Daily MJ, Dickey JB, Packo KH. Endogenous Candida endophthalmitis after intravenous anesthsia with propofol. Arch Ophthalmol 1991;109:1081-4. 364. Villarino ME, McNeill MM, Hall WN. Postsurgical infections associated with an extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent [abstract]. Program and Abstracts of the 31st Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, Chicago 1991;156:(346). 365. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists. Infection Control Guide. Park Ridge (IL): American Association of Nurse Anesthetists; 1993. 366. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Recommendations for Infection Control for the Practice of Anesthesiology. Park Ridge (IL): American Society of Anesthesiologists; 1992. 367. Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:231-43. 368. Zacharias A, Habib RH. Delayed primary closure of deep sternal wound infections. Tex Heart Inst J 1996;23(3):211-6. 369. Smilanich RP, Bonnet I, Kirkpactrick JR. Contaminated wounds: the effect of initial management on outcome. Am Surg 1995;61(5):427-30. 370. Blomstedt GC. Infections in neurosurgery: a randomized comparison between silk and polyglycolic acid. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1985;76:90-3. 371. Scher KS, Bernstein JM, Jones CW. Infectivity of vascular sutures. Am Surg 1985;51:577-9. 372. Durdey P, Bucknall TE. Assessment of sutures for use in colonic surgery: an experimental study. J R Soc Med 1984;77:472-7. 373. Chu CC, Williams DF. Effects of physical configuration and chemical structure of suture materials on bacterial adhesion. A possible link to wound infection. Am J Surg 1984;147:197-204. 374. Askew AR. A comparison of upper abdominal wound closure with monofilament nylon and polyglycolic acid. Aust N Z J Surg 1983;53:353-6. 375. Kapadia CR, Mann JB, McGeehan D, Jose Biglin JE, Waxman BP, Dudley HA. Behaviour of synthetic absorbable sutures with and without synergistic enteric infection. Eur Surg Res 1983;15:67-72. 376. Bucknall TE, Teare L, Ellis H. The choice of a suture to close abdominal incisions. Eur Surg Res 1983;15:59-66. 377. Bucknall TE. Factors influencing wound complications: a clinical and experimental study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1983;65:71-7. 378. Varma S, Lumb WV, Johnson LW, Ferguson HL. Further studies with polyglycolic acid (Dexon) and other sutures in infected experimental wounds. Am J Vet Res 1981;42:571-4. 379. Bucknall TE, Ellis H. Abdominal wound closure—a comparison of monofilament nylon and polyglycolic acid. Surgery 1981;89:672-7. 380. Dougherty SH, Simmons RL. The biology and practice of surgical drains. Part II. Curr Probl Surg 1992;29(9):635-730. 381. Cruse PJE. Wound infections: epidemiology and clinical characteristics in surgical infectious disease. In: Howard RJ, Simmons RL, eds. Surgical Infectious Diseases. 2nd ed. Norwalk (CT): Appleton and Lange; 1988. p. 319-29. 382. Drinkwater CJ, Neil MJ. Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total t arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995;10(2):185-9. 383. Tollofsrud SG, Gundersen Y, Andersen R. Perioperative hypothermia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1984;28:511-5. 384. Sessler DI. Mild perioperative hypothermia. N Engl J Med 1997;336(24):1730-7. 385. Kurz A, Sessler DI, Lenhardt R. Perioperative normothermia to reduce the incidence of surgical-wound infection and shorten hospitalization. Study of Wound Infection and Temperature Group. N Engl J Med 1996;334(19):1209-15. 386. Hunt TK, Hopf HW. Wound healing and wound infection. What surgeons and anesthesiologists can do. Surg Clin North Am 1997;77: 587-606. 387. Wenisch C, Narzt E, Sessler DI, Parschalk B, Lenhardt R, Kurz A, et al. Mild intraoperative hypothermia reduces production of reactive oxygen intermediates by polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Anesth Analg 1996;82:810-6. 388. Jonsson K, Hunt TK, Mathes SJ. Oxygen as an isolated variable influences resistance to infection. Ann Surg 1988;208:783-7. 389. Jonsson K, Jensen JA, Goodson WH 3d, West JM, Hunt TK. Assessment of perfusion in postoperative patients using tissue oxygen measurements. Br J Surg 1987;74:263-7. 390. Chang N, Goodson WH 3d, Gottrup F, Hunt TK. Direct measurement of wound and tissue oxygen tension in postoperative patients. Ann Surg 1983;197:470-8. 391. Knighton DR, Halliday B, Hunt TK. Oxygen as an antibiotic. The effect of inspired oxygen on infection. Arch Surg 1984;119:199-204.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

276

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

392. Ikeda T, Tayefeh F, Sessler DI, Kurz A, Plattner O, Petschnigg B, et al. Local radiant heating increases subcutaneous oxygen tension. Am J Surg 1998;175:33-7. 393. DuMortier JJ. The resistance of healing wounds to infection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1933;56:762-6. 394. Morain WD, Colen LB. Wound healing in diabetes mellitus. Clin Plast Surg 1990;17:493-501. 395. American Hospital Association. Infection Control in the Hospital. Chicago: American Hospital Association; 1979. p. 161-2. 396. Castle M, Ajemian E. Hospital Infection Control: Principles and Practice. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. p. 114-6. 397. Centers for Disease Control. Isolation Techniques for Use in Hospitals. Washington (DC): Public Health Service Publication; 1970. 398. Kravitz M. Outpatient wound care. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 1996;8(2):217-33. 399. Condon RE, Schulte WJ, Malangoni MA, Anderson-Teschendorf MJ. Effectiveness of a surgical wound surveillance program. Arch Surg 1983;118:303-7. 400. Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW, Morgan WM, Emori TG, Munn VP. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985;121:182-205. 401. Lennard ES, Hargiss CO, Schoenknecht FD. Postoperative wound infection surveillance by use of bacterial contamination catgeories. Am J Infect Control 1985;13:147-53. 402. Olson MM, Lee JT Jr. Continuous, 10-year wound infection surveillance. Results, advantages, and unanswered questions. Arch Surg 1990;125:794-803. 403. Olson M, O’Connor MO, Schwartz ML. Surgical wound infections. A 5year prospective study of 20,193 wounds at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center. Ann Surg 1984;199:253-9. 404. Weigelt JA. Risk of wound infections in trauma patients. Am J Surg 1985;150:782-4. 405. Weigelt JA, Haley RW, Seibert B. Factors which influence the risk of wound infection in trauma patients. J Trauma 1987;27(7):774-81. 406. Anonymous. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;24:-111. 407. Owens WD. ASA physical status classification: a study on consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239-43. 408. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Nosocomial infection rates for interhospital comparison: limitations and possible solutions. A report from the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12: 609-21. 409. Cardo DM, Falk PS, Mayhall CG. Validation of surgical wound surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:211-5. 410. Horan T, Gaynes R, Culver D, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System, CDC. Development of predictive risk factors for nosocomial surgical site infections (SSI) [abstract]. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15(Suppl):P46(M72). 411. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Klein DB, Trunkey DD, Cooper RH, Adinolfi MF, et al. Risk of infection after penetrating abdominal trauma. N Engl J Med 1984;311:1065-70. 412. Nichols RL, Smith JW, Robertson GD, Muzik AC, Pearce P, Ozmen V, et al. Prospective alterations in therapy for penetrating abdominal trauma. Arch Surg 1993;128:55-64. 413. Horan TC, Culver DH, Gaynes RP, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System. Results of a multicenter study on risk factors for surgical site infections (SSI) following C-section (CSEC) [abstract]. Am J Infect Control 1996;24:84. 414. Roy MC, Herwaldt LA, Embrey R, Kuhns K, Wenzel RP, Perl TM. Does the NNIS risk index (NRI) predict which patients develop wound infection (SWI) after cardiothoracic (CT) surger y? [abstract]. 34th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1994; Orlando, FL:196. 415. Lee TB. Surveillance in acute care and nonacute care settings: current issues and concepts. Am J Infect Control 1997;25(2):121-4. 416. Lee JT. Wound infection surveillance. Infect Dis Clin North Am 1992;6(3):643-56. 417. Mead PB, Pories SE, Hall P, Vacek PM, Davis JH Jr, Gamelli RL. Decreasing the incidence of surgical wound infections. Validation of a surveillance-notification program. Arch Surg 1986;121:458-61. 418. Kerstein M, Flower M, Harkavy LM, Gross PA. Surveillance for postoperative wound infections: practical aspects. Am Surg 1978;44: 210-4. 419. Poulsen KB, Jepsen OB. Failure to detect a general reduction of surgical wound infections in Danish hospitals. Dan Med Bull 1995;42:485-8. 420. Haley RW, Schaberg DR, McClish DK, Quade D, Crossley KB, Culver DH, et al. The accuracy of retrospective chart review in measuring nosocomial infection rates. Results of validation studies in pilot hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1980;111(5):516-33. 421. Mulholland SG, Creed J, Dierauf LA, Bruun JN, Blakemore WS.

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

Analysis and significance of nosocomial infection rates. Ann Surg 1974;180:827-30. 422. Wenzel RP, Osterman CA, Hunting KJ, Gwaltney JM Jr. Hospitalacquired infections. I. Surveillance in a university hospital. Am J Epidemiol 1976;103:251-60. 423. Simchen E, Shapiro JM, Michel J, Sacks T. Multivariate analysis of determinants of postoperative wound infection: a possible basis for intervention. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3(4):678-82. 424. Collier C, Miller DP, Borst M. Community hospital surgeon-specific infection rates. Infect Control 1987;8(6):249-54. 425. Ehrenkranz NJ, Shultz JM, Richter EL. Recorded criteria as a “gold standard” for sensitivity and specificity estimates of surveillance of nosocomial infection: a novel method to measure job performance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:697-702. 426. Hirschhorn LR, Currier JS, Platt R. Electronic surveillance of antibiotic exposure and coded discharge diagnoses as indicators of postoperative infection and other quality assurance measures. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:21-8. 427. Simchen E, Wax Y, Pevsner B, Erdal M, Michel J, Modan M, et al. The Israeli Study of Surgical Infections (ISSI): I. Methods for developing a standardized surveillance system for a multicenter study of surgical infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988;9(6):232-40. 428. Burns SJ, Dippe SE. Postoperative wound infections detected during hospitalization and after discharge in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control 1982;10(2):60-5. 429. Laxson LB, Blaser MJ, Parkhurst SM. Surveillance for the detection of nosocomial infections and the potential for nosocomial outbreaks. Am J Infect Control 1984;12(6):318-24. 430. Mertens R, Jans B, Kurz X. A computerized nationwide network for nosocomial infection surveillance in Belgium. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:171-9. 431. Ehrenkranz NJ. Surgical wound infection occurrence in clean operations; risk stratification for interhospital comparisons. Am J Med 1981;(70):909-14. 432. Baker C, Luce J, Chenoweth C, Friedman C. Comparison of case-finding methodologies for endometritis after cesarean section. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:27-33. 433. Gaynes RP, Horan TC. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 1017-31. 434. Horan TC, Emori TG. Definitions of key used in the NNIS system. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:112-6. 435. Polk BF, Tager IB, Shapiro M, Goren-White B, Goldstein P, Schoenbaum SC. Randomised clinical trial of perioperative cefazolin in preventing infection after hysterectomy. Lancet 1980;1:437-41. 436. Salem RJ, Johnson J, Devitt P. Short term metronidazole therapy contrasted with povidone-iodine spray in the prevention of wound infection after appendicectomy. Br J Surg 1979;66:430-1. 437. Walsh AL, Roberts FJ, Bryce EA. Post-discharge surveillance of surgical wound infections [letter]. Can J Infect Control 1996;11(1):29. 438. Brown RB, Bradley S, Opitz E, Cipriani D, Pieczarka R, Sands M. Surgical wound infections documented after hospital discharge. Am J Infect Control 1987;15:54-8. 439. Rosendorf LL, Octavio J, Estes JP. Effect of methods of postdischarge wound infection surveillance on reported infection rates. Am J Infect Control 1983;11(6):226-9. 440. Ferraz EM, Ferraz AA, Coelho HS, Pereira Viana V, Sobral SM, Vasconcelos MD, et al. Postdischarge surveillance for nosocomial wound infection: does judicious monitoring find cases? Am J Infect Control 1995;23:290-4. 441. Andenaes K, Amland PF, Lingaas E, Abyholm F, Samdal F, Giercksky KE. A prospective, randomized surveillance study of postoperative wound infections after plastic surgery: a study of incidence and surveillance methods. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995;96(4):948-56. 442. Keeling NJ, Morgan MW. Inpatient and post-discharge wound infections in general surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1995;77:245-7. 443. Manian FA, Meyer L. Adjunctive use of monthly physician questionnaires for surveillance of surgical site infections after hospital discharge and in ambulatory surgical patients: report of a seven-year experience. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:390-4. 444. Manian FA, Meyer L. Comparison of patient telephone survey with traditional surveillance and monthly physician questionnaires in monitoring surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:216-8. 445. Reimer K, Gleed C, Nicolle LE. The impact of postdischarge infection on surgical wound infection rates. Infect Control 1987;8(6):237-40. 446. Sands K, Vineyard G, Platt R. Surgical site infections occuring after hospital discharge. J Infect Dis 1996;173:963-70. 447. Weigelt JA, Dryer D, Haley RW. The necessity and efficiency of wound surveillance after discharge. Arch Surg 1992;127:77-82. 448. Gravel-Tropper D, Oxley C, Memish Z, Garber GE. Underestimation of

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

Vol. 20 No. 4

GUIDELINE

FOR

surgical site infection rates in obstetrics and gynecology. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:22-6. 449. Taylor S, Pearce P, McKenzie M, Taylor GD. Wound infection in total t arthroplasty: effect of extended wound surveillance on wound infection rates. Can J Surg 1994;37(3):217-20. 450. Hulton LJ, Olmsted RN, Treston-Aurand J, Craig . Effect of postdischarge surveillance on rates of infectious complications after cesarean section. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:198-201. 451. Law DJ, Mishriki SF, Jeffery PJ. The importance of surveillance after discharge from hospital in the diagnosis of postoperative wound infection. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1990;72:207-9. 452. Donovan IA, Ellis D, Gatehouse D, Little G, Grimley R, Armistead S, et al. One-dose antibiotic prophylaxis against wound infection after appendicectomy: a randomized trial of clindamycin, cefazolin sodium and a placebo. Br J Surg 1979;66:193-6. 453. Bates T, Down RH, Houghton MC, Lloyd GJ. Topical ampicillin in the prevention of wound infection after appendicectomy. Br J Surg 1974;61:489-92. 454. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of blunt suture needles in preventing percutaneous injuries among health-care workers during gynecologic surgical procedures, New York City, March 1993June 1994. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997;46(2):25-9. 455. Fanning C, Johnston BL, MacDonald S, LeFort-Jost S, Dockerty E. Postdischarge surgical site infection surveillance. Can J Infect Control 1995;10(3):75-9. 456. Holbrook KF, Nottebart VF, Hameed SR, Platt R. Automated postdischarge surveillance for postpartum and neonatal nosocomial infections. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):125S-30S. 457. Zoutman D, Pearce P, McKenzie M, Taylor G. Surgical wound infections occuring in day surgery patients. Am J Infect Control 1990;18: 277-82. 458. Seaman M, Lammers R. Inability of patients to self-diagnose wound infections. J Emerg Med 1991;9:215-9. 459. Goulbourne IA, Ruckley CV. Operations for hernia and varicose veins in a day-bed unit. Br Med J 1979;2:712-4. 460. Garvey JM, Buffenmyer C, Rycheck RR, Yee R, McVay J, Harger JH. Surveillance for postoperative infections in outpatient gynecologic surgery. Infect Control 1986;7(2):54-8. 461. Flanders E, Hinnant JR. Ambulatory surgery postoperative wound surveillance. Am J Infect Control 1990;18(5):336-9. 462. Gentry LO, Zeluff BJ, Cooley DA. Antibiotic prophylaxis in open-heart surgery: a comparison of cefamandole, cefuroxime, and cefazolin. Ann Thorac Surg 1988;46:167-71. 463. Maki DG, Bohn MJ, Stolz SM, Kroncke GM, Archer CW, Myerowitz PD. Comparative study of cefazolin, cefamandole, and vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in cardiac and vascular operations. A double-blind randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;104:1423-34. 464. Haines SJ, Walters BC. Antibiotic prophylaxis for cerebrospinal fluid shunts: a metanalysis. Neurosurgery 1994;34(1):87-92. 465. Langley JM, LeBlanc JC, Drake J, Milner R. Efficacy of antimicrobial prophylaxis in placement of cerebrospinal fluid shunts: meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 1993;17:98-103. 466. Starr MB, Lally JM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for ophthalmic surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 1995;39:485-501. 467. Gatell JM, Riba J, Lozano ML, Mana J, Ramon R, Garcia Sanmiguel J. Prophylactic cefamandole in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone t Surg Am 1984;66:1219-22. 468. Kent KC, Bartek S, Kuntz KM, Anninos E, Skillman JJ. Prospective study of wound complications in continuous infrainguinal incisions after lower limb arterial reconstruction: incidence, risk factors, and cost. Surgery 1996;119(4):378-83. 469. Wymenga AB, van Horn JR, Theeuwes A, Muytjens HL, Slooff TJ. Perioperative factors associated with septic arthritis after arthroplasty. Prospective multicenter study of 362 knee and 2,651 hip operations. Acta Orthop Scand 1992;63(6):665-71. 470. Stambough JL, Beringer D. Postoperative wound infections complicating adult spine surgery. J Spinal Disord 1992;5(3):277-85. 471. Trippel SB. Antibiotic-impregnated cement in total t arthroplasty. J Bone t Surg Am 1986;68A:1297-302. 472. Nungu KS, Olerud C, Rehnberg L, Larsson S, Nordell P, Allvin I, et al. Prophylaxis with oral cefadroxil versus intravenous cefuroxime in trochanteric fracture surgery. A clinical multicentre study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1995;114(6):303-7. 473. Norden CW. Antibiotic prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Rev Infect Dis 1991;13(Suppl 10):S842-6. 474. Aznar R, Mateu M, Miro JM, Gatell JM, Gimferrer JM, Aznar E, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in non-cardiac thoracic surgery: cefazolin versus placebo. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1991;5:515-8. 475. Cant PJ, Smyth S, Smart DO. Antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for chest stab wounds requiring closed tube thoracostomy. Br J Surg 1993;80:464-6.

PREVENTION

OF

SSI

277

476. Pitt HA, Postier RG, MacGowan AW, Frank LW, Surmak AJ, Sitzman JV, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics in vascular surgery. Topical, systemic, or both? Ann Surg 1980;192:356-64. 477. Kaiser AB, Clayson KR, Mulherin JL Jr, Roach AC, Allen TR, Edwards WH, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in vascular surgery. Ann Surg 1978;188:283-9. 478. Bauer T, Vennits B, Holm B, Hahn-Pedersen J, Lysen D, Galatius H, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute nonperforated appendicitis. The Danish Multicenter Study Group II. Ann Surg 1989;209:307-11. 479. Skipper D, Corder AP, Karran SJ. A randomized prospective study to compare ceftizoxime with cephradine as single dose prophylaxis in elective cholecystectomy. J Hosp Infect 1991;17:303-6. 480. Kaufman Z, Engelberg M, Eliashiv A, Reiss R. Systemic prophylactic antibiotics in elective biliary surgery. Arch Surg 1984;119:1002-4. 481. Grant MD, Jones RC, Wilson SE, Bombeck CT, Flint LM, Jonasson O, et al. Single dose cephalosporin prophylaxis in high-risk patients undergoing surgical treatment of the biliary tract. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174:347-54. 482. Lewis RT, Goodall RG, Marien B, Park M, Lloyd-Smith W, Wiegand FM. Biliary bacteria, antibiotic use, and wound infection in surgery of the gallbladder and common bile duct. Arch Surg 1987;122:44-7. 483. Saltzstein EC, Mercer LC, Peacock JB, Dougherty SH. Outpatient open cholecystectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;174(3):173-5. 484. Meijer WS, Schmitz PI, Jeekel J. Meta-analysis of randomized, controlled clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in biliary tract surgery. Br J Surg 1990;77:283-90. 485. Kaiser AB, Herrington JL Jr, Jacobs JK, Mulherin JL Jr, Roach AC, Sawyers JL. Cefoxitin versus erythromycin, neomycin, and cefazolin in colorectal operations. Importance of the duration of the surgical procedure. Ann Surg 1983;198:525-30. 486. Schoetz DJ Jr, Roberts PL, Murray JJ, Coller JA, Veidenheimer MC. Addition of parenteral cefoxitin to regimen of oral antibiotics for elective colorectal operations. A randomized prospective study. Ann Surg 1990;212:209-12. 487. Edmondson HT, Rissing JP. Prophylactic antibiotics in colon surgery. Arch Surg 1983;118:227-31. 488. Wapnick S, Guinto R, Reizis I, LeVeen HH. Reduction of postoperative infection in elective colon surgery with preoperative istration of kanamycin and erythromycin. Surgery 1979;85:317-21. 489. Washington JA 2d, Dearing WH, Judd ES, Elveback LR. Effect of preoperative antibiotic regimen on development of infection after intestinal surger y. Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Ann Surg 1974;108:567-72. 490. Maki DG, Aughey DR. Comparative study of cefazolin, cefoxitin, and ceftizoxime for surgical prophylaxis in colo-rectal surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1982;10(Suppl C):281-7. 491. Rotman N, Hay JM, Lacaine F, Fagniez PL, The Association de Recherche en Chirurgie Cooperative Group. Prophylactic antibiotherapy in abdominal surgery. First- vs third-generation cephalosporins. Arch Surg 1989;124:323-7. 492. Lewis RT, Allan CM, Goodall RG, Marien B, Park M, Lloyd-Smith W, et al. Cefamandole in gastroduodenal surgery: a controlled, prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Can J Surg 1982;25(5):561-3. 493. McArdle CS, Morran CG, Anderson JR, Pettit L, Gemmell CG, Sleigh JD, et al. Oral ciprofloxacin as prophylaxis in gastroduodenal surgery. J Hosp Infect 1995;30(3):211-6. 494. Grandis JR, Vickers RM, Rihs JD, Yu VL, Johnson JT. Efficacy of topical amoxicillin plus clavulanate/ticarcillin plus clavulanate and clindamycin in contaminated head and neck surgery: effect of antibiotic spectra and duration of therapy. J Infect Dis 1994;170:729-32. 495. Johnson JT, Yu VL, Myers EN, Wagner RL. An assessment of the need for gram-negative bacterial coverage in antibiotic prophylaxis for oncological head and neck surgery. J Infect Dis 1987;155(2):331-3. 496. Elledge ES, Whiddon RG Jr, Fraker JT, Stambaugh KI. The effects of topical oral clindamycin antibiotic rinses on the bacterial content of saliva on healthy human subjects. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1991;105:836-9. 497. Johnson JT, Yu VL, Myers EN, Wagner RL, Sigler BA. Cefazolin vs moxalactam? A double-blind randomzied trial of cephalosporins in head and neck surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1986;112:151-3.

SELECTED READINGS Association of Operating Room Nurses. Standards, Recommended Practices, Guidelines. Denver: Association of Operating Room Nurses; 1999. Larson EL. APIC guideline for handwashing and hand antisepsis in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 1995;23:251-69. Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for skin preparation of patients. AORN J 1996;64:813-6. Rutala WA. APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Am J Infect Control 1990;18:99-117.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions

278

INFECTION CONTROL

AND

Favero MS, Bond W. Sterilization, disinfection, and antisepsis in the hospital. In: Balows A, Hausler WJ Jr, Herrmann KL, Isenberg HD, Shadomy HJ, eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. 5th ed. Washington (DC): American Society for Microbiology; 1991. p. 183200. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Flash sterilization: steam sterilization of patient care items for immediate use (ANSI/AAMI ST37-1996). Arlington (VA): Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996. American Institute of Architects Committee. Guidelines for design and construction of hospital and health care facilities. Washington (DC): American Institute of Architects Press; 1996. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Selection of surgical gowns and drapes in health care facilities (AAMI TIR No. 111994). Arlington (VA): Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1994. Platt R. Guidelines for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. In: Abrutyn E, Goldmann DA, Scheckler WE, eds. Saunders Infection Control Reference Service. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1997. p. 229-34. Classen DC, Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Horn SD, Menlove RL, Burke JP. The timing of prophylactic istration of antibiotics and the risk of surgical-wound infection. N Engl J Med 1992;326:281-6. Wong ES. Surgical site infections. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 154-74. Hochberg J, Murray GF. Principles of operative surgery: antisepsis, technique, sutures, and drains. In: Sabiston DC Jr, ed. Textbook of Surgery:

HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY

April 1999

The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 15th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co; 1997. p. 253-63. Roy MC. Surgical-site infections after coronary artery by graft surgery: discriminating site-specific risk factors to improve prevention efforts. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:229-33. Herwaldt LA, Pottinger J, Coffin SA. Nosocomial infections associated with anesthesia. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 655-75. Gaynes RP, Horan TC. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996. p. 1017-31. Roy MC, Perl TM. Basics of surgical-site infection surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:659-68. Lee JT. Surgical wound infections: surveillance for quality improvement. In: Fry DE, ed. Surgical Infections. Boston: Little, Brown and Co; 1995. p. 145-59. Meier PA. Infection control issues in same-day surgery. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997. p. 261-82. Burke JP. Infections of cardiac and vascular prostheses. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1998. p. 599-612. Lew DP, Waldvogel FA. Infections of skeletal prostheses. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital Infections. 4th ed. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1998. p. 613-20. Nafziger DA, Saravolatz LD. Infection in implantable prosthetic devices. In: Wenzel RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1997. p. 889-923.

This content ed from 76.79.81.114 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:38:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR and Conditions