Materials and Methods: Prospective cohort study. All patients over 16 years old were occupying an intensive care unit bed over a 24-hour period. All patients admitted to the unit were evaluated on a daily basis for nosocomial infections in compliance with National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNISS) methodology. Infection site definitions were in agreement with Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions.

Results: The NI incidence was 72%; ventilator associated pneumonia was the most common NI (41.2%), followed by urinary tract catheter-associated infection (28.2%), bloodstream infections (13.7%), and sepsis (6.9%), surgical site infection (4.6%). Pseudomonas spp. was the most common pathogen identified in the NIs (31.3%), followed by (%), and yeasts. The most frequent isolated microorganisms from patients were as follows: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (11.5%), Coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) (10.7%), Acinetobacter baumanii (9.2%), Candida spp. (8.4%), Escherichia coli (8.4%), Enterobacter spp. (4.6%), Enterococcus spp. (3.1%) and others (12.8%). Methicillin resistance was 96% at staphylococci. It was observed Gram-negative microorganisms had multi-resistant pattern.

Conclusion: The rate of nosocomial infection is high in intensive care unit patient, especially for respiratory infections. The predominant bacteria were P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, CoNS and A. baumanii (resistant organisms). This study documents the clinical impression that prevalence rates of intensive care unit-acquired infections are high and suggests that preventive measures are important for reducing the occurrence of infection in critically ill patients.©2005, Fırat Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi

Nosocomial infection is associated with a considerable increase in morbidity and mortality of patients at a hospital as well as to significant increases in costs ³. Nosocomial infections occur in 5% to 17% of hospitalized patients ⁴. In ICUs, where the frequent use of invasive procedures and multiple therapies expose patients to an increased risk, prevalence rates are even higher ^3-6.

In view of the relevance and impact of such observations, it is crucial to know the prevalence rates and nature of nosocomial infections to achieve satisfactory results in controlling this important phenomenon. The present study was undertaken to determine the prevalence rates of infection for Anesthesiology and Reanimation ICU (AR-ICU) patients in our hospital, identify the most common infectious agents and their resistance patterns, and establish the prevalence rates of ICU-acquired infections.

All patients over 16 yrs of age who had been hospitalized in a participating ICU over the 24-hr period were eligible. Information regarding demographics (age and gender), operative status during the preceding month, underlying and/or concomitant diseases, clinical status at admission to the ICU including the nature and number of organ and system failures, as well as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) ⁹ score was collected. Diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic interventions performed during the week preceding the study day (from November 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005) were recorded. The presence or absence of intravascular and urinary catheters, tracheal intubation, tracheostomy, mechanical ventilation, wounds and chest and intracranial drains, peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis/hemofiltration, central parenteral nutrition, peripherally administered infusion of hyperosmolar solutions, administration of immunosuppressive drugs, prophylactic agents for stress ulcer, and prophylactic antibiotics was also recorded.

Surveillance procedures and definitions: Up to two days following discharge, all patients admitted to the unit were evaluated on a daily basis for NI, in compliance with NNISS (National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System) methodology, by the same professional, an infectious diseases physician. NI was defined based on standard definitions, taking into consideration if it was acquired in the unit, regardless of length of stay, provided there was no evidence of the infection being in incubation or a continuation of the disease that led to the hospitalization, or up to two days following discharge from the unit. Infection site definitions were in agreement with CDC definitions ⁷ Death occurring up to one week after diagnosis, with no further justifying causes, was considered associated mortality.

Cultures: The cultures employed were: cultures of blood (more than 2 positive pairs of culture for the same pathogen), urine (> 10,000 CFU when collected from urinary catheter and 100,000 CFU when not), endotracheal aspirate (≥10,000 CFU for a single pathogen), and catheters (≥ 10,000 CFU for a single pathogen) and surgical wounds. Identification of bacteria isolated from ICU-acquired infections were performed using conventional methods and API 20E ⁸ and antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed with Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method according to the suggestions of Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) ⁹.

Statistical analysis: Fischer exact and Chi-squared tests were used; P< 0.05 was considered significant.

Click Here to Zoom

Table 1: Distribution of hospital acquired infections

The most frequent isolated microorganisms from patients were as follows: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (11.5%), Coagulase negative staphylococci (CoNS) (10.7%), Acinetobacter baumanii (9.2%), Candida spp. (8.4%), Escherichia coli (8.4%), Enterobacter spp. (4.6%), Enterococcus spp. (3.1%) and others (12.8%). Methicillin resistance was 96% at staphylococci. It was observed Gram-negative microorganisms had multiresistant pattern. When investigated to antibiotic susceptibility; the most effective antibiotics to Pseudomonas spp. were piperacillin-tazobactam (89.7%), imipenem (81.6%), meropenem (53.8%) and cefoperazone-sulbactam (48.6%), while affectivity of antibiotics to Acinetobacter spp. were imipenem (100%), sefoperazon-sulbactam (100%), meropenem (85.7%) and piperacillin-tazobactam (54.5%) (Table 2).

Click Here to Zoom

Table 2: Distribution of isolated microorganisms

The most responsible agents isolated from endotracheal aspirate specimens for VAP and pneumonia were P. aeruginosa (%25.9), Pseudomonas spp. (%22.2), MRSA (%16.7), methicillin resistant CoNS (%9.3), E. coli (%7.4), Acinetobacter spp (%7.2), and others, respectively. Candida spp. (%29.7), E. coli (%18.9), P. aeruginosa (%18.9), Pseudomonas spp. (%8.1) and Enterobacter spp. (%8.1) were the most responsible microorganisms’ isolated urine. Methicillin resistant CoNS (%22.2), Acinetobacter spp. (%22.2), A. baumanii (%11.1), P. aeruginosa (%11.1), Pseudomonas spp. (%11.1) were the most responsible agents for laboratory diagnosed BSIs.

We found high overall rates of nosocomial infection in our ICU as 72%. In a study performed at Erciyes University at 1997, ICU acquired infections (ICU-AIs) rates were declared as 25.8% ^14, in an another study performed at Selcuk University, ICU-AIs rates were informed as 84.9% on year 1999-2000 ¹⁵. From the point view of ICU-AIs, comparisons between hospitals can not be appropriate for the reason of different conditions of ICUs and surveillance methods applied.

Regarding the site of infection, the most prevalent infection site was pneumonia with the rates of 20-40%, and followed by UTI, bacteremia, SSI and others, respectively ¹⁶. A study performed at Kocaeli University, the most prevalent infection sites at the first fifth month of 1999 were declared as bloodstream infections (32%), UTI (16%) and SSI (13%) ¹⁷. Esen and Leblebicioglu ¹⁸ performed a one-day point prevalence study in Turkey ICUs, they observed pneumonia and lower respiratory tract infection (28.0%), laboratory confirmed blood stream infection (23.3%) and urinary tract infection (15.7%) were the most frequent types. In the present study, ventilator associated pneumonia was the most common NI (41.2%), followed by urinary tract catheterassociated infection (28.2%), bloodstream infections (13.7%), sepsis (6.9%), and surgical site infection (4.6%).

Gram-negative bacteriae were the most isolated agents from ICUs and Pseudomonas spp. takes part first in these microorganisms. The most isolated Gram-positive agent is S. aureus ^2-4. In a study done by Erbay et al. ¹⁹ P. Aeruginosa (22.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (22.2%) and Acinetobacter spp. (11.9%) were found the most responsible agents in ICUs acquired infections, and, Esen and Leblebicioğlu ¹⁸ declared The most frequently reported isolates were P. Aeruginosa (20.8%), S. aureus (18.2%), Acinetobacter spp. (18.2%) and Klebsiella spp. (16.1%). In our ICU, the most isolated agent were Pseudomonas spp. (31.3%), S. aureus (11.5%), CoNS (10.7%), Acinetobacter spp. (9.2%), Candida spp. (8.4%) and Escherichia coli (8.4%). It was attracted to attention that the role of Candida spp. is increasing in our ICU. This can be due to excessive use of antibiotics. To evaluate the antimicrobial susceptibility, it was observed the microorganisms were multidrug resistant. The least resistance showed by Gram-negative bacteriae in our ICU was found as imipenem, meropenem, piperasilin-tazobactam ve cefoperazone-sulbactam. Among the 29 S. aureus isolates, 28 (96%) of them were methicillinresistant strains (MRSAs), and all were sensitive to vancomycin. This problem reaches the great extents in our ICU. Circulation of multidrug resistant MRSA in hospital should lead to surveillance. Improved compliance with handwashing is needed to prevent MRSA spread out.

In conclusion, the prevalence data that we obtained are consistent with results as reported from many other regions of our country. Surveillance should be focused on patients in intensive care units. Every hospital have to be make a continuous surveillance in ICUs to detect the infection sites, antimicrobial susceptibility, risk factors to prevent and treatment for these infections successfully and make effort to carry out infection control policies.

1) Brown RB, Hosmer D, Chen HC. A comparision of infection in different ICUs within the same hospital. Crit Care Med 1985;13: 472–476.

2) Daschner F. Nosocomial infections in intensive care units, Crit Care Med 1985; 11: 284–287.

3) Donowitz LG, Wenzel RP, Hoyt JW. High risk of hospital acquired infection in the ICU patient. Crit Care Med 1982; 10: 355–7.

4) Spencer RC. Epidemiology of infection in ICUs. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20: 2-6.

5) Vincent JL, Bihari DJ, Suter PM, et al. The prevalence of nosocomial infection in intensive care units in Europe – results of the European Prevalence of Infection in Intensive Care (EPIC) Study. JAMA 1995; 274: 639–44.

6) Haley RW, Culver DH, White JW et al. The efficacy of infection surveillance and control programs in preventing nosocomial infections in US hospitals. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 182–205.

7) Garner JS, Jarvis WR, Emori TG, Horan TC, Hughes JM. CDC definitions for nosocomial infections. Am J Infect Control 1988; 16: 128-40.

8) Koneman EW, Allen SD, Janda WM, Schreckenberger PC, Winn WC. Color Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1997.

9) National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. M100-S5. Villanova, PA: NCCLS, 2000.

10) Wenzel RP, Thompson RL, Landry SM, Russell BS, Miller PJ, Ponce de Leon S, et al. Hospital-acquired infections in intensive care unit patients: an overview with emphasis on epidemics. Infect Control 1983;4: 371-5.

11) Edmond MB, Wenzel RP. Infection Control. In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Mandell, Douglas, and Bennet’s Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 4th ed. Newyork: Churchill Livingstone, 1995; 2572-5.

12) Khan MM, Celik Y. Cost of nosocomial infection in Turkey: an estimate based on the university hospital data. Health Serv Res 2001;14: 49-54.

13) SENIC study on the efficacy of nosocomial infection control. Am J Epidemiol 1985; 121: 182-5.

14) Aygen B, Kayabaş Ü, Güven M, Doğanay M, Sümerkan B, Yıldız O. Erciyes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Yoğun Bakım Üniteleri nozokomiyal infeksiyonları sürveyansı: epidemiyoloji, risk faktörleri ve prognozu etkileyen faktörler. Yoğun Bakım Derg 2001; 1: 122–30.

15) Yosunkaya A, Tuncer S, Reisli R, Uzun S, Ökesli S. Reanimasyon Ünitemizde 1999–2000 yılları arasında gözlenen hastane infeksiyonları. Hastane İnfek Derg 2002; 6: 92-7.

16) Trilla A. Epidemiology of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Intensive Care Med 1994; 20 (Suppl 3): 1-4.

17) Mutlu B, Akhan SÇ, Gündeş S, Altındağ N, Vahaboğlu H. Kocaeli Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi Yoğun Bakım Birimi’ndeki Nozokomiyal infeksiyonların prevalansı. Klimik Derg 2001; 14: 89–90.

18) Esen S, Leblebicioglu H. Prevalence of nosocomial infections at intensive care units in Turkey: a multicentre 1-day point prevalence study. Scand J Infect Dis 2004; 36: 144–8.

19) Erbay H, Yalcin AN, Serin S, et al. Nosocomial infections in intensive care unit in a Turkish university hospital: a 2-year survey. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 1482–8.