1887
Surveillance Open Access
Like 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Accurate, fully automated systems may increase efficiency of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) surveillance.

AIM

We aimed to validate the performance of a fully automated surveillance system for central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in critically ill patients in Switzerland.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre retrospective study across six secondary and tertiary care hospital networks’ intensive care units (ICU). A centrally hosted, fully automated algorithm was implemented to detect catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI), CLABSI and ICU-onset bloodstream infections (ICU-BSI). Algorithm performance was validated against an anonymised manual review of random samples of positive blood cultures. Incidence data were computed for each hospital.

RESULTS

From January 2022 to December 2023, we analysed 131,166 patient days, 108,719 catheter days and 7,832 positive blood cultures from 1,931 ICU patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range (IQR): 53–73), 458 (23.7%) were female. For CLABSI and CRBSI, the algorithm demonstrated a specificity of 95.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 92.7–97.0), sensitivity of 86.5% (95% CI: 79.8–91.2), positive predictive value of 87.0% (95% CI: 80.4–91.7) and negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% CI: 92.5–96.8). CRBSI/CLABSI and ICU-BSI incidence rates were 3.23/1,000 catheter days (95% CI: 2.91–3.57) and 2.42/1,000 patient days (95% CI: 2.17–2.70), respectively. Most identified microorganisms for CRBSI/CLABSI were (15.1%; 53/351), (9.1%; 32/351) and (5.7%; 20/351).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate feasibility and external validity of a fully automated system for CLABSI surveillance in critically ill patients, supporting its integration into national HAI prevention and control strategies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2026.31.18.2500650
2026-05-07
2026-06-10
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2026.31.18.2500650
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/31/18/eurosurv-31-18-2.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2026.31.18.2500650&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Cassini A, Plachouras D, Eckmanns T, Abu Sin M, Blank H-P, Ducomble T, et al. Burden of Six Healthcare-Associated Infections on European Population Health: Estimating Incidence-Based Disability-Adjusted Life Years through a Population Prevalence-Based Modelling Study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(10):e1002150.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002150  PMID: 27755545 
  2. Elangovan S, Lo JJ, Xie Y, Mitchell B, Graves N, Cai Y. Impact of central-line-associated bloodstream infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hosp Infect. 2024;152:126-37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.08.002  PMID: 39151801 
  3. Rice S, Carr K, Sobiesuo P, Shabaninejad H, Orozco-Leal G, Kontogiannis V, et al. Economic evaluations of interventions to prevent and control health-care-associated infections: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2023:S1473-3099(22)00877-5.
  4. Birgand G, Lepelletier D, Baron G, Barrett S, Breier A-C, Buke C, et al. Agreement among healthcare professionals in ten European countries in diagnosing case-vignettes of surgical-site infections. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68618.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068618  PMID: 23874690 
  5. Mitchell BG, Hall L, Halton K, MacBeth D, Gardner A. Time spent by infection control professionals undertaking healthcare associated infection surveillance: A multi-centred cross sectional study. Infect Dis Health. 2016;21(1):36-40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idh.2016.03.003 
  6. van Mourik MSM, van Rooden SM, Abbas M, Aspevall O, Astagneau P, Bonten MJM, et al. PRAISE: providing a roadmap for automated infection surveillance in Europe. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(Suppl 1):S3-19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.02.028  PMID: 34217466 
  7. Januel JM, Lotfinejad N, Grant R, Tschudin-Sutter S, Schreiber PW, Grandbastien B, et al. Predictive performance of automated surveillance algorithms for intravascular catheter bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023;12(1):87.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01286-0  PMID: 37653559 
  8. Catho G, Fortchantre L, Teixeira D, Galas-Haddad M, Boroli F, Chraïti M-N, et al. Surveillance of catheter-associated bloodstream infections: development and validation of a fully automated algorithm. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2024;13(1):38.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01395-4  PMID: 38600526 
  9. Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, Woller SC, O’Grady NP, Safdar N, et al. The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC): Results From a Multispecialty Panel Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6) Suppl;S1-40.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-0744  PMID: 26369828 
  10. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Point prevalence survey of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals – protocol version 6.1 2022. Stockholm: ECDC. [Accessed: 26 Mar 2023]. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/point-prevalence-survey-healthcare-associated-infections-and-antimicrobial-use-vs-6-1
  11. Zingg W, Metsini A, Balmelli C, Neofytos D, Behnke M, Gardiol C, et al. National point prevalence survey on healthcare-associated infections in acute care hospitals, Switzerland, 2017. Euro Surveill. 2019;24(32):1800603.  https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.32.1800603  PMID: 31411135 
  12. Plachouras D, Kärki T, Hansen S, Hopkins S, Lyytikäinen O, Moro ML, et al. Antimicrobial use in European acute care hospitals: results from the second point prevalence survey (PPS) of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use, 2016 to 2017. Euro Surveill. 2018;23(46):1800393.  https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.23.46.1800393  PMID: 30458917 
  13. Brun-Buisson C, Abrouk F, Legrand P, Huet Y, Larabi S, Rapin M. Diagnosis of central venous catheter-related sepsis. Critical level of quantitative tip cultures. Arch Intern Med. 1987;147(5):873-7.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1987.00370050069012  PMID: 3555377 
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). NHSN organisms list validation, 2023. Atlanta: CDC. [Accessed: March 2024]. Available from. https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/validation/2019/2019-NHSN-Organisms-List-Validation.xlsx
  15. Buetti N, Timsit J-F. Management and Prevention of Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections in the ICU. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;40(4):508-23.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693705  PMID: 31585477 
  16. Akoglu H. User’s guide to sample size estimation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Turk J Emerg Med. 2022;22(4):177-85.  https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.357348  PMID: 36353389 
  17. Sapra RL. How to Calculate an Adequate Sample Size? In: Nundy S, Kakar A, Bhutta ZA, editors. How to Practice Academic Medicine and Publish from Developing Countries? A Practical Guide, Singapore: Springer Nature; 2022, p. 81-93. .
  18. Benchimol EI, Manuel DG, To T, Griffiths AM, Rabeneck L, Guttmann A. Development and use of reporting guidelines for assessing the quality of validation studies of health administrative data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(8):821-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.006  PMID: 21194889 
  19. Penfield RD. A score method of constructing asymmetric confidence intervals for the mean of a rating scale item. Psychol Methods. 2003;8(2):149-63.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.149  PMID: 12924812 
  20. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. Available from: http://www.Rproject.org/
  21. Lotfinejad N, Januel J-M, Tschudin-Sutter S, Schreiber PW, Grandbastien B, Damonti L, et al. , Swissnoso Group. Systematic scoping review of automated systems for the surveillance of healthcare-associated bloodstream infections related to intravascular catheters. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2024;13(1):25.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01380-x  PMID: 38419046 
  22. Januel J-M, Lotfinejad N, Grant R, Tschudin-Sutter S, Schreiber PW, Grandbastien B, et al. Predictive performance of automated surveillance algorithms for intravascular catheter bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2023;12(1):87.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-023-01286-0  PMID: 37653559 
  23. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Healthcare-associated infections acquired in intensive care units - Annual Epidemiological Report for 2021. Stockholm: ECDC; 2024. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/healthcare-associated-infections-acquired-intensive-care-units-2021.pdf
  24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Brief Report: Quarterly national HAI incidence in 2022. Atlanta: CDC; 2024. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/datastat/Quarterly-SIRs-Brief-Report.pdf
  25. Rosenthal VD, Yin R, Rodrigues C, Myatra SN, Divatia JV, Biswas SK, et al. Multinational prospective cohort study of incidence and risk factors for central line-associated bloodstream infections over 18 years in 281 ICUs of 9 Asian countries. J Vasc Access. 2024;25(5):1508-18.  https://doi.org/10.1177/11297298231169542  PMID: 37151085 
  26. Streefkerk HRA, Verkooijen RP, Bramer WM, Verbrugh HA. Electronically assisted surveillance systems of healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(2):1900321.  https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.2.1900321  PMID: 31964462 
  27. van Mourik MSM, Troelstra A, van Solinge WW, Moons KGM, Bonten MJM. Automated surveillance for healthcare-associated infections: opportunities for improvement. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57(1):85-93.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit185  PMID: 23532476 
  28. Lin MY, Hota B, Khan YM, Woeltje KF, Borlawsky TB, Doherty JA, et al. Quality of traditional surveillance for public reporting of nosocomial bloodstream infection rates. JAMA. 2010;304(18):2035-41.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1637  PMID: 21063013 
  29. van Mourik MSM, Perencevich EN, Gastmeier P, Bonten MJM. Designing Surveillance of Healthcare-Associated Infections in the Era of Automation and Reporting Mandates. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(6):970-6.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix835  PMID: 29514241 
  30. van Rooden SM, Aspevall O, Carrara E, Gubbels S, Johansson A, Lucet J-C, et al. Governance aspects of large-scale implementation of automated surveillance of healthcare-associated infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(Suppl 1):S20-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2021.02.026  PMID: 34217464 
  31. van der Werff SD, van Rooden SM, Henriksson A, Behnke M, Aghdassi SJS, van Mourik MSM, et al. The future of healthcare-associated infection surveillance: Automated surveillance and using the potential of artificial intelligence. J Intern Med. 2025;298(2):54-77.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.20100  PMID: 40469046 
  32. Cozzolino C, Mao S, Bassan F, Bilato L, Compagno L, Salvò V, et al. Are AI-based surveillance systems for healthcare-associated infections ready for clinical practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Artif Intell Med. 2025;165:103137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2025.103137  PMID: 40286586 
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2026.31.18.2500650
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error