Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey assesses VRE-CPE management in hemodialysis units, highlighting guideline needs.
Aim: Chronic hemodialysis patients are at risk of Vancomycin-resistant Enterocci (VRE) and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) carriage. France has released guidelines to prevent the spread of VRE-CPE carriage in hospitals. However, the hemodialysis setting is confronted with specific problems that are not always addressed by guidelines. Infection control practices regarding VRE-CPE transmission in the hemodialysis setting have not been described in the literature. The aim of our survey was to assess declared practices regarding VRE-CPE identification and management in French hemodialysis units (HDU). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of 200 French HDU (excluding peritoneal dialysis and exclusive pediatric hemodialysis units) regarding their declared organization for identifying VRE-CPE carriers, the type and duration of precautions implemented, and reported difficulties. Data were collected via an e-mail questionnaire, and completed by a short telephone interview with an infection control nurse. Results: 103 HDU agreed to participate. A minority of HDU had implemented a system to identify patients requiring screening or were able to keep track of VRE-CPE carriers and contacts via a computerized system. When managing VRE-CPE carriers, less than one-third of HDU employed caregivers, and strategies to discontinue precautions varied widely between HDU. HDU staff complained mainly about the lack of national specific guidelines for VRE-CPE in the hemodialysis setting, insufficient information regarding patients’ VRE-CPE status, and difficulties in convincing patients to accept screening. Conclusion: This survey highlights heterogeneous practices and routine difficulties in VPE-CPE patients’ management which would probably benefit from guidelines tailored to the hemodialysis setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: