Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T11:41:08.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Routine Surveillance Versus Independent Assessment by an Outcome Adjudication Committee in Assessing Patients for Sternal Surgical Site Infections After Cardiac Surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2016

Dominik Mertz ,
Richard Whitlock ,
Alicia Y. Kokoszka ,
Stephanie W. Smith ,
Alex Carignan ,
Muhammad Rehan ,
Iqbal H. Jaffer ,
Ali Alsagheir  and
Mark Loeb
Dominik Mertz*
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Richard Whitlock
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Alicia Y. Kokoszka
Affiliation:
Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Stephanie W. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Alex Carignan
Affiliation:
University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrook, Quebec, Canada
Muhammad Rehan
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Iqbal H. Jaffer
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Thrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Ali Alsagheir
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Mark Loeb
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
*
Address correspondence to Dr. Dominik Mertz, MD, MSc, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Center, 711 Concession Street, Section M, Level 1, Room 3, Hamilton, ON, Canada (mertzd@mcmaster.ca).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on a cohort of 966 patients, routine surveillance data were not sufficiently accurate for use in clinical trials investigating surgical site infections. Surveillance data can only be used if adequate 90-day follow-up is provided and if cases identified by surveillance are independently reviewed by a blinded outcome adjudication committee.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:600–602

Information

Type
Concise Communications
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , May 2016 , pp. 600 - 602
Copyright
© 2016 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. An abstract of the findings was presented at ID Week, October 8, 2015, San Diego, California.

References

REFERENCES

1. Surveillance definitions for specific types of infections. Center for Disease Control and Prevention/National Healthcare Safety Network (CDC/NHSN) website. http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/17pscnosinfdef_current.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2015.Google Scholar
2. Niederhauser, U, Vogt, M, Vogt, P, Genoni, M, Kunzli, A, Turina, MI. Cardiac surgery in a high-risk group of patients: is prolonged postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis effective? J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 1997;114:162–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Tamayo, E, Gualis, J, Florez, S, Castrodeza, J, Eiros Bouza, JM, Alvarez, FJ. Comparative study of single-dose and 24-hour multiple-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for cardiac surgery. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 2008;136:1522–1527.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Gupta, A, Hote, MP, Choudhury, M, Kapil, A, Bisoi, AK. Comparison of 48 h and 72 h of prophylactic antibiotic therapy in adult cardiac surgery: a randomized double blind controlled trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:1036–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Saginur, R, Croteau, D, Bergeron, MG. Comparative efficacy of teicoplanin and cefazolin for cardiac operation prophylaxis in 3027 patients. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:1120–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Eklund, AM, Valtonen, M, Werkkala, KA. Prophylaxis of sternal wound infections with gentamicin-collagen implant: randomized controlled study in cardiac surgery. J Hosp Infect 2005;59:108–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Walsh, EE, Greene, L, Kirshner, R. Sustained reduction in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus wound infections after cardiothoracic surgery. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:68–73.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Niedner, MF. The harder you look, the more you find: catheter-associated bloodstream infection surveillance variability. Am J Infect Control 2010;38:585–595.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Petherick, ES, Dalton, JE, Moore, PJ, Cullum, N. Methods for identifying surgical wound infection after discharge from hospital: a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Bianco, A, Roccia, S, Nobile, CG, Pileggi, C, Pavia, M. Postdischarge surveillance following delivery: the incidence of infections and associated factors. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:549–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed