Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
risk for disease- and treatment-related complications, and neu- tropenic infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Long hospitalizations are burdensome to patients, both physically and mentally, and remaining sedentary leads to phy- sical deconditioning that often necessitates physical rehabilitation either during hospitalization or after discharge.1 Additionally, the decreased quality of life and stress during the transplant hospi- talization has been associated with the development of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).2 Practice guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis and treatment of neutropenic infections are well-established.3 Although there are guidelines for nonpharmacologic infection prevention measures, there is little evidence to support a standard of care, and practices vary by institution. Commonly accepted practices include single- occupant rooms with HEPA filtration systems, strict hand hygiene, and the avoidance of fresh fruits, vegetables and plants etc.4 Recent literature has also suggested that surgical masks for all persons in contact with neutropenic patients can reduce the incidence of viral respiratory infections (VRIs).5 Although it is a common policy for patients to be under strict isolation precau- tions during periods of prolonged neutropenia, there remains insufficient evidence to support this practice.6 Prior to October 2016, neutropenic patients were sequestered in
private rooms on the BMT unit at our institution. During routine review, physical therapists noted that sequestered patients were overly sedentary and susceptible to physical deconditioning during this time. In response to these concerns, the Bone Marrow Trans- plant Quality Assurance Committee lifted the sequestration order, allowing neutropenic patients on theBMTunit to leave their rooms if they maintained strict handwashing and surgical mask precau- tions. We hypothesized that this change in policy would reduce both the need for physical therapy (PT) and hospital length of stay (LOS), as well as improve overall patient satisfaction. These benefits were believed to outweigh the theoretical increased risk of infection associated with leaving an isolated environment. We reviewed 143 records of sequentially admitted patients
before the neutropenic policy before the neutropenic policy change from February 2016 through September 2016 and 188 records after the policy was changed from October 2016 through June 2017. The inclusion criterion was admission to the BMT unit for autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplant, regardless of indication. Hospital LOS and overall PT requirements were recorded. PT requirements were determined based upon a physical therapist’s recommendation and included acute rehabilitation, subacute rehabilitation, or home PT. The frequency of PT consultation was also recorded. The total number of documented hospital-acquired VRIs, as diagnosed by a comprehensive viral panel polymerase chain reaction (PCR), was recorded in each study group. Viral respiratory infections were diagnosed as hospital-acquired infec- tions retrospectively if patients were asymptomatic on admission, and PCR was confirmed after the estimated incubation period of the virus.7–10 Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The
average hospital LOS was 19.00 days in the sequestered group and was 19.31 days in the nonsequestered group (2-proportion z test, z=.74; P=.46). There were 50 PT consults in the sequestered group and 53 consults in the nonsequestered group (2-proportion z test, z=1.32; P=.19). Physical therapy was recommended for 19 patients in the sequestered group and 34 patients in the nonsequestered group (2-proportion z test, z =.99; P=.32). During the study period, 1 VRI occurred in the sequestered group
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics
Sequestered Group
Baseline Characteristics Age median (range), y Male, no. (%)
Type of transplant, no. (%) Autologous Allogeneic
Indication for Transplant, no. (%) Multiple myeloma
Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Acute myeloid leukemia
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia Other
(N=143) 59 (23-83) 76 (53.1)
124 (86.7) 19 (13.3)
108 (75.5) 13 (9.1) 8 (5.6) 6 (4.2) 8 (5.6)
Nonsequestered Group
(N=188) 58 (19-74) 98 (52.1)
151 (80.3) 37 (19.7)
130 (69.1) 12 (6.4) 6 (3.2)
10 (5.3) 30 (16.0)
1271
and 3 occurred in the nonsequestered group (2-proportion z test, z=.74; P=.46). We recorded 1 case of each of the following VRIs: influenza A, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), metapneu- movirus, and parainfluenza 3. There is insufficient evidence to support the common
practice of patient sequestration during post-HSCT neu- tropenia. While sequestration, in theory, reduces infection risk, it is potentially harmful because it may exacerbate physical deconditioning and cause psychological distress. Our findings do not support our original hypothesis that lifting the strict neutropenic isolation policy would decrease PT requirements and hospital LOS. A possible explanation for this finding is the inability to verify that the nonsequestered patients did, in fact, ambulate outside of their rooms. Given the well-known risk of infection associated with HSCT, many patients may have elected to stay in their rooms out of fear of acquiring an infection. Additionally, the degree of physical deconditioning associated with BMT patients and the benefit of ambulating around the unit versus ambulating in the hospital room may have been overestimated. Although we observed was no difference in PT requirements
and hospital LOS, we also observed no significant difference in incidence of VRIs between the 2 groups. Notably, the sequestra- tion policy changed in October, so the nonsequestered group was studied over more winter months, when the overall incidence of VRIs is higher. Although the study population and incidence of VRI was small, these data suggest that the risk of acquiring a VRI during neutropenia by leaving an isolated room may be small and may potentially be outweighed by the benefits, namely, the psy- chological benefits of leaving confinement. A future study with a large sample size could better assess this risk and could focus on the psychological implications of sequestration and the benefits of ambulation outside of the hospital room. In conclusion, more lenient neutropenic isolation precautions
were not associated with decreased PT requirements or hospital LOS but were also not associated with an increased rate of hospital-acquired VRIs.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
