Study examines effect of use of gloves and gowns for all patient contact in ICUs on MRSA or VRE

October 4, 2013

The wearing of gloves and gowns by health care workers for all intensive care unit (ICU) patient contact did not reduce the rate of acquisition of a combination of the bacteria methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), although there was a lower risk of MRSA acquisition alone, according to a study published online by JAMA. The study is being released early to coincide with its presentation at IDWeek 2013.

Antibiotic-resistance is associated with considerable illness, death, and costs. MRSA and VRE are primary causes of -associated infections. "The estimated cost of antibiotic-resistance in the United States is more than $4 billion per year. Health care-associated infections are the most common complication of hospital care, affecting an estimated 1 in every 20 inpatients. Numerous studies have shown that health care workers acquire bacteria on their hands and their clothing by touching patients," according to background information in the article.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend use of contact precautions (wearing and gowns) when caring for patients colonized or infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. However, colonization with MRSA, VRE, or other antibiotic-resistant bacteria often is not detected and contact precautions, therefore, are not applied. It has not been known whether wearing gloves and gowns for all patient contact, not just for patients with known colonization, decreases acquisition of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the ICU.

Anthony D. Harris, M.D., M.P.H., of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues assessed whether wearing gloves and gowns for all patient contact in the ICU compared with the use of contact precautions for patients with known antibiotic-resistant bacteria reduces acquisition rates of MRSA and VRE. The randomized trial was conducted in 20 medical and surgical ICUs in 20 U.S. hospitals from January 2012 to October 2012. In the intervention ICUs, all were required to wear gloves and gowns for all patient contact and when entering any patient room. The primary outcome was acquisition of MRSA or VRE based on surveillance cultures (92,241 swabs) collected on admission and ICU discharge from 26,180 patients.

The researchers found that there was a decrease in both the intervention and control ICUs in the composite rate of MRSA or VRE acquisition over the study periods, but the difference in change was not statistically significant. There was a borderline statistically significant reduction in MRSA that was greater in the intervention group.

The intervention did not reduce VRE acquisition, but it did reduce MRSA acquisition, the authors write. "Better hand hygiene compliance on room exit occurred in the intervention ICUs. The intervention led to fewer health care worker-patient visits and did not increase the frequency of adverse events."

"Although the results of Harris et al failed to demonstrate an overall benefit of universal use of gloves and gowns to reduce acquisition of MRSA or VRE, this approach may be worth considering in some high-risk settings such as surgical ICUs wherein MRSA transmission is high among patients with newly implanted medical devices. If implemented, gloving and gowning should be just part of an overall strategy that includes efforts to optimize hand hygiene and prudent use of antimicrobials," writes Preeti N. Malani, M.D., M.S.J., of the University of Michigan Health System, Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, in an accompanying editorial.

"Although it is appealing to believe there is a simple approach to what should and should not be done to prevent infection in the ICU, best practices are more nuanced and unfortunately, one size does not fit all. The final approach must be adapted to fit the epidemiology of specific ICUs and should also consider the type of resources available. The study by Harris et al serves as a poignant reminder that many questions remain for what constitutes best practice in the care of critically ill . Ongoing investment in these sorts of resource intensive trials is essential for continued progress."

Explore further: Challenges in stemming the spread of resistant bacteria in intensive care

More information: doi:10.l001/jama.2013.277815

Related Stories

Germ-killing soaps cut hospital infection rates

May 29, 2013

A policy of regularly washing every patient in the intensive care unit with antimicrobial cloths helped cut down on dangerous blood infections by 44 percent, a US study said Wednesday.

Patient isolation tied to dissatisfaction with care

September 18, 2013

Patient satisfaction has an increasing impact on hospitals' bottom lines, factoring into Medicare reimbursement of hospital care. A new study finds patients placed in Contact Precautions (Contact Isolation) were twice as ...

Recommended for you

Monkeys in Asia harbor virus from humans, other species

November 19, 2015

When it comes to spreading viruses, bats are thought to be among the worst. Now a new study of nearly 900 nonhuman primates in Bangladesh and Cambodia shows that macaques harbor more diverse astroviruses, which can cause ...

One-step test for hepatitis C virus infection developed

November 14, 2015

UC Irvine Health researchers have developed a cost-effective one-step test that screens, detects and confirms hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. Dr. Ke-Qin Hu, director of hepatology services, will present findings at the ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.