Inverse probability weighting leads to more accurate incidence estimates for healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units – results from two national surveillance systems
C. Vicentini , R. Bussolino , M. Perego , D. Silengo , F. D'Ancona , S. Finazzi , C.M. Zotti
{"title":"Inverse probability weighting leads to more accurate incidence estimates for healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units – results from two national surveillance systems","authors":"C. Vicentini , R. Bussolino , M. Perego , D. Silengo , F. D'Ancona , S. Finazzi , C.M. Zotti","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2024.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Two main approaches are employed to monitor healthcare-associated infections (HAIs): longitudinal surveillance, which allows the measurement of incidence rates, and point prevalence surveys (PPSs). PPSs are less time-consuming; however, they are affected by length-biased sampling, which can be corrected through inverse probability weighting. We assessed the accuracy of this method by analysing data from two Italian national surveillance systems.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) incidence measured through a prospective surveillance system (GiViTI) was compared with incidence estimates obtained through conversion of crude and inverse probability weighted prevalence of the same HAIs in intensive care units (ICUs) measured through a PPS. Weighted prevalence rates were obtained after weighting all patients inversely proportional to their time-at-risk. Prevalence rates were converted into incidence per 100 admissions using an adapted version of the Rhame and Sudderth formula.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Overall, 30,988 patients monitored through GiViTI, and 1435 patients monitored through the PPS were included. A significant difference was found between incidence rates estimated based on crude VAP and CLABSI prevalence and measured through GiViTI (relative risk 2.5 and 3.36; 95% confidence interval 1.42–4.39 and 1.33–8.53, <em>P</em>=0.006 and 0.05, respectively). Conversely, no significant difference was found between incidence rates estimated based on weighted VAP and CLABSI prevalence and measured through GiViTI (<em>P</em>=0.927 and 0.503, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>When prospective surveillance is not feasible, our simple method could be useful to obtain more accurate incidence rates from PPS data.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":"155 ","pages":"Pages 73-81"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195670124003578","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Two main approaches are employed to monitor healthcare-associated infections (HAIs): longitudinal surveillance, which allows the measurement of incidence rates, and point prevalence surveys (PPSs). PPSs are less time-consuming; however, they are affected by length-biased sampling, which can be corrected through inverse probability weighting. We assessed the accuracy of this method by analysing data from two Italian national surveillance systems.
Methods
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) incidence measured through a prospective surveillance system (GiViTI) was compared with incidence estimates obtained through conversion of crude and inverse probability weighted prevalence of the same HAIs in intensive care units (ICUs) measured through a PPS. Weighted prevalence rates were obtained after weighting all patients inversely proportional to their time-at-risk. Prevalence rates were converted into incidence per 100 admissions using an adapted version of the Rhame and Sudderth formula.
Findings
Overall, 30,988 patients monitored through GiViTI, and 1435 patients monitored through the PPS were included. A significant difference was found between incidence rates estimated based on crude VAP and CLABSI prevalence and measured through GiViTI (relative risk 2.5 and 3.36; 95% confidence interval 1.42–4.39 and 1.33–8.53, P=0.006 and 0.05, respectively). Conversely, no significant difference was found between incidence rates estimated based on weighted VAP and CLABSI prevalence and measured through GiViTI (P=0.927 and 0.503, respectively).
Conclusions
When prospective surveillance is not feasible, our simple method could be useful to obtain more accurate incidence rates from PPS data.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience.
The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that:
provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings;
provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination;
provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises;
describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection;
throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship;
describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control;
improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change;
improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.