Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:05:39.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Postdischarge Surveillance on Surgical-Site Infection Rates for Coronary Artery Bypass Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Joan L Avato  and
Kwan Kew Lai
Joan L Avato*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts
Kwan Kew Lai
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
*
University of Massachusetts Medical School, 222 Maple Ave., Chang Building, Shrewsbury, MA 01545
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the influence of postdischarge infection surveillance on risk-adjusted surgical-site infection rates for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures.

Design:

Prospective surveillance of surgical-site infections after CABG.

Setting:

Tertiary-care referral hospital.

Methods:

Data on surgical-site infections were collected for 1,324 CABG procedures during 27 months. They were risk adjusted and analyzed according to the surgical surveillance protocol of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with and without postdischarge data.

Results:

Data were available for 96% of the patients. Of the 88 surgical-site infections, 28% were identified prior to discharge and 72% postdischarge. More chest than harvest-site infections were identified (46% vs 11%) prior to discharge, and more harvest-site than chest infections were identified in the outpatient setting (42% vs 14%). The surgical-site infection rate for patients stratified under risk index 1, calculated without postdischarge surveillance, was 2.9%; when compared with that of the NNIS System, the P value was .29. When postdischarge surveillance was included, the surgical-site infection rate was 4.9% and statistically significant when compared with that of the NNIS System (P = .007). For patients stratified under risk index 2, the rates with and without postdischarge surveillance were 11.7% and 10.0%, respectively; when compared with the NNIS System rates, the P values were .000008 and .0006, respectively.

Conclusions:

Only 28% of the surgical-site infections would have been detected if surveillance had been limited to hospital stay. Postdischarge surveillance identified more surgical-site infections among risk index 1 patients. Hospitals with comprehensive postdischarge surveillance after CABG procedures are likely to record higher surgical-site infection rates than those that do not perform such surveillance.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 23 , Issue 7 , July 2002 , pp. 364 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2002

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.)

References

1.Horan, TC, Lee, TB. Surveillance: into the next millennium. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:73–76.Google Scholar
2.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NNIS Manual, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System, Information Packet. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1994.Google Scholar
3.Holtz, TH, Wenzel, RP. Post-discharge surveillance for nosocomial wound infection: a brief review and commentary. Am J Infect Control 1992; 20:2006–2013.Google Scholar
4.Brown, RB, Bradley, S, Opitz, E, Cipriani, D, Pieczarka, R, Sands, M. Surgical wound infections documented after hospital discharge. Am J Infect Control 1987;15:54–58.Google Scholar
5.Burns, SJ, Dippe, SE. Postoperative wound infections detected during hospitalization and after discharge in a community hospital. Am J Infect Control 1982;10:60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Sands, K, Vineyard, G, Platt, R. Surgical site infections occurring after hospital discharge. J Infect Dis 1996;1173:963–970.Google Scholar
7.Weigelt, JA, Dryer, D, Haley, RW. The necessity and efficacy of wound surveillance after discharge. Arch Surg 1992;127:77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Rosendorf, LL, Octavio, J, Estes, JP. Effect of methods of post-discharge wound infection surveillance on reported rates. Am J Infect Control 1983; 6:226–229.Google Scholar
9.Owens, WD, Felts, JA, Spitznagel, EL. ASA physical status classification: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology 1978;49:239–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Garner, JS. CDC guideline for prevention of surgical wound infections, 1985. Infect Control 1986;7:193–200.Google Scholar
11.Culver, DH, Horan, TC, Gaynes, PR, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. Am J Med 1991;91(suppl 3B):152S–157S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Jarvis, WR, Gaynes, RP, Horan, TC, et al. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from October 1986-April 1998, issued June 1998. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:522–523.Google Scholar
13.Roy, M-C, Herwaldt, LA, Embrey, R, Kuhns, K, Wenzel, RP, Perl, TM. Does the Centers for Disease Control's NNIS system risk index stratify patients undergoing cardiothoracic operations by their risk of surgical-site infection? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2000;21:186–190.Google Scholar
14.Roberts, FJ, Walsh, A, Wing, P, Dvorak, M, Schweigel, J. The influence of surveillance methods on surgical wound infection rates in tertiary care spinal surgery service. Spine 1998;23:366–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed