infection control in paediatrics

http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 8 January 2008 19

Review

Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8: 19–31

Children’s Hospital of Geneva, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (K M Posfay-Barbe MD); Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA (Prof D M Zerr MD); and Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland (Prof D Pittet MD)

Correspondence to:Prof Didier Pittet, Infection Control Programme, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 24 Rue Micheli-du-Crest, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland.Tel +41 22 372 9828;fax +41 22 372 3987;[email protected]

Infection control in paediatricsKlara M Posfay-Barbe, Danielle M Zerr, Didier Pittet

Infection control has a particularly important role in paediatric hospitals and must take into account the specifi city of the needs and environment of the paediatric patient. Children are susceptible to infections that are prevented in older patients by vaccination or previous natural exposure. Consequently, the nosocomial pathogens and most common health-care-associated infection sites in children diff er from those observed among adults. The immunological naivety of young children, especially neonates, translates into an enhanced susceptibility to many infections with important health consequences as well as higher rates and longer duration of microorganism shedding. In particular, respiratory virus infections, rotavirus, varicella zoster virus, and pertussis represent persistent challenges in children’s hospitals. Specifi c factors such as the use of breastmilk, toys, or therapy animals are associated with an increased risk for health-care-associated infections. We review the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms and strategies to prevent health-care-associated infections in the paediatric setting.

IntroductionThe history of infection control is closely linked to the paediatric population. Ignácz Semmelweis not only made the association between hand hygiene and puerperal fever in women, but also noted its relation with perinatal infection rates.1 In response to the high incidence of infectious diseases on paediatric wards over the past century, several infection control measures have been implemented and tested in child-care settings before application to adult environments.2 In both adults and children, certain patients are particularly at risk of health-care-associated infections (HAI); among these are neutropenic patients and those in intensive care with indwelling devices. Other risk factors for HAI, such as close physical contact with health-care workers or stay in environments where antibiotic-resistant organisms are endemic, are common to adult and paediatric patients. Because of young age and the immaturity of their immune systems (fi gure 1), children are susceptible to infections that are prevented in older patients through vaccination or a more robust, innate immune response. Therefore, the nosocomial pathogens and most common HAI sites in children diff er from those reported among adults. Children have fewer chronic or degenerative organ system disorders than adults,3 but present more often with congenital or acquired immune defi ciencies as well as congenital syndromes. Close physical contact between children in communal rooms or play areas, between children and visitors such as parents and siblings, and uncontrolled fl uids and bodily secretions also provide ample opportunities for infection spread.

Specifi c aspects of children’s hospitals, such as shared rooms in general paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) instead of separate medical and surgical ICUs as for adults, toy-sharing, pet-visiting, and partial ambulatory care, also contribute to nosocomial infection risk.4 Infection control has a particularly important role in paediatric hospitals and is not a simple transposition of adult recommendations; it must take into account the specifi city of the paediatric patients’ needs and environment. This Review addresses issues that characterise infection control in paediatrics with a

particular focus on some important diff erences with adults.

EpidemiologySurveillance for HAI in paediatric populations usually depends on institutional or public-health requirements and commitment, and the available resources. Several studies have shown the benefi t of surveillance through early detection and intervention during outbreaks, and also identifi cation of centre-specifi c risk factors for HAI. Most paediatric institutions in developed countries use the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defi nitions for nosocomial infections.5 These are generally defi ned by experts as infections occurring after more than 48 h hospital treatment of a patient who was admitted for a problem likely not related to the microbial pathogen. However, these defi nitions have been developed for the adult population and their adaptation for use in the paediatric setting is needed.6,7 For example, bloodstream infection requires either hyperthermia or hypothermia as a diagnostic criterion, but in neonatology where patients are often artifi cially controlled thermically through the

Figure 1: Neonate in intensive care unit

20 http://infection.thelancet.com Vol 8 January 2008

Review

incubator environment, temperature instabilities are seen.8 New defi nitions for pneumonia in children under 1 year of age include temperature instability with no other recognised cause as a criterion.9 Paediatric-specifi c defi nitions by Gastmeier and colleagues10 for central-line-associated primary bloodstream infection and

ventilator-associated pneumonia combine clinical fi ndings with haematological and microbiological results.

At present, there are no widely accepted defi nitions for health-care-associated viral infections. Some research studies required a negative sample on the fi rst day of hospital admission to defi ne nosocomial acquisition.

Study Country Type of unit Age-range Type of study Overall infection rate Bloodstream infections Pulmonary infections

Gray (2004)17 UK Paediatric hospital

Median 2 years (mean 4·2 years)

Prospective surveillance

.. 7·1 per 1000 admissions ..

Muhlemann et al (2004)18

Switzerland Seven paediatric hospitals

Neonates to 18 years old

Prevalence survey

6·7% (range 1·4–11·8) 2·5 per 100 patients ..

Urrea et al (2004)19

Spain Haematology/oncology

Mean 8·2 years (SD 5·2)


23·5%; 1·77 per 100 patient-days; 13·3 per 100 admissions

55·5% 5·5%


Spain Trauma Mean 10·6 years (SD 5·0)


33%; 1·1 per 100 patient-days; 9·9 per 100 admissions

32 per 1000 CVC-days 16 per 1000 ventilator-days


Spain NICU 0–28 days of age Observational prospective

24·2% 56·8% 10·2%


Spain PICU Mean 7·5 years (SD 6·1)

Observational prospective

15.1%; 1·5 per 100 patient-days 51·7% 19%

Simon et al (2000)22

Germany Haematology-oncology

0–19 years Prospective surveillance

10·8 per 1000 patient-days 7·4 per 1000 CVC-days ..

Gastmeier et al (2002)23

Germany Burn unit Mean 3·8 years (range 0 years to <14 years)

Prospective cohort

59·7 per 1000 patient-days 8·9 per 1000 CVC-days 55·2 per 1000 ventilator-days

Van der Zwet et al (2005)8

Netherlands NICU Neonates (ages not specifi ed)


26% neonates infected; 28·6 per 1000 patient-days

14·9 (range 12·5–17·4) per 1000 patient-days

7·5 (5·7–9·2) per 1000 patient-days; or 6·3 patients with pneumonia per 1000 patient-days

Almuneef et al (2004)24

Saudi Arabia

PICU Neonates until 12 years old


.. 20·06 per 1000 CVC-days 8·87 per 1000 ventilator-days

Frank et al (2005)25

Israel Paediatric hospital

1 month to 18 years


.. 5·3 per 1000 patients ..

Wisplinghoff et al (2003)26

USA 49 paediatric hospitals

Mean 2 years (range 0–24 years)


.. Primary: 62% of all HAI; secondary (catheter-related): 23%

4%

NNIS (2004)27 USA >50 paediatric hospitals

Children (ages not specifi ed)


.. 6·6 pooled mean* 2·9 pooled mean†

Stover et al (2001)28

USA NICU, PICU (50 paediatric hospitals)

Neonates to 18 years

Retrospectivestudy

NICU: 8·9 (range 4·6–18·1) per 1000 patient-days;PICU: 13·9 (range 1·1–31·4) per 1000 patient-days

NICU: 8·6 (range 0–16·2) per 1000 CVC-days;PICU: 8·5 (range 0–18·5) per 1000 CVC-days

NICU: 2·5 (range 0–18·1) per 1000 ventilator-days;PICU: 3·7 (range 0–10·1) per 1000 ventilator-days

Yogaraj et al (2002)29

USA Paediatric hospital

Mean 5·5 years (range 0·18 years)

Prospective cohort

.. 13·8 per 1000 CVC-days ..

Lopes et al (2002)30

Brazil Paediatrichospital

Children (ages not specifi ed)


8·9 per 1000 patient-days;PICU: 16·4 per 1000 patient-days

Laboratory-confi rmed: 4·4% of all infections; clinical sepsis: 3·8% of all infections

PICU: 6·3 per 1000 ventilator-days

Pessoa-Silva et al (2004)31

Brazil Seven NICUs Neonates (ages not specifi ed)


24·9 per 1000 patient-days Range 17·3–34·9 per 1000 CVC-days

Range 7–9·2 per 1000 ventilator-days

Tullu et al (2000)32

India PICU Mean 2·95 (range 1 month to 11 years)


.. .. 32·20%; 89·2 per 1000 ventilator days; 36·5 per 1000 patient-days

Deep et al (2004)33

India PICU Mean 3·83 years Prospective surveillance

27·3%; 162 per 1000 patient-days

10·52% of all HAI ..

Duerink et al (2006)34

Indonesia General hospital 0–87 years old Cross-sectional

13·9% .. ..

Tseng et al (2002)35

Taiwan NICU Neonates (ages not specifi ed)

Retrospective study

.. 4·4 per 1000 patient-days ..

Data on overall infection rate, bloodstream infections, and pulmonary infections are reported here in the format used in each original study. ..=not reported. CVC=central venous catheter. HAI=health-care-associated infection. NICU=neonatal intensive care unit. PICU=paediatric intensive care unit. *Pooled mean calculated by (number of central-line associated bloodstream infections/number of central-line-days)×1000.†Pooled mean calculated by (number of ventilator-associated pneumonia/number ventilator-days)×1000.

Table 1: Health-care-associated infection in paediatrics: overall, bloodstream, and pulmonary infections


Review

However, we do not believe that this is routine practice in clinical settings. Initial negative laboratory sample in a non-research setting is also very costly and incomplete since most laboratories can only detect a small number of viruses on one sample. For this reason, it is currently not recommended routinely.

CDC recommendations to monitor the incidence and distribution of HAI include: (1) prospective surveillance on a regular basis by a trained infection control professional; (2) regular analysis of HAI rates; (3) use of data for decision-making; and (4) availability of a hospital epidemiologist for infection control strategies and policies. However, because of relatively low rates of HAI and the smaller size of paediatric hospitals, many institutions prefer to report incidence rates together with other paediatric centres. The accuracy of reported data varies by infection site and according to the eff orts made for surveillance and data collection. To our knowledge, no major study has been done on the incidence and distribution of HAI in a paediatric setting.11

In the USA, the National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions (NACHRI) established a Paediatric Prevention Network in partnership with the CDC. This network groups 194 children’s hospitals and focuses on data collection for specifi c infections.12,13 In 2006, one of the NACHRI studies, entitled the Eradicating Catheter-associated Bloodstream Infections Initiative, set a goal to decrease bloodstream infection rates in 27 participating hospitals. Results showed a 41% decrease in catheter-related bloodstream infection rates. A new phase with more centres is about to begin. Other large groups, such as the US National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system, also include paediatric subdivisions. Currently, more than 65 US PICUs share HAI data with NNIS. The UK Neonatal Staffi ng Study Group includes 54 randomly selected neonatal ICUs (NICUs) and measures nosocomial bloodstream infection rates.14

Created in 1996, the German nosocomial infection surveillance system also includes paediatric patients.15 Since 1999, the Spanish Programme for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections has recorded data from over 100 hospitals, but does not use specifi c paediatric defi nitions for intrinsic risk factors.16 In recent years, several groups around the world have reported HAI rates using CDC defi nitions (see table 1). Some share in-house policies focusing on particular patient categories, such as PICU, NICU, or surgical patients,3,36,37 or restrict surveillance to outbreaks only,38,39 whereas others prefer to undertake country-wide prevalence surveys,18 or focus on specifi c infections or individual pathogens.18,29,40

Very little information is available on the incidence of HAIs in developing countries.31,41–43 In India, information on neonatal infections is collected prospectively.44 In 2000, the National Neonatal Perinatal Database reported an incidence of 38 episodes of HAI per 1000 live births, which is probably an underestimate of the true rate.

Infection control activities are challenging to implement in developing countries where resources are limited; however, the importance of these activities for patient safety and ultimately resource savings have been well documented.41,45,46

Diff erent pathogens, diff erent infectionsHAIs among children diff er from those seen among adults in several respects. Site and pathogen distribution vary according to age-group and setting (fi gure 2 and fi gure 3). Of note, the type of predominant pathogen in the neonatal setting has changed over time. Gram-negative organisms are major contributors to HAI in developing countries (fi gure 4).24,35,41,48 By contrast, particularly in neonates,3,49 the

0

Perc

enta

ge o

f nos

ocom

ial i

nfec

tions

(%)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

40

≤2 months(n=1145)

>5 years to ≤12 years(n=935)

>2 months to ≤5 years(n=3482)

>12 years(n=728)

Bloodstream infectionPneumoniaUrinary tract infectionLower respiratory tract infection (other than pneumonia)

Others*

Surgical site infectionEye, ear, nose, or throat infection

Figure 2: Site distribution of health-care-associated infections in paediatric intensive care units by age-group*Refers to gastrointestinal infection, skin or soft tissue infection, cardiovascular infection, miscellaneous infections. Adapted from reference 3.

0

Perc

enta

ge o

f blo

odst

ream

infe

ctio

ns (%

)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

80

Overall <1 yearNICU >5 years

Gram-positiveGram-negative

FungiOther

1–5 years

Figure 3: Distribution of bloodstream infection pathogens by ageNICU=neonatal intensive care unit. Adapted from reference 47.

For more information on the National Association of Children’s Hospitals and Related Institutions (NACHRI) see http://www.childrenshospitals.net

For more information on NACHRI’s Eradicating Catheter-associated Bloodstream Infections Initiative see http://www.childrenshospitals.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Blood_Stream_Infections_Project

For more information on the Spanish Programme for Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections see http://www.mpsp.org


Review

proportion of infections caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci has increased substantially in developed countries over the past two decades, mostly because of an increase in the incidence of bloodstream infection and the improved survival of infants with very low birthweight.50 Candidal infections have also increased notably in all infection sites and Candida spp have become major pathogens among immunocompromised and critically ill children, including premature infants.25,26,47,51–54 Rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia and catheter-associated urinary tract infections are lower in PICUs than in adult medical ICUs: 21% versus 27%, and 15% versus 31%, respectively.3 One risk factor for these infections in neonatal settings is birthweight: the smaller the infant, the higher the risk (fi gure 5). However, as estimated by the number of (umbilical and) central line-associated bloodstream infection episodes divided by the number of (umbilical and) central-line days, the incidence of line-associated bloodstream infection is higher in children than in adults (pooled mean 7·3 vs 3·1, respectively).3 Of interest, device use in PICUs is similar to that in adult ICUs,3 apart from a less frequent use of urinary catheters. Finally, it should be emphasised that viral infections, particularly common causes of transmissible infections in children, are most certainly under-reported because appropriate cultures are not done and infections are poorly identifi ed or not identifi ed at all.55–58

Risk factors for infectionPaediatric and adult patients share common risk factors for HAIs, including exposure to intravascular devices, hyperalimentation, mechanical ventilation, and comorbidities, such as immune-compromising conditions. There are, however, additional risk factors inherent to children. When children, especially the

young, encounter common pathogens such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rotavirus, it is often their fi rst encounter. This immunological naivety not only aff ects the likelihood of infection but it can also aff ect the severity of infection and duration of microorganism shedding. Beyond naivety, the immune system of the infant, especially the premature infant, has limitations of both innate and adaptive immunity.59 Finally, normal child development, in terms of behavioural and emotional needs, aff ects the risk of infection in important ways, which we discuss in more detail later.

Eff ect of infection on length of stay, morbidity, and mortalityAs in adult medicine, the cost and impact of paediatric HAI depends largely on the type of infection and the patient’s underlying condition. In general, bloodstream infection carries the highest morbidity and mortality and neonates are the age-group at highest risk for poor outcome (table 2). For example, whereas bloodstream infection has an estimated attributable mortality of 3% in paediatric patients,17 the estimate is 11% among neonates with very low birthweight: crude mortality was 18% in infected cases versus 7% in uninfected controls.64 Crude mortality was even higher in babies infected with Gram-negative organisms (36%) or fungi (32%).66 Candidaemia results in prolonged hospital stay in children under 5 years old—as much as 23–25 days longer than controls.66 Furthermore, extremely low birthweight infants with systemic Candida spp infections (sepsis or meningoencephalitis) had higher rates of chronic lung disease, periventricular leucomalacia, severe retinopathy of prematurity, and adverse neurological outcomes than uninfected controls.69

Special microorganismsCertain organisms have a special role in paediatric infection control, either because they induce more pronounced disease in children or because of issues around acquisition and transmission. For example, children are often admitted to hospital with infections causing community epidemics such as respiratory and gastrointestinal viral infections.70 As a result, the hospitalised child serves as a potential source for the nosocomial transmission of typically community-associated pathogens in the setting of a highly susceptible patient population.

Respiratory virus infectionsBecause of immunological naivety, young children are highly susceptible to respiratory viral infections. These infections have the ability to cause substantial morbidity and mortality, especially among premature infants and children with chronic cardiac or pulmonary conditions. Outbreaks of respiratory viruses in the NICU are frequently reported and attack rates over 30% have been documented in this setting.71–74 Mortality rates can also be very high; during an outbreak of infections caused by adenovirus, six

0

Perc

enta

ge o

f nos

ocom

ial i

nfec

tions

(%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

HAI NICU HAI PICU HAI NICU in developing countries

Gram-positiveGram-negative

FungiOther

Figure 4: Distribution of pathogens in health-care-associated infections in diff erent settingsHAI=health-care-associated infection. NICU=neonatal intensive care unit. PICU=paediatric intensive care unit. Adapted from references 20, 32, 41, and 42.


Review

of 21 infected infants died.72 The impact of respiratory viruses can also extend outside the NICU. A study in South Africa reported a mortality rate of 13% from health-care-associated RSV among children with comorbidities.75 Nosocomial RSV causes more severe lower respiratory tract infections in children with congenital heart disease compared with those without, as determined by duration of hospital stay and oxygen therapy.76

RotavirusRotavirus is a leading cause of nosocomial gastroenteritis in children.77 Prospective studies of hospitalised children have shown nosocomial infection rates as high as 27%.40 Such high rates are likely caused by the fact that patients with rotavirus gastroenteritis excrete high amounts of the virus in stools, and because the virus is capable of surviving on hands and surfaces for long periods of time. Thus, both the environment and the hands of health-care workers have the potential to become contaminated and serve as reservoirs for the virus. Health-care workers may also exhibit asymptomatic excretion of rotavirus, which was associated with HAI in paediatric patients in a study showing shared serotypes between health-care workers and patients.78 Although rotavirus may manifest as an asymptomatic infection, in particular among older children, it can also cause severe infection and even mortality in young children, especially those with comorbidities. A study describing the impact of nosocomial rotavirus infection on paediatric patients estimated the excess length of hospital stay to be 4·9 days.79

Varicella zoster virusPrimary infection with varicella zoster virus (VZV; chicken pox) is historically a childhood disease and for the most part has a benign course. However, VZV can cause severe disease and mortality in immuno compromised populations. Given that the index case is often a child and that children are a highly susceptible population, inadvertent exposures are quite frequent in children’s hospitals. By contrast with household settings where secondary infection of susceptible individuals is almost a certainty, attack rates in hospitals appear to be substantially lower. In one study of 89 exposed susceptible patients, four (4·5%) acquired infection, although 15 patients had received varicella zoster immune globulins.80 It is hoped that varicella vaccine will reduce the opportunities for hospital exposure. However, the breakthrough infection rate of approximately 15% and the resulting possibility of transmission from vaccinated cases81 requires infection control departments to revisit the issue of VZV immunity.

PertussisBordetella pertussis is highly contagious and can cause severe disease and mortality in young, under-immunised infants. The incidence of pertussis is increasing in the USA and there have been several reports of hospital outbreaks.82,83 These outbreaks demonstrate that pertussis

can be transmitted between patients and health-care workers, and that hundreds of individuals can be exposed in the hospital setting. A very large investment in infection control resources for contact tracing and antimicrobial prophylaxis to prevent transmission to high-risk patients is therefore required.

TuberculosisAlthough children with tuberculosis are less likely to be infectious than adults, transmission from young children has been documented. Additionally, parents and household contacts accompanying the child to the hospital are often the source of a paediatric patient’s tuberculosis. Thus, the approaches recommended for adult patients to prevent tuberculosis transmission in the health-care setting are similarly recommended for children.84 Since parents are often the source of contamination, it is important that they are screened and isolated along with their child until tuberculosis is ruled out to prevent health-care-associated transmission. This point is illustrated by an infant/mother pair with tuberculosis who exposed 16 paediatric patients

<1000

0

Cent

ral-l

ine-

asso

ciate

d BS

I per

100

0 ce

ntra

l-lin

e-da

ys

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

1500–24991000–1499 >2500

Birthweight (g)

0Vent

ilato

r-ass

ocia

ted

pneu

mon

ia p

er 1

000

vent

ilato

r-day

s

25

20

15

10

5

A

B

30·9

11·0

4·3

28·7

19·7

7·15·8

14·4

Figure 5: Incidence of invasive infections in neonates by birthweight(A) Incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infection in neonates stratifi ed by birthweight. (B) Incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonates stratifi ed by birthweight. Adapted from reference 8.


Review

and 293 health-care workers before diagnosis.85 In this event, tuberculin skin test conversion occurred in 6·7% of patients and 1·9% of health-care workers. Congenital tuberculosis is another potential source of health-care-associated transmission. Mouchet and colleagues86 reported the case of a premature infant diagnosed at 102 days of age with congenital tuberculosis. In this case, 97 infants, 139 health-care workers, and 180 visitors were potentially exposed and tuberculin skin test conversions occurred in six (19%) of 32 primary-care nurses and doctors. Although the most frequently reported method in the literature, assessing tuberculosis spread by tuberculin skin test only leads to underestimation. The test is also diffi cult to interpret in infants previously vaccinated with BCG.

Specifi c subpopulationsSeveral issues related mainly to maturation of the immune system and normal child development are very relevant to paediatric infection control. The immunological naivety of children translates into an enhanced susceptibility to many infections with important health consequences as well as higher rates and longer duration of microorganism shedding. Child

development requires close contact with care-givers, including parents and health-care workers, as well as other family members, particularly siblings. This level of contact results in a potentially greater risk of transmission of both health-care-associated and community pathogens. Paediatric populations at higher risk for HAI include patients receiving intensive care, patients with cancer, solid organ transplant and haematopoietic cell transplantation recipients, and neonates. In many ways, these subpopulations are similar to their adult counterparts, with the exception of neonates.

NeonatesNeonates in intensive care are highly susceptible to infection and when infection occurs they are less able than older children to contain it. This vulnerability is likely caused by several factors, including a naive and functionally limited immune system, a gastrointestinal tract that intrinsically lacks acidity (a condition worsened by continuous feeding), and fragile, thin, and easily damaged skin (fi gure 1). Additionally, neonates are born with no protective microbial fl ora and an abnormal fl ora that can include potential pathogens is established in the intensive care setting. Neonates are also exposed before

Study Country Population Attributable length of stay and other morbidity*

Attributable mortality

All infections

Mahieu et al (2001)60 Belgium NICU 24 days ..

Urrea et al (2003)21 Spain PICU Median excess LOS 14 days ..

Grohskopf et al (2002)61

USA (multicentre) PICU Median excess LOS 6 days Age-adjusted risk of death within 4 weeks 3·4 (95% CI 1·7–6·5)

Onen et al (2002)62 Turkey Surgical 7 days 8%

Bloodstream infection

Gray (2004)17 UK Tertiary referral centre .. 3%

Payne et al (2004)63 USA (multicentre) NICU, birthweight 401–1500 g Adjusted mean excess LOS: 4–7 days;crude mean excess LOS: 13–17 days

..

Stoll et al (2002)64 USA (multicentre) NICU, birthweight 401–1500 g 19 days 11%

Yogaraj et al (2002)29 USA PICU 28 days ..

Fanaroff et al (1998)65

USA (multicentre) NICU, birthweight 501–1500 g 40 days; increased frequency: intraventricular haemorrhage, bronchopulmonary dysplasia

12%

Gram-negative bacteraemia

Stoll et al (2002)64 USA (multicentre) NICU, birthweight 401–1500 g .. 29%

Candidal or fungal bloodstream infection

Morgan et al (2005)66 USA <5 years Excess LOS 23–25 days ..

Stoll et al (2002)64 USA (multicentre) NICU, birthweight 401–1500 g .. 25%

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

Almuneef et al (2004)24

Saudi Arabia PICU 19 days ..

Apisarnthanarak et al (2003)67

USA NICU, birthweight ≤2000 g, <28 weeks’ gestation

56 days Adjusted odds ratio for mortality 3·4 (95% CI 1·2–12·3);for patients hospitalised ≥30 days: attributable mortality 37%

Elward et al (2002)68 USA PICU 38 days 13%

..=not reported. LOS=length of stay. NICU=neonatal intensive care unit. PICU=paediatric intensive care unit. *Excess mean length of stay reported unless otherwise stated.

Table 2: Attributable morbidity and mortality of health-care-associated infections in paediatric populations


Review

birth or during labour to organisms shed by the mother that in other settings have little impact. An unusual example is pneumonia caused by Ureaplasma urealyticum in preterm infants, which is associated with bronchopulmonary dysplasia.87 Finally, like other intensive care populations, neonates undergo invasive procedures that breech natural barriers to infection.

As many as 31% of infants who survive more than 48 h in a high-risk nursery acquire an HAI.88 In 1999, the US Paediatric Prevention Network organised a survey to determine the point prevalence of HAI in 29 high-risk nurseries.89 Of the 827 patients involved, 94 (11·4%) had an active nosocomial infection on the day of the survey. Bloodstream and lower respiratory tract infections were the most frequent infections, and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common pathogens. Birth-weight was identifi ed as an important risk factor for infection.

Importantly, low birthweight increases the risk of bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia even after adjusting for exposure to central-line and ventilator use.49 It is likely that birthweight serves as a surrogate marker for the actual determinants of risk, such as immune system immaturity and other comorbidities associated with prematurity. However, birthweight is a readily available and objective means of risk categorisation and experts recommend stratifying by birthweight when analysing infection surveillance, particularly for bloodstream infection.

Recently, Schelonka and colleagues90 showed that an infection control intervention consisting mostly of nurse and physician education (in particular, hand hygiene) and improved vascular access care had a sustained impact on coagulase-negative staphylococci infection rates among neonates (46% fall in coagulase-negative staphylococci infection rate, p<0·001). Furthermore, several studies have described the clonal nature of coagulase-negative staphylococci in outbreaks in NICUs. These fi ndings prove that cross-infection through health-care workers’ hands does occur and that it could be prevented by reinforcing adherence to infection control recommendations.91–94

Immunosuppressed patientsCare of paediatric solid organ and stem cell recipients must take into account the increased risk for HAI caused by drug-resistant organisms. An increasing number of transplant centres are becoming endemic for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs), or even vancomycin-resistant enterococci.95–98

EnvironmentAs previously discussed, the developmental status of the paediatric patient has a crucial role in HAI acquisition risk. As part of normal development, children interact

closely with their environment and this poses unique risks for infection. For instance, chewing can present a risk when practised by the babies on dialysis catheters.99 Some specifi c paediatric environmental concerns are addressed below.

Emergency departmentsEmergency departments are often crowded, especially during the winter season when viral respiratory and gastrointestinal pathogens are at their peak. Transmission of microorganisms between patients has been described in this context, particularly viruses such as RSV, rotavirus, and measles.100 Although some level of cohorting in emergency settings and paediatricians’ waiting rooms would be helpful to limit transmission between patients, lack of space, erroneous or tedious diagnostic tools, as well as asymptomatic but infectious carriers, make implementation challenging.

MilkSeveral studies have shown the value of human breastmilk for infants from both nutritional and infection prevention perspectives. Breastmilk can, however, also be a source of HAI and it has specifi cally been linked to bacterial101 and cytomegalovirus infections.102,103 Pumping, collection, and storage of breastmilk create opportunities for bacterial contamination and opportunities for cross-infection if equipment is shared between mothers. To ensure the safety of expressed milk, mothers should be instructed on hygienic methods for collecting milk as well as for the cleaning and disinfection of breast pumps. The alternative to breastmilk is infant formula. Although bottled formulas are sterile, powder formulas are not. Appropriate preparation and storage practices decrease the risk of microorganism proliferation after preparation. After the recall of a product linked to Enterobacter sakazakii

Figure 6: Child and toyToys are associated with an increased risk of health-care-associated infection.


Review

infections, the CDC, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the American Dietetic Association issued updated recommendations on the safe preparation and administration of commercial formula.104

ToysThere are several published reports on likely fomite transmission of HAI. Toys are viewed by many as an indispensable component of the environment for hospitalised children (fi gure 6). Unfortunately, toys frequently become contaminated with potential pathogens; a study showed the presence of coliforms on three (14%) of 22 hard toys and nine (90%) of ten soft toys in a waiting room.105 Using molecular techniques, bath toys were shown to be linked to an outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections, including bacteraemia, on a paediatric oncology ward.106 A before/after pilot study of toy elimination in an NICU showed a decrease in HAI rates, although the diff erence was not signifi cant.107 Guidelines have been developed to address the cleansing and disinfection of toys in health-care settings.108

AnimalsTherapy animals are used to provide motivation and recreation to help meet the emotional and physical needs of patients, whereas service animals are trained to do tasks for the benefi t of a person with a disability. Many children’s hospitals not only welcome both service and therapy animals, but also more exotic visitors such as penguins and donkeys. It is an undisputed fact that animals have the potential to transmit infections to human beings. Two studies have shown that health-care workers have been the intermediary between their pets and transmission of Microsporum canis109 and Malassezia

pachydermatis110 in neonatal populations, and animals have been shown to carry common human pathogens, such as MRSA.111 Concern about zoonotic infections has prompted guidelines to address the safe use of animals in the health-care setting.112,113

Antimicrobial drug resistance in paediatricsThe emergence and dissemination of anti microbial-resistant organisms is a crucial concern in paediatrics and is closely related to the use of antimicrobial agents, as in the adult setting.114,115 The Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology project and the NNIS data that report on the use of these agents in participating adult and paediatric ICUs in the USA have shown that third-generation cephalosporins are by far the most commonly used antimicrobials, followed by parenteral vancomycin, fi rst-generation cephalosporins, and ampicillin (or amoxicillin).27,116 The Pediatric Preventive Network surveying 2647 paediatric patients in 31 hospitals recently published similar fi ndings: fi rst-generation and third-generation cephalosporins and vancomycin were the most frequently prescribed antibiotics in PICUs because cefazolin was used as perioperative prophylaxis.117 In NICU

patients, the most commonly used antimicrobials were gentamicin, ampicillin, and vancomycin.

The epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance in children’s hospitals is usually reported during outbreaks or as single institution reviews.118 However, two studies put into perspective the problem of antimicrobial resistance in paediatrics. In a prospective paediatric surveillance study in the USA, MRSA represented 16% of bloodstream infection isolates (17·9% in ICUs, 10·6% in non-ICUs), and 11% of Enterococcus faecium and 1% of Enterococcus faecalis were resistant to vancomycin.26 By contrast, data collected from 17 European hospitals in eight countries showed a slightly higher incidence of MRSA (18%), and also major resistance problems with ESBL-producing enterobacteriacae.119

Similar to the situation in adults, resistance is more common in PICUs and NICUs than on general paediatric wards, and resistant Gram-negative rods are particularly common in haematology and oncology units.120 The reported increase in non-albicans Candida species in NICUs carries the risk of increasing resistance to azole antifungal agents.52,121–125 Two additional issues that might be key problems in future paediatric infection control are the remarkable increase of community-acquired MRSA,126–129 and the equally worrying increase of penicillin-resistant or carbapenem-non-susceptible Streptococcus pneumoniae, with its potential eff ect on antibiotic selection at the time of admission.130,131 Interventions to prevent or at least reduce the spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms can be divided in two groups: (1) improvement of infection control measures such as hand hygiene, appropriate glove use, and cohorting to avoid transmission; and (2) modifi cation of antimicrobial use to impact on the emergence and selection of resistant organisms.118,120,132–134 These measures also have an important eff ect on direct and indirect costs of HAI.135,136 The increase in antimicrobial resistance has also reached alarming levels in developing countries.41

Prevention of health-care-associated infectionsHand hygieneHand hygiene is considered the simplest and most eff ective measure to prevent cross-transmission of microorganisms and HAI.46,137 Many reports have documented the transmission of viruses or bacteria in paediatric hospitals by health-care workers.138 Unfortunately, professionals appear to have diffi culties in performing hand hygiene procedures and compliance below 50% has been repeatedly reported.139 Non-compliance with hand hygiene practices and the eff ect of promotional programmes have often been studied in paediatric settings.94,140–142 Agents and eff ects on the skin of hand hygiene formulations have been reviewed elsewhere,139,143,144 as well as the impact of successful and sustained hand hygiene promotion strategies on overall HAI rates.145,146 In brief, the use of an alcohol-based handrub solution is now considered as the


Review

gold standard for hand hygiene.144 The addition of a long-acting agent such as chlorhexidine gluconate to the formulation, thus combining the fast antimicrobial activity of alcohol to the prolonged eff ect, needs further evaluation in paediatric settings.147–149 It should be emphasised that when contact with body fl uids is anticipated, gloves should be worn. Indications for hand hygiene in paediatrics follow the usual recommendations.143,144 However, the very practical problem of health-care workers unable to undertake a hand hygiene procedure between two diff erent body sites in a very small infant is not resolved at this point: the hand can touch “dirty” and “clean” regions at the same time, resulting in cross-contamination.150 In neonates, current ongoing research focuses on reducing contaminating periods (eg, less handling of neonates), and on sequencing types of infant care (eg, moving from clean to dirty sites during infant handling, or grouping one type of infant care to one handling period).94,150 Moreover, some barriers to hand hygiene can be overcome when role models promoting the procedure are clearly identifi ed, as shown recently in an NICU151 and as previously suggested by studies among doctors.152,153

Standard precautionsStandard precautions5 in children are similar to those applied for adults. However, because of the large proportion of viral infections in hospitalised children, especially during the winter season, droplet precautions and “respiratory etiquette” are frequently required. Almost all paediatric hospitals around the world are facing a similar problem: how to separate children during seasonal epidemics? Therefore, overcrowding and lack of cohorting are frequently reported as causes of nosocomial outbreaks in paediatric settings.154,155

Particular recommendations for infection control have recently been provided for patients with cystic fi brosis,156,157 which summarise the evidence-based conclusions of a panel of international experts. The risk of cross-transmission with highly resistant organisms such as MRSA, multiresistant P aeruginosa, or Burkholderia

cepacia complex is not only very high between cystic fi brosis patients, but also between cystic fi brosis and non-cystic fi brosis patients.158 It is therefore suggested to separate cystic fi brosis patients in hospital settings, both during ambulatory and inpatient care. In particular, a reduction of time in waiting areas and communal rooms, and a decrease in opportunities for contact are strongly advised, considering the long-term individual risk for the acquisition of multiresistant organisms.

VaccinationA very simple and eff ective means to prevent the spread of some HAIs in children is to ensure vaccination according to recommendations.159,160 As an example, pertussis, infl uenza, Haemophilus infl uenza type B, hepatitis A and B, and rotavirus can be prevented by immunisation, especially

among at-risk patients, such as candidates for transplantation or immunosuppressed children. Even infants with very low birthweight can be vaccinated during hospital stay with few side-eff ects and the possibility of considerable benefi t.161 In recent years, new vaccines have been made available (eg, a vaccine against varicella) and new recommendations for routine vaccination have been implemented (eg, pertussis booster in teenagers, infl uenza vaccine and rotavirus vaccine in young children, second dose for measles vaccine) in many countries. These vaccines could potentially decrease the risk of HAI related to the targeted agents. Unfortunately, recurring controversies on vaccine safety have an eff ect on vaccine coverage. Parental attitude towards vaccination depends on knowledge of the preventable disease, the anxiety the illness conveys, and trust in the child’s health-care provider.162–165

Visitor screeningVisitor screening policies for family visits diff er between hospitals to take into account cultural habits and the eventual role of the visitor as care-provider. In many developing countries, children would be poorly cared for if the family or close relatives were not available to help the severely understaff ed health-care workers in the routine nursing. Therefore, screening is often associated with education of the visitor to ensure that he or she does not transmit pathogens to his or her child or to other

Figure 7: Example of a hand-hygiene promotional poster


Review

children in the hospital. In most countries, it is currently recommended to promote visitors’ self-assessment of risk and education via leafl ets, posters, and health-care workers (fi gure 7).

ConclusionInfection control has a particularly important role in paediatric hospitals and there is a pressing need to develop guidelines and preventive measures targeted specifi cally at the paediatric setting. Paradoxically, the challenges for the future are linked to the evolution of modern medicine. Over the past decade, the development of sophisticated life-support technology has resulted in a substantial increase of extremely low birthweight premature infants at high risk for nosocomial infection and this will certainly increase further in years to come. Current advances in transplantation management have resulted in improved survival rates and medical outcomes for child recipients, thus increasing the number of immunosuppressed children. Additionally, conditions that have become more prevalent in adults, such as HIV, have resulted in an increase in children with congenital illnesses. As medicine advances, it also brings a new complexity to infection risk and control in paediatrics. Devising and implementing strategies to meet the needs of this population at high risk for HAI is a unique challenge. Confl icts of interestWe declare that we have no confl icts of interest.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank Nicolas Bornand (Paediatric Department, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland), for having kindly provided fi gures 1 and 6. We thank Rosemary Sudan for editorial assistance.

References1 Semmelweis I. The etiology, concept and prophylaxis of childbed

fever. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.2 Harries EH. Infection and its control in children’s wards. Lancet

1935; 2: 173–78.3 Richards MJ, Edwards JR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Nosocomial

infections in medical intensive care units in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Crit Care Med 1999; 27: 887–92.

4 Winterberg DH, Wever PC, Rheenen-Verberg C, et al. A boy with nosocomial malaria tropica contracted in a Dutch hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24: 89–91.

Search strategy and selection criteria

Data for this Review were identifi ed by searches of PubMed, Medline, the authors’ own databases, and references from relevant articles using the search terms “infection control”, “p(a)ediatric”, “cross infection”, or “nosocomial infection”, and the following: “neonate”, “children”, “drug resistance”, “drug therapy”, “varicella zoster virus”, “tuberculosis”, “pertussis”, “infl uenza virus”, “respiratory syncytial virus”, “parainfl uenza”, “adenovirus”, “rotavirus”, “hand hygiene”, “handwashing”, “hand antisepsis”, “formula”, “breast milk”, “animal”, and “toy”. Some references (ie, unpublished data about prevalence) were taken from authors’ own fi les. We reviewed all articles in English, French, and German languages published between January, 1996, and January, 2006.

5 Garner JS. Guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Part I. Evolution of isolation practices, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Am J Infect Control 1996; 24: 24–31.

6 Siegel JD. Controversies in isolation and general infection control practices in pediatrics. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 2002; 13: 48–54.

7 Cordero L, Ayers LW, Miller RR, Seguin JH, Coley BD. Surveillance of ventilator-associated pneumonia in very-low-birth-weight infants. Am J Infect Control 2002; 30: 32–39.

8 van der Zwet WC, Kaiser AM, van Elburg RM, et al. Nosocomial infections in a Dutch neonatal intensive care unit: surveillance study with defi nitions for infection specifi cally adapted for neonates. J Hosp Infect 2005; 61: 300–11.

9 Horan TC, Gaynes RP. Surveillance of nosocomial infections. In: Mayhall CG, ed. Hospital epidemiology and infection control, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2004: 1659–702.

10 Gastmeier P, Hentschel J, de Veer I, Obladen M, Ruden H. Device-associated nosocomial infection surveillance in neonatal intensive care using specifi ed criteria for neonates. J Hosp Infect 1998; 38: 51–60.

11 Emori TG, Edwards JR, Culver DH, et al. Accuracy of reporting nosocomial infections in intensive-care-unit patients to the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System: a pilot study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998; 19: 308–16.

12 Girouard S, Levine G, Goodrich K, et al. Infection control programs at children’s hospitals: a description of structures and processes. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 145–51.

13 Girouard S, Levine G, Goodrich K, et al. Pediatric Prevention Network: a multicenter collaboration to improve health care outcomes. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 158–61.

14 Parry GJ, Tucker JS, Tarnow-Mordi WO. Relationship between probable nosocomial bacteraemia and organisational and structural factors in UK neonatal intensive care units. Qual Saf Health Care 2005; 14: 264–69.

15 Gastmeier P, Geff ers C, Sohr D, et al. Surveillance of nosocomial infections in intensive care units. Current data and interpretations. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2003; 115: 99–103.

16 Urrea M, Iriondo M, Thio M, et al. A prospective incidence study of nosocomial infections in a neonatal care unit. Am J Infect Control 2003; 31: 505–07.

17 Gray JW. A 7-year study of bloodstream infections in an English children’s hospital. Eur J Pediatr 2004; 163: 530–35.

18 Muhlemann K, Franzini C, Aebi C, et al. Prevalence of nosocomial infections in Swiss children’s hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 765–71.

19 Urrea M, Rives S, Cruz O, et al. Nosocomial infections among pediatric hematology/oncology patients: results of a prospective incidence study. Am J Infect Control 2004; 32: 205–08.

20 Urrea M, Torner F, Pons M, LaTorre C, Huguet R. Incidence study of nosocomial infection in pediatric trauma patients. J Pediatr Orthop B 2005; 14: 371–74.

21 Urrea M, Pons M, Serra M, LaTorre C, Palomeque A. Prospective incidence study of nosocomial infections in a pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22: 490–94.

22 Simon A, Fleischhack G, Hasan C, et al. Surveillance for nosocomial and central line-related infections among pediatric hematology-oncology patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 592–96.

23 Gastmeier P, Weigt O, Sohr D, Ruden H. Comparison of hospital-acquired infection rates in paediatric burn patients. J Hosp Infect 2002; 52: 161–65.

24 Almuneef M, Memish ZA, Balkhy HH, Alalem H, Abutaleb A. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in a pediatric intensive care unit in Saudi Arabia: a 30-month prospective surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 753–58.

25 Frank M, Gur E, Givon-Lavi N, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in children and adolescents in southern Israel: a 10-year prospective study (1992–2001). Scand J Infect Dis 2005; 37: 177–83.

26 Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H, Tallent SM, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infections in pediatric patients in United States hospitals: epidemiology, clinical features and susceptibilities. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22: 686–91.

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


Review

28 Stover BH, Shulman ST, Bratcher DF, et al. Nosocomial infection rates in US children’s hospitals’ neonatal and pediatric intensive care units. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 152–57.

29 Yogaraj JS, Elward AM, Fraser VJ. Rate, risk factors, and outcomes of nosocomial primary bloodstream infection in pediatric intensive care unit patients. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 481–85.

30 Lopes JM, Tonelli E, Lamounier JA, et al. Prospective surveillance applying the national nosocomial infection surveillance methods in a Brazilian pediatric public hospital. Am J Infect Control 2002; 30: 1–7.

31 Pessoa-Silva CL, Richtmann R, Calil R, et al. Healthcare-associated infections among neonates in Brazil. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 772–77.

32 Tullu MS, Deshmukh CT, Baveja SM. Bacterial nosocomial pneumonia in paediatric intensive care unit. J Postgrad Med 2000; 46: 18–22.

33 Deep A, Ghildiyal R, Kandian S, Shinkre N. Clinical and microbiological profi le of nosocomial infections in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Indian Pediatr 2004; 41: 1238–46.

34 Duerink DO, Roeshadi D, Wahjono H, et al. Surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in Indonesian hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2006; 62: 219–29.

35 Tseng YC, Chiu YC, Wang JH, et al. Nosocomial bloodstream infection in a neonatal intensive care unit of a medical center: a three-year review. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2002; 35: 168–72.

36 Zerr DM, Garrison MM, Allpress AL, Heath J, Christakis DA. Infection control policies and hospital-associated infections among surgical patients: variability and associations in a multicenter pediatric setting. Pediatrics 2005; 115: e387–92.

37 Zerr DM, Heath J, Riggert D, Marcuse EK. Congenital rubella infection control problem. Pediatrics 2001; 108: 1389–90.

38 Leung TF, Ng PC, Cheng FW, et al. Infection control for SARS in a tertiary paediatric centre in Hong Kong. J Hosp Infect 2004; 56: 215–22.

39 Giles M, Harwood HM, Gosling DA, et al. What is the best screening method to detect Serratia marcescens colonization during an outbreak in a neonatal intensive care nursery? J Hosp Infect 2006; 62: 349–52.

40 Gianino P, Mastretta E, Longo P, et al. Incidence of nosocomial rotavirus infections, symptomatic and asymptomatic, in breast-fed and non-breast-fed infants. J Hosp Infect 2002; 50: 13–17.

41 Zaidi AK, Huskins WC, Thaver D, Bhutta ZA, Abbas Z, Goldmann DA. Hospital-acquired neonatal infections in developing countries. Lancet 2005; 365: 1175–88.

42 Goldmann DA, Otaiza F, Ponce de Leon SR, Faingezicht Gutman I. Infection control in Latin America. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1988; 9: 291–301.

43 Ponce-de-León S, Rangel-Frausto SM. Infection control in developing countries. In: Bennett JV, Brachman PS, eds. Hospital infection. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998: 291–96.

44 National Neonatal Perinatal Database. Report of the year 2000. India: National Neonatology Forum, 2000.

45 Travis P, Bennett S, Haines A, et al. Overcoming health-systems constraints to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Lancet 2004; 364: 900–06.

46 Pittet D, Donaldson L. Clean Care is Safer Care: a worldwide priority. Lancet 2005; 366: 1246–47.

47 Divekar A, Rebekya IM, Soni R. Late onset Candida parapsilosis endocarditis after surviving nosocomial candidemia in an infant with structural heart disease. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004; 23: 472–75.

48 Nambiar S, Singh N. Change in epidemiology of health care-associated infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002; 21: 839–42.

49 Gaynes RP, Edwards JR, Jarvis WR, et al. Nosocomial infections among neonates in high-risk nurseries in the United States. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Pediatrics 1996; 98: 357–61.

50 Freeman J, Platt R, Epstein MF, et al. Birth weight and length of stay as determinants of nosocomial coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia in neonatal intensive care unit populations: potential for confounding. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 132: 1130–40.

51 Barchiesi F, Caggiano G, Falconi DF, et al. Outbreak of fungemia due to Candida parapsilosis in a pediatric oncology unit. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 2004; 49: 269–71.

52 Kovacicova G, Hanzen J, Pisarcikova M, et al. Nosocomial fungemia due to amphotericin B-resistant Candida spp in three pediatric patients after previous neurosurgery for brain tumors. J Infect Chemother 2001; 7: 45–48.

53 San Miguel LG, Cobo J, Otheo E, et al. Secular trends of candidemia in a large tertiary-care hospital from 1988 to 2000: emergence of Candida parapsilosis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26: 548–52.

54 Shin JH, Kook H, Shin DH, et al. Nosocomial cluster of Candida lipolytica fungemia in pediatric patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2000; 19: 344–49.

55 Ford-Jones EL, Mindorff CM, Langley JM, et al. Epidemiologic study of 4684 hospital-acquired infections in pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989; 8: 668–75.

56 Dumpis U, Kovalova Z, Jansons J, et al. An outbreak of HBV and HCV infection in a paediatric oncology ward: epidemiological investigations and prevention of further spread. J Med Virol 2003; 69: 331–38.

57 Chano F, Rousseau C, Laferriere C, Couillard M, Charest H. Epidemiological survey of human metapneumovirus infection in a large pediatric tertiary care center. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 5520–25.

58 Frota AC, Satos RM, Abreu TF, Silva EG, Pessoa-Silva CL. Nosocomial infection among children with symptomatic human immunodefi ciency virus infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23: 689–92.

59 Lewis DB, Wilson CB. Developmental immunology and role of host defenses in fetal and neonatal susceptibility to infection. In: Remington JS, Klein JO, Wilson CB, Baker CJ, eds. Infectious Diseases of the Fetus and Newborn Infant. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, 2006: 87–210.

60 Mahieu LM, Buitenweg N, Beutels P, De Dooy JJ. Additional hospital stay and charges due to hospital-acquired infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 2001; 47: 223–29.

61 Grohskopf LA, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Garrett DO, et al. A national point-prevalence survey of pediatric intensive care unit-acquired infections in the United States. J Pediatr 2002; 140: 432–38.

62 Onen A, Cigdem MK, Geyik MF, et al. Epidemiology and control of nosocomial infections in paediatric surgery. J Hosp Infect 2002; 52: 166–70.

63 Payne NR, Carpenter JH, Badger GJ, Horbar JD, Rogowski J. Marginal increase in cost and excess length of stay associated with nosocomial bloodstream infections in surviving very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 348–55.

64 Stoll BJ, Hansen N, Fanaroff AA, et al. Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 285–91.

65 Fanaroff AA, Korones SB, Wright LL, et al. Incidence, presenting features, risk factors and signifi cance of late onset septicemia in very low birth weight infants. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: 593–98.

66 Morgan J, Meltzer MI, Plikaytis BD, et al. Excess mortality, hospital stay, and cost due to candidemia: a case-control study using data from population-based candidemia surveillance. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26: 540–47.

67 Apisarnthanarak A, Holzmann-Pazgal G, Hamvas A, Olsen MA, Fraser VJ. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in extremely preterm neonates in a neonatal intensive care unit: characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 1283–89.

68 Elward AM, Warren DK, Fraser VJ. Ventilator-associated pneumonia in pediatric intensive care unit patients: risk factors and outcomes. Pediatrics 2002; 109: 758–64.

69 Friedman S, Richardson SE, Jacobs SE, O’Brien K. Systemic candida infection in extremely low birth weight infants: short term morbidity and long term neurodevelopmental outcome. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 499–504.

70 Le Roux P, Marshall B, Toutain F, et al. Nosocomial viral infections in a pediatric service: example of rotaviral gastroenteritis and respiratory syncytial viral bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr 2004; 11: 908–15.

71 Maltezou HC, Drancourt M. Nosocomial infl uenza in children. J Hosp Infect 2003; 55: 83–91.

72 Faden H, Wynn RJ, Campagna L, Ryan RM. Outbreak of adenovirus type 30 in a neonatal intensive care unit. J Pediatr 2005; 146: 523–27.

73 Singh-Naz N, Willy M, Riggs N. Outbreak of parainfl uenza virus type 3 in a neonatal nursery. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990; 9: 31–33.


Review

74 Hall CB. Nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections: the “Cold War” has not ended. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 590–96.

75 Madhi SA, Ismail K, O’Reilly C, Cutland C. Importance of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections in an African setting. Trop Med Int Health 2004; 9: 491–98.

76 Lanari M, Rossi GA, Merolla R, di Luzio Paparatti U. High risk of nosocomial-acquired RSV infection in children with congenital heart disease. J Pediatr 2004; 145: 140.

77 Jusot JF, Vanhems P, Benzait F, et al. Reported measures of hygiene and incidence rates for hospital-acquired diarrhea in 31 French pediatric wards: is there any relationship? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 520–25.

78 Barnes GL, Callaghan SL, Kirkwood CD, et al. Excretion of serotype G1 rotavirus strains by asymptomatic staff : a possible source of nosocomial infection. J Pediatr 2003; 142: 722–25.

79 Piednoir E, Bessaci K, Bureau-Chalot F, et al. Economic impact of healthcare-associated rotavirus infection in a paediatric hospital. J Hosp Infect 2003; 55: 190–95.

80 Langley JM, Hanakowski M. Variation in risk for nosocomial chickenpox after inadvertent exposure. J Hosp Infect 2000; 44: 224–26.

81 Seward JF, Zhang JX, Maupin TJ, Mascola L, Jumaan AO. Contagiousness of varicella in vaccinated cases: a household contact study. JAMA 2004; 292: 704–08.

82 CDC. Outbreaks of pertussis associated with hospitals—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005; 54: 67–71.

83 Friedman DS, Curtis CR, Schauer SL, et al. Surveillance for transmission and antibiotic adverse events among neonates and adults exposed to a healthcare worker with pertussis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 967–73.

84 Jensen PA, Lambert LA, Iademarco MF, Ridzon R. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005; 54: 1–147.

85 Lee EH, Graham PL, O’Keefe M, Fuentes L, Saiman L. Nosocomial transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a children’s hospital. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2005; 9: 689–92.

86 Mouchet F, Hansen V, Van Herreweghe I, et al. Tuberculosis in healthcare workers caring for a congenitally infected infant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 1062–66.

87 Pacifi co L, Panero A, Roggini M, et al. Ureaplasma urealyticum and pulmonary outcome in a neonatal intensive care population. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1997; 16: 579–86.

88 Zafar N, Wallace CM, Kieff er P, et al. Improving survival of vulnerable infants increases neonatal intensive care unit nosocomial infection rate. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001; 155: 1098–104.

89 Sohn AH, Garrett DO, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, et al. Prevalence of nosocomial infections in neonatal intensive care unit patients: results from the fi rst national point-prevalence survey. J Pediatr 2001; 139: 821–27.

90 Schelonka RL, Scruggs S, Nichols K, Dimmitt RA, Carlo WA. Sustained reductions in neonatal nosocomial infection rates following a comprehensive infection control intervention. J Perinatol 2006; 26: 176–79.

91 Villari P, Sarnataro C, Iacuzio L. Molecular epidemiology of Staphylococcus epidermidis in a neonatal intensive care unit over a three-year period. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 1740–46.

92 Carlos CC, Ringertz S, Rylander M, Huovinen P, Faxelius G. Nosocomial Staphylococcus epidermidis septicaemia among very low birth weight neonates in an intensive care unit. J Hosp Infect 1991; 19: 201–07.

93 Venkatesh MP, Placencia F, Weisman LE. Coagulase-negative staphylococcal infections in the neonate and child: an update. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 2006; 17: 120–27.

94 Pessoa-Silva CL, Hugonnet S, Pfi ster R, et al. Reduction of health care associated infection risk in neonates by successful hand hygiene promotion. Pediatrics 2007; 120: e382–90.

95 Kapoor L, Randhawa VS, Deb M. Antimicrobial resistance of enterococcal blood isolates at a pediatric care hospital in India. Jpn J Infect Dis 2005; 58: 101–03.

96 Bert F, Bellier C, Lassel L, et al. Risk factors for Staphylococcus aureus infection in liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2005; 11: 1093–99.

97 Tsiatis AC, Manes B, Calder C, Billheimer D, Wilkerson KS, Frangoul H. Incidence and clinical complications of vancomycin-resistant enterococcus in pediatric stem cell transplant patients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2004; 33: 937–41.

98 Rebuck JA, Olsen KM, Fey PD, Langnas AN, Rupp ME. Characterization of an outbreak due to extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a pediatric intensive care unit transplant population. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31: 1368–72.

99 Lau KK, Ault BH, Jones DP. Polymicrobial peritonitis including Pantoea agglomerans from teething on a catheter. South Med J 2005; 98: 580–81.

100 Farizo KM, Stehr-Green PA, Simpson DM, Markowitz LE. Pediatric emergency room visits: a risk factor for acquiring measles. Pediatrics 1991; 87: 74–79.

101 Olver WJ, Bond DW, Boswell TC, Watkin SL. Neonatal group B streptococcal disease associated with infected breast milk. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2000; 83: 48–49.

102 Maschmann J, Hamprecht K, Dietz K, Jahn G, Speer CP. Cytomegalovirus infection of extremely low-birth weight infants via breast milk. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 33: 1998–2003.

103 Hamprecht K, Maschmann J, Vochem M, Dietz K, Speer CP, Jahn G. Epidemiology of transmission of cytomegalovirus from mother to preterm infant by breastfeeding. Lancet 2001; 357: 513–18.

104 Baker RD. Infant formula safety. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 833–35.105 Merriman E, Corwin P, Ikram R. Toys are a potential source of

cross-infection in general practitioners’ waiting rooms. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 138–40.

106 Buttery JP, Alabaster SJ, Heine RG, et al. Multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak in a pediatric oncology ward related to bath toys. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998; 17: 509–13.

107 Hanrahan KS, Lofgren M. Evidence-based practice: examining the risk of toys in the microenvironment of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adv Neonatal Care 2004; 4: 184–201.

108 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Disease Society of America, American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. MMWR Recomm Rep 2000; 49: 1–125.

109 Drusin LM, Ross BG, Rhodes KH, Krauss AN, Scott RA. Nosocomial ringworm in a neonatal intensive care unit: a nurse and her cat. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 605–07.

110 Chang HJ, Miller HL, Watkins N, et al. An epidemic of Malassezia pachydermatis in an intensive care nursery associated with colonization of health care workers’ pet dogs. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 706–11.

111 Rich M. Staphylococci in animals: prevalence, identifi cation and antimicrobial susceptibility, with an emphasis on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Br J Biomed Sci 2005; 62: 98–105.

112 Duncan SL. APIC state-of-the-art report: the implications of service animals in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 2000; 28: 170–80.

113 Khan MA, Farrag N. Animal-assisted activity and infection control implications in a healthcare setting. J Hosp Infect 2000; 46: 4–11.

114 Zaoutis T, Dawid S, Kim JO. Multidrug-resistant organisms in general pediatrics. Pediatr Ann 2002; 31: 313–20.

115 Asensio A, Oliver A, Gonzalez-Diego P, et al. Outbreak of a multiresistant Klebsiella pneumoniae strain in an intensive care unit: antibiotic use as risk factor for colonization and infection. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 30: 55–60.

116 Fridkin SK, Steward CD, Edwards JR, et al. Surveillance of antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in United States hospitals: project ICARE phase 2. Project Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) hospitals. Clin Infect Dis 1999; 29: 245–52.

117 Grohskopf LA, Huskins WC, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, et al. Use of antimicrobial agents in United States neonatal and pediatric intensive care patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24: 766–73.

118 Toltzis P, Blumer JL. Nosocomial acquisition and transmission of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative organisms in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2001; 20: 612–18.

119 Raymond J, Aujard Y. Nosocomial infections in pediatric patients: a European, multicenter prospective study. European Study Group. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 260–63.


Review

120 Huskins WC. Antimicrobial resistance and its control in pediatrics. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 2001; 12: 138–46.

121 Groll AH, Walsh TJ. Uncommon opportunistic fungi: new nosocomial threats. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001; 7 (suppl 2): 8–24.

122 Walsh TJ, Groll AH. Emerging fungal pathogens: evolving challenges to immunocompromised patients for the twenty-fi rst century. Transpl Infect Dis 1999; 1: 247–61.

123 Mondal RK, Singhi SC, Chakrabarti A, Jayashree M. Randomized comparison between fl uconazole and itraconazole for the treatment of candidemia in a pediatric intensive care unit: a preliminary study. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2004; 5: 561–65.

124 Eggimann P, Garbino J, Pittet D. Management of Candida species infections in critically ill patients. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3: 772–85.

125 Eggimann P, Garbino J, Pittet D. Epidemiology of Candida species infections in critically ill non-immunosuppressed patients. Lancet Infect Dis 2003; 3: 685–702.

126 Chen CJ, Huang YC. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Taiwan. J Microbiol Immunol Infect 2005; 38: 376–82.

127 Miles F, Voss L, Segedin E, Anderson BJ. Review of Staphylococcus aureus infections requiring admission to a paediatric intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child 2005; 90: 1274–78.

128 Purcell K, Fergie J. Epidemic of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections: a 14-year study at Driscoll Children’s Hospital. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159: 980–85.

129 Campbell AL, Bryant KA, Stover B, Marshall GS. Epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a children’s hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 427–30.

130 Hoberman A, Paradise JL, Greenberg DP, et al. Penicillin susceptibility of pneumococcal isolates causing acute otitis media in children: seasonal variation. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24: 115–20.

131 Buckingham SC, Davis Y, English BK. Pneumococcal susceptibility to meropenem in a mid-south children’s hospital. South Med J 2002; 95: 1293–96.

132 Bolon MK, Arnold AD, Feldman HA, et al. Evaluating vancomycin use at a pediatric hospital: new approaches and insights. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26: 47–55.

133 Calil R, Marba ST, von Nowakonski A, Tresoldi AT. Reduction in colonization and nosocomial infection by multiresistant bacteria in a neonatal unit after institution of educational measures and restriction in the use of cephalosporins. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 133–38.

134 Moss WJ, Beers MC, Johnson E, et al. Pilot study of antibiotic cycling in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 1877–82.

135 Saez-Llorens X, Castrejon de Wong MM, Castano E, et al. Impact of an antibiotic restriction policy on hospital expenditures and bacterial susceptibilities: a lesson from a pediatric institution in a developing country. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000; 19: 200–06.

136 Slonim AD, Kurtines HC, Sprague BM, Singh N. The costs associated with nosocomial bloodstream infections in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2001; 2: 170–74.

137 Slota M, Green M, Farley A, Janosky J, Carcillo J. The role of gown and glove isolation and strict handwashing in the reduction of nosocomial infection in children with solid organ transplantation. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 405–12.

138 Foca M, Jakob K, Whittier S, et al. Endemic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in a neonatal intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 695–700.

139 Posfay-Barbe KM, Pittet D. New concepts in hand hygiene. Semin Pediatr Infect Dis 2001; 12: 147–53.

140 Luby SP, Agboatwalla M, Feikin DR, et al. Eff ect of handwashing on child health: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 225–33.

141 Black RE; Dykes AC, Anderson KE, et al. Handwashing to prevent diarrhea in day-care centers. Am J Epidemiol 1981; 113: 445–51.

142 Zerr DM, Allpress AL, Heath J, Bornemann R, Bennett E. Decreasing hospital-associated rotavirus infection: a multidisciplinary hand hygiene campaign in a children’s hospital. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24: 397–403.

143 Boyce JM, Pittet D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002; 51: 1–45.

144 WHO. WHO guidelines for hand hygiene in health care (advanced draft). Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007. http://www.who.int/patientsafety/information_centre/who_ghhhcad/en/index.html (accessed Nov 9, 2007).

145 Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S, et al. Eff ectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Lancet 2000; 356: 1307–12.

146 Lam BC, Lee J, Lau YL. Hand hygiene practices in a neonatal intensive care unit: a multimodal intervention and impact on nosocomial infection. Pediatrics 2004; 114: e565–571.

147 Brown SM, Lubimova AV, Khrustalyeva NM, et al. Use of an alcohol-based hand rub and quality improvement interventions to improve hand hygiene in a Russian neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: 172–79.

148 Hugonnet S, Perneger TV, Pittet D. Alcohol-based handrub improves compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1037–43.

149 Zerr DM. Alcohol hand rub: a simple solution in search of champions. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159: 502–03.

150 Pessoa-Silva CL, Dharan S, Hugonnet S, et al. Dynamics of bacterial hand contamination during routine neonatal care. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2004; 25: 192–97.

151 Pessoa-Silva CL, Posfay-Barbe K, Pfi ster R, et al. Attitudes and perceptions toward hand hygiene among healthcare workers caring for critically ill neonates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26: 305–11.

152 Pittet D, Simon A, Hugonnet S, et al. Hand hygiene among physicians: performance, beliefs, and perceptions. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 1–8.

153 Pittet D. Improving compliance with hand hygiene in hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000; 21: 381–86.

154 Andersen BM, Lindemann R, Bergh K, et al. Spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive unit associated with understaffi ng, overcrowding and mixing of patients. J Hosp Infect 2002; 50: 18–24.

155 Stegenga J, Bell E, Matlow A. The role of nurse understaffi ng in nosocomial viral gastrointestinal infections on a general pediatrics ward. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23: 133–36.

156 Saiman L, Siegel J. Infection control in cystic fi brosis. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004; 17: 57–71.

157 Saiman L, Siegel J. Infection control recommendations for patients with cystic fi brosis: microbiology, important pathogens, and infection control practices to prevent patient-to-patient transmission. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003; 24: S6–52.

158 Holmes A, Nolan R, Taylor R, et al. An epidemic of Burkholderia cepacia transmitted between patients with and without cystic fi brosis. J Infect Dis 1999; 179: 1197–205.

159 CDC. Recommended childhood and adolescent immunization schedule, United States 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006; 54: Q1–Q4.

160 OFSP. Plan of Swiss vaccination 2006. Geneva: Offi ce Fédéral de la Santé Publique et Commission Suisse pour les Vaccinations, 2006. http://www.swiss-paediatrics.org/guidelines/impfplan_06-fr.pdf (accessed Nov 9, 2007).

161 Pfi ster RE, Aeschbach V, Niksic-Stuber V, Martin BC, Siegrist CA. Safety of DTaP-based combined immunization in very-low-birth-weight premature infants: frequent but mostly benign cardiorespiratory events. J Pediatr 2004; 145: 58–66.

162 Gellin BG, Maibach EW, Marcuse EK. Do parents understand immunizations? A national telephone survey. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 1097–102.

163 Casiday R, Cresswell T, Wilson D, Panter-Brick C. A survey of UK parental attitudes to the MMR vaccine and trust in medical authority. Vaccine 2006; 24: 177–84.

164 Posfay-Barbe KM, Heininger U, Aebi C, et al. How do physicians immunize their own children? Diff erences among pediatricians and nonpediatricians. Pediatrics 2005; 116: e623–33.

165 Taylor JA, Darden PM, Brooks DA, et al. Association between parents’ preferences and perceptions of barriers to vaccination and the immunization status of their children: a study from Pediatric Research in Offi ce Settings and the National Medical Association. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 1110–16.

infection control in paediatrics

Documents