Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31088542›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2019

Is systematic fecal carriage screening of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae still useful in intensive care unit: a systematic review.

Renaud Prevel, Alexandre Boyer, Fatima M'Zali, Agnès Lasheras, Jean-Ralph Zahar, Anne-Marie Rogues, Didier Gruson

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Renaud PrevelCHU Bordeaux, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Pellegrin Hospital, F-33000, Bordeaux, France. renaud.prevel@hotmail.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2942-7350
Alexandre BoyerCHU Bordeaux, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Pellegrin Hospital, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Fatima M'ZaliUMR 5234 CNRS, Bordeaux University, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Agnès LasherasUniv. Bordeaux, CHU Bordeaux, Hygiène hospitalière, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Jean-Ralph ZaharUnité INSERM - IAME UMR 1137, Université Paris-13, Bobigny, France.
Anne-Marie RoguesUniv. Bordeaux, CHU Bordeaux, Hygiène hospitalière, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Didier GrusonCHU Bordeaux, Medical Intensive Care Unit, Pellegrin Hospital, F-33000, Bordeaux, France.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRHôpital Pellegrin · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FRInserm · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) are disseminating worldwide leading to increased hospital length of stay and mortality in intensive care units (ICU). ESBL-E dissemination was first due to outbreaks in hospital settings which led to the implementation of systematic fecal carriage screening to improve hygiene procedures by contact precautions. ESBLs have since spread in the community, and the relevance of contact precautions is questioned. ESBL-E dissemination led to an overuse of carbapenems triggering the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Empirical antimicrobial therapy based on ESBL-E fecal carriage has been proposed but is debated as it could increase the consumption of carbapenems among ESBL-E carriers without any clinical benefit. Finally, selective decontamination among ESBL-E fecal carriers is evoked to decrease the risk for subsequent ESBL-E infection, but its efficacy remains debated. We propose to systematically review the evidence to recommend or not such systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening in adult ICU.

methodsEvery article focusing on ESBL-E and ICU available on the MEDLINE database was assessed. Articles were included if focusing on cross-transmission, efficacy of hygiene procedures, link between ESBL-E colonization and infection or guidance of empirical therapy or selective decontamination efficacy.

resultsAmong 330 articles referenced on PubMed, 39 abstracts were selected for full-text assessment and 25 studies were included. Systematic screening of ESBL-E fecal carriage to guide contact precautions do not seem to decrease the rate of ESBL-E cross-transmission. It has a very good negative predictive value for subsequent ESBL-E infections but a positive predictive value between 40 and 50% and so does not help to spare carbapenems. Cessation of ESBL-E carriage systematic screening could decrease the use of carbapenems in ICU without any clinical harm. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to validate these results from monocentric before-after study. Selective decontamination strategy applied to ESBL-E fecal carriers could be helpful, but available data are conflicting.

conclusionCurrent knowledge lacks of high-quality evidence to strongly recommend in favor of or against a systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening policy for ICU patients in a non-outbreak situation. Further evaluation of selective decontamination or fecal microbiota transplantation among ESBL-E fecal carriers is needed.

Indexed as

Adultbeta-LactamasesCarrier StateCross InfectionEnterobacteriaceaeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsFecesFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMass ScreeningMicrobial Sensitivity Testsbeta-LactamasesCarriageCross-transmissionExtended-spectrum beta-lactamaseIntensive careNosocomial infectionsScreening

Identifiers

PMID31088542
PMCPMC6518813
OpenAlexW2947606651

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.