INTRODUCTION Information on the incidence of different intensive care unit (ICU) acquired infections and their risk factors can help clinicians, other healthcare workers and hospital policy makers to try to reduce the burden of ICU‐acquired infections in patients. This will not only lead to less suffering, but may also be cost saving. In a European prevalence survey in which 78 ICUs in the Netherlands participated 16% of the Dutch patients had an ICU‐ acquired infection [1]. In the Netherlands PREZIES, a national network, started a surveillance of nosocomial infections at the ICU in 1997 which continued until the end of 2000. As in most European surveillance systems, the definitions used were based on those of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)/National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system. However, unlike the surveillance in the United States [2] and Germany [3] this surveillance is patient based instead of unit based. The infection rates have been previously reported to the participating hospitals, in a Dutch journal [4] and in abstract form [5]. All ICU‐acquired infections were recorded, but because most infections at the ICU are device associated, we have chosen to present results of device‐associated infections only. Here we report the rates of VAP, CR‐BSI, urinary catheter a demeure (CAD)‐ associated urinary tract infection (CA‐UTI), mortality and the effects of various risk factors. We also investigate the effect that the duration of the use of invasive devices has. MATERIAL AND METHODS PREZIES, established in 1996, is a cooperation of participating hospitals, the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement (CBO) and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). During the period July 1997‐ December 2000 19 Dutch hospitals (c. 20 % of all hospitals in The Netherlands) with 23 ICUs prospectively collected data of intensive care patients on a daily basis according to the PREZIES protocol. Both university and other hospitals participated, but university hospitals were relatively better represented (three out of seven). The study period varied between 2 and 39 months, with a median of 14. The average capacity of the participating ICUs was 8 beds (range 5 to 12). Experts in the field of intensive care medicine and nosocomial infections developed the protocol in consultation with the participating hospitals. In each hospital a multidisciplinary team of the infection control professional, ICU nurses, the medical microbiologist, and the ICU physician performed the surveillance. The procedure of data collection and the tasks of the involved persons were established within each hospital. The definitions of pneumonia, sepsis, UTI and risk factors were standardized and based 2 23 Device-associated infections and associated mortality in the ICU
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw