Victoria Socha

DocwireNews

In the United States, more than 
450,000 patients receive hemodialysis in approximately 6500 outpatient centers. 
Patients receiving maintenance dialysis are at high risk for morbidity and 
mortality. In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) received 
29,516 reports of bloodstream infections among hemodialysis outpatients.The most common cause of bloodstream 
infections in hemodialysis patients is Gram-positive organisms; bloodstream 
infections due to Gram-negative organisms are less common. However, there have 
been reports of outbreaks associated with Gram-negative organisms in outpatient 
hemodialysis facilities attributed to water sources, such as contaminated 
reprocessed dialyzers, improper handling of medications, hemodialysis equipment, 
and dialysate. Infections associated with water reservoirs have also been 
reported.Shannon A. Novosad, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted matched 
case-control investigations at three outpatient hemodialysis facilities to 
examine an outbreak of Gram-negative bloodstream infections. Results of the 
investigations were reported in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases 
[2019;74(5):610-619].Through an August 2016 review of 
routine surveillance data reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 
the CDC detected a cluster of five bloodstream infections caused by Serratia 
marcescens in an outpatient hemodialysis facility (Facility A). In 
subsequent consultations with state health departments, two additional 
outbreaks caused by similar Gram-negative organisms were identified at 
facilities owned by the same company (Facility B and Facility C). The most 
commonly involved Gram-negative organisms were S marcescens, Pseudomonas 
aeruginosa, and Enterobacter cloacae.The investigation defined a case as a 
blood culture from which any Gram-negative bacteria was identified from a 
patient who received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C from July 1, 2105, to 
November 30, 2016. For more than one case in a single patient, there had to 
have been 21 days between positive cultures.To examine risk factors for becoming 
a case, two 1:1-matched case-control investigations were performed at 
Facilities A and B. The focus of the first investigation was patient-specific 
risk factors such as age and comorbid conditions. Case-patients were matched 
with randomly selected control patients who received hemodialysis at the same 
facility and did not develop a Gram-negative bloodstream infection during the 
study period.The exposures of interest were 
infection control practices, sources of water, dialyzer reuse, handling of 
medication, dialysis circuit priming, findings of water and dialysate testing, 
environmental reservoirs such as wall boxes, vascular access care practices, 
pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and whole-genome sequencing of bacterial 
isolates. Outcomes of interest were cases defined by a positive blood culture 
for any Gram-negative bacteria drawn from July 1, 2015, to November 30, 2016, 
from patients who had received hemodialysis at Facility A, B, or C.The three facilities were less than 
20 miles apart and had between 12 and 36 dialysis stations. All three shared 
corporate ownership and some products (medication, dialyzers, acid, and 
bicarbonate) came from the same distributors. The same municipal water supply 
was used by Facilities A and B; Facility C had a different supply. The three 
facilities did not commonly share staff.During the study period, there were 
58 cases of bloodstream infections associated with Gram-negative organisms; the 
infections occurred in 51 patients. Facilities A and B had the majority of 
cases (n=52; 90%). In comparison, during the previous year, the three 
facilities identified 12 Gram-negative bloodstream infections. The most 
commonly identified Gram-negative organisms were S marcescens (n=21; 
36%), P aeruginosa (n=12; 21%), and E cloacae (n=11; 19%). Multiple Gram-negative organisms were 
isolated in 16 cases (28%). Hospital admission was required in 48 cases (83%), 
with median length of stay of 8 days. Fifty of the cases (86%) had central 
venous catheter for dialysis access. There were no associations between 
infections and individual staff members across or within facilities and no 
association between a single dialysis machine and a majority of the infections.Case patients and the matched 
control-patients were similar in age, sex, and comorbid conditions. The 
examination of patient-specific risk factors&nbsp; 
found a significant association between longer dialysis vintage and 
lower odds of infection (matched odds ratio [mOR], 0.19; 95% confidence 
interval [CI], 0.05-0.57). In session-specific analyses, there was a 
significant association between using a CVC for dialysis access and increased 
odds of bloodstream infection (mOR, 54.32; lower bound of the 95% CI, 12.19). 
Receiving dialysis after the first shift and having more than three staff 
members involved in care were more common among case-patients than 
control-patients (mOR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.07-8.78 and mOR, 3.75; 95% CI, 
1.20-15.52, respectively).The investigation identified 
deficiencies in infection control at all three facilities, including inadequate 
aseptic technique during CVC care and multiple missed hand hygiene 
opportunities such as not changing gloves or not performing hand hygiene when 
changing gloves. There were multiple lapses in the more than 20 separate 
machine and station cleaning and disinfection processes, including not applying 
disinfectant to all surfaces or applying inadequate amount of disinfectant.At Facility A, staff reported 
problems with wall boxes that emerged in early 2016 and peaked in summer 2016, 
including clogging and regurgitation of fluid from the drain, odors, and insect 
infestation. Staff were observed touching wall boxes and then going directly to 
CVC or other patient care without performing hand hygiene. At all three 
facilities, wall box basins were damp and often had visible pools of fluid, 
foaming, and waste fluid backing out of the drain.Forty-three environmental samples 
from the three facilities underwent testing. Multiple environmental sources 
were found to have Gram-negative bacteria, including tap water, sinks, and 
surfaces. All wall boxes contained at least one of the three most common 
pathogens. S marcescens isolated from wall boxes were closely related to 
pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and whole-genome sequencing.The investigators recommended 
addressing the observed lapses in infection control, including improving 
aseptic technique during AVC access, care, and maintenance; machine and station 
cleaning and disinfection, and hand hygiene.There were some limitations to the 
investigation cited by the authors, including the limited number of patient 
isolates available for testing, the inability to sample every wall box or water 
source, and conducting the on-site testing after the peak of the infections.&ldquo;Providers should be aware that wall 
boxes are a potential source of Gram-negative bloodstream infections in 
dialysis settings,&rdquo; the researchers said. &ldquo;Infections with Gram-negative 
organisms commonly found in water-related biofilms should prompt investigation 
into water and sources of waste fluid serving as potential reservoirs in the 
healthcare environment. Infection prevention and control practices should be 
regularly assessed and incorporated into routine quality improvement activities 
in all healthcare settings to decrease the likelihood of pathogen transmission 
from the environment to patients.&rdquo;Takeaway Points<ol class="wp-block-list">
<li>Reports to the CKC in 2016 resulted 
in an investigation of an outbreak of Gram-negative bloodstream infections at 
three outpatient dialysis facilities; the investigations focused on patients 
who received dialysis at one of the three facilities from July 2015 to November 
2016.</li>
<li>During the study period, 58 cases of 
Gram-negative bloodstream infections occurred in 51 patients; of those, 48 
patients required hospitalization.</li>
<li>The outbreak was attributed to wall 
boxes, a previously unidentified source of contaminated fluid and biofilms in 
the area providing immediate patient care.</li>
</ol>

Sara Nunnery, MD, MSCI

Reclassifying HER2: What Oncologists Need to Know About HER2-Low and -Ultralow Breast Cancer

HER2 Breast Cancer

Jeffrey Perl, MD

Joel M. Topf, MD, FACP

Thoughts From the 2025 Lazarus Award Winner

NKF Spring Clinical Meetings 2025

Brandon Twyford

DESTINY-Breast09 Demonstrates First-Line Superiority of Enhertu Plus Pertuzumab in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer