Evidence Hub

Variability in practice patterns regarding protective isolation measures after heart transplantation: A secondary analysis of the international BRIGHT study

Alaerts E, Dreesen C, Denhaerynck K, Gryp S, Van Cleemput J, Schuermans A, Russell CL, Dobbels F et al.

American journal of infection control, 2020

27 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Infection control is a cornerstone of post-heart transplantation (HTx) in-hospital management when immunosuppression is highest. The use of protective isolation persists despite its questionable effectiveness. We describe and compare practice patterns internationally and assessed correlates of protective isolation.

METHODS

Using the BRIGHT-study data, a cross-sectional intercontinental study, we assessed 12 protective isolation measures in 4 continents, 11 countries, and 36 HTx centers. Data were summarized descriptively, as appropriate. Comparisons between countries and continents and association testing between center characteristics and number of isolation measures used were also explored by general linear modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 89% (32/36) of HTx centers used protective isolation measures with an average of 4.5 protective isolation measures per center (SD, 2.6; range 1-10). Most often applied were disinfecting high-touch surfaces (n = 27/34; 79.4%), use of private room (n = 27/36; 75.0%), and changing linen daily (n = 25/36; 69.4%). Least applied were wearing a cap (n = 6/35; 17.1%) and high-efficiency particulate air filtration (N = 5/32; 15.6 %). Larger centers and those with dedicated beds for HTx applied more isolation measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Protective isolation measures are still widely applied within heart transplant centers across the world persists notwithstanding its doubtful effectiveness. Future clinical guidelines for heart transplant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 27 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free