MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Worth of Surveillance for Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in the Hematology-Oncology Unit

2014· article· en· W2506032492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcelo Bellesso, Edson Abdala, Juliana Pereira, Rodrigo Santucci, Karim Yaqub Ibrahim, Maristela Pinheiro Freire, Lumena Vaz Carvalho Fratelli, Patrícia Andréa Crippa Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNeutropeniaInternal medicineHematologyInfection controlOutbreakFebrile neutropeniaIncidence (geometry)Intensive care medicineVirologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) has become a nosocomial pathogen of increasing importance. First identified in Europe in 1988, it has since been identified in multiple sites in the United States and Canada, as well as in Latin America. A 20-fold increase in the percentage of enterococci associated with nosocomial infections that were resistant to vancomycin, from 0.4% in 1989 to 7.9% in 1993, has been reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. VRE outbreak has been identified on February 2012 in hematology-oncology unit. It has since implemented some outbreak measures in order to control this outbreak, and as part of the control program during this outbreak of VRE infection in oncology-hematology unit of our tertiary care hospital, swab anal cultures have been performed weekly for inpatients as well as at the moment of their hospitalization. Objectives: To assess the incidence of colonization and infection by VRE of admitted patients in oncology-hematology unit and to evaluate the role of neutropenia and central line as well as their impact on blood stream infection (BSI) by VRE in previous colonized patients. Methods: All patients admitted to hematology-oncology unit in Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo São Paulo (ICESP) were undertaken to surveillance for VRE by Hospital Infection Control Committee from March 1, 2012 to May 31, 2014. It is important to highlight that ICESP has not promoted bone marrow transplantation. Neutropenia was defined as a neutrophil count ≤0.5 x 109/L. Feces (in patients with neutropenia) or rectal swab for those with a neutrophil count >0.5 x 109/L were collected for research VRE on admission and weekly for those that persist with negative results. Enterococci were isolated by standard microbiological methods. It was considered patients with colonized VRE when a bacterium is present, without any signs or symptoms of infection. BSI by VRE was defined in patients with positive blood culture for VRE. Results: A total of 1,666 patients had been screening for VRE colonization. One hundred sixty-one cases of VRE colonization were detected among them. The rate of VRE colonization during hospitalization was 9.7%. The incidence rate of VRE colonization was 9.4 cases per 1,000 inpatient-days. Twenty (12.4%) out of 161 VRE colonized patients developed BSI by VRE. The incidence of BSI by VRE was 1.2 cases per 1,000 inpatient-days. Eleven (55%) patients with BSI by VRE presented Acute Leukemia. A hundred percent of patients with BSI by VRE presented neutropenia and 14 (70%) out of 20 had central venous catheter inserted as well. Conclusions: We conclude that it is important to perform surveillance for VRE due to our incidence of patients colonized by VRE such as BSI by VRE. We believe these data may justify surveillance attendance and contact precautions. It was observed the importance of neutropenia to BSI by VRE in patients previously colonized. Thus, this fact could suggest that others studies are necessary in order to evaluate the role of antibiotic as linezolid for febrile neutropenia treatment in patients colonized by VRE. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207