Health care–associated infections in the NICU result in increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged lengths of stay, and increased medical costs. Neonates are at high risk of acquiring health care–associated infections because of impaired host-defense mechanisms, limited amounts of protective endogenous flora on skin and mucosal surfaces at time of birth, reduced barrier function of their skin, use of invasive procedures and devices, and frequent exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotic agents. This clinical report reviews management and prevention of health care–associated infections in newborn infants.

Health care–associated infections in the NICU are infections acquired in the hospital while receiving treatment of other conditions. Although they are less likely to cause mortality than early-onset infections, they have considerable health and economic consequences. Most health care–associated infections in the NICU result from the instrumentation and procedures required to preserve an infant’s life. Thus, it is not possible to lower the rate of health care–associated infections merely by limiting the use of procedures. Furthermore, it is no longer acceptable to consider health care–associated infections as a consequence of neonatal intensive care. Rather, it is incumbent on clinicians to minimize risks of infection by performing invasive procedures only when needed and in the safest manner possible. There is evidence to support the concept that proactive strategies to prevent health care–associated infections in the NICU are possible,1,5 although data supporting specific infection-control interventions in neonates are lacking. Although neonates clearly have unique vulnerabilities, there is no reason to believe that interventions shown to be effective in the pediatric ICU or adult ICU would not be equally effective in the NICU. Because of unique issues confronting the vulnerable neonate, however, these interventions may require some accommodations and further study.

Hand hygiene remains the most effective method for reducing health care–associated infections.6 Hospitals with higher rates of hand hygiene compliance have lower rates of central line bloodstream infection; however, compliance with hand hygiene practices is less than optimal.7 A recent meta-analysis concluded that educational programs and multidisciplinary quality-improvement teams can be effective in increasing compliance with hand hygiene procedures8; however, each of the 33 studies included more than 1 intervention, and it was difficult to determine which was most efficacious. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published guidelines for hand hygiene in health care settings in 2002.9 Although the guidelines were widely accepted and disseminated by members of the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance System, a recent analysis demonstrated that implementation of these guidelines had no effect on hand hygiene compliance rates (mean, 56.6%).10 

The sixth edition of the Guidelines for Perinatal Care11 recommends use of an antiseptic soap or an alcohol-based gel or foam for routine hand sanitizing if hands are not visibly soiled. When hands are visibly contaminated, they should first be washed with soap and water. Larson et al12 compared the effectiveness of a traditional antiseptic hand wash with an alcohol hand sanitizer in reducing bacterial colonization. There were no differences in mean microbial counts on nurses’ hands or infection rates among patients in the NICU; however, nurses’ skin condition improved during the alcohol phase. Other studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of alcohol-based products, but there are no data to suggest they are superior. Compliance with hand hygiene may be enhanced if alcohol-based products are available at each infant’s bedside.

In May 2009, the World Health Organization published new consensus recommendations for hand hygiene.13 The guidelines provide a comprehensive overview of hand hygiene in health care and evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for successful implementation. Consensus recommendations were categorized according to the CDC/Healthcare Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee grading system (Tables 1 and 2). A partial list of recommendations relevant to the NICU is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 1

Evidence Grading System

Ranking System for Evidence According to the CDC/Healthcare Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee System
Category IA: Strongly recommended for implementation and strongly supported by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies. 
Category IB: Strongly recommended for implementation and supported by some experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies and a strong theoretical rational. 
Category IC: Required for implementation, as mandated by federal and/or state regulation or standard. 
Category II: Suggested for implementation and supported by suggestive clinical or epidemiologic studies or a theoretical rationale or a consensus by a panel of experts. 
Ranking System for Evidence According to the CDC/Healthcare Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee System
Category IA: Strongly recommended for implementation and strongly supported by well-designed experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies. 
Category IB: Strongly recommended for implementation and supported by some experimental, clinical, or epidemiologic studies and a strong theoretical rational. 
Category IC: Required for implementation, as mandated by federal and/or state regulation or standard. 
Category II: Suggested for implementation and supported by suggestive clinical or epidemiologic studies or a theoretical rationale or a consensus by a panel of experts. 
TABLE 2

Infectious Diseases Society of America/US Public Health Service Grading System for Ranking Recommendations for Clinical Guidelines

Category, GradeDefinition
Strength of recommendation 
 A  Good evidence to support a recommendation for use 
 B  Moderate evidence to support a recommendation for use 
 C  Poor evidence to support a recommendation for use 
Quality of evidence 
 I  Evidence from ≥1 properly randomized controlled trial 
 II  Evidence from ≥1 well-designed clinical trial, without randomization; from cohort or case-controlled analytic studies (preferably from >1 center); from multiple time series; or from dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments 
 III  Evidence from opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports from expert committees 
Category, GradeDefinition
Strength of recommendation 
 A  Good evidence to support a recommendation for use 
 B  Moderate evidence to support a recommendation for use 
 C  Poor evidence to support a recommendation for use 
Quality of evidence 
 I  Evidence from ≥1 properly randomized controlled trial 
 II  Evidence from ≥1 well-designed clinical trial, without randomization; from cohort or case-controlled analytic studies (preferably from >1 center); from multiple time series; or from dramatic results from uncontrolled experiments 
 III  Evidence from opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports from expert committees 
TABLE 3

World Health Organization Recommendations for Hand Hygiene

• Wash hands with soap and water when visibly dirty or soiled with blood or other body fluids (IB) or after using the toilet (II). 
• Use of an alcohol-based hand rub for all routine antisepsis is recommended for all clinical settings if the hands are not soiled (IA). If an alcohol-based hand rub is not obtainable, wash hands with soap and water (IB). Brushes are no longer recommended (even for surgical scrubs) (IB). 
• Perform hand hygiene: 
 ○ Before and after touching the patient (IB). 
 ○ Before handling an invasive device for patient care, regardless of whether gloves are worn (IB). 
 ○ After contact with body fluids or excretions, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or wound dressings (IA). 
 ○ If moving from a contaminated body site to another body site during care of the same patient (IB). 
 ○ After contact with inanimate surfaces and objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient (IB). 
 ○ After removing sterile (II) or nonsterile gloves (IB). 
• Selection and handling of hand hygiene agents: 
 ○ Provide products with a low irritancy potential (IB). 
 ○ To maximize acceptance of hand hygiene products by health care workers, solicit input regarding the skin tolerance, feel, and fragrance of any products under consideration (IB). 
 ○ Determine any known interaction between products used to clean hands, skin care products, and the types of gloves used in the institution (II). 
 ○ Ensure that dispensers are accessible at point of care (IB). 
 ○ Provide alternative hand hygiene products for health care workers with confirmed allergies or adverse reactions to standard products (II). 
 ○ When alcohol-based hand rub is available in the health care facility, use of antimicrobial soap is not recommended (II). 
 ○ Soap and alcohol-based hand rub should not be used concomitantly (II). 
• Use of gloves: 
 ○ The use of gloves does not replace the need for hand hygiene (IB). 
 ○ Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, or nonintact skin will occur (IC). 
 ○ Remove gloves after caring for a patient. Do not wear the same pair of gloves for more than 1 patient (IB). 
 ○ Change or remove gloves during patient care if moving from a contaminated body site to either another body site (including nonintact skin, mucous membrane, or medical device) within the same patient or the environment (II). 
• Other aspects of hand hygiene: 
 ○ Do not wear artificial fingernails or extenders when having direct contact with the patient (IA). 
 ○ Keep natural nails short. 
• Hand hygiene promotion programs: 
 ○ In hand hygiene–promotion programs for health care workers, focus specifically on factors currently found to have a significant influence on behavior and not solely on the type of hand hygiene product. The strategy should be multifaceted and multimodal and include education and senior executive support for implementation (IA). 
 ○ Educate health care workers about the type of patient-care activities that can result in hand contamination and about the advantages and disadvantages of various methods used to clean their hands (II). 
 ○ Monitor health care workers’ adherence to recommended hand hygiene practices and provide them with performance feedback (IA). 
 ○ Encourage partnerships between patients, their families, and health care workers to promote hand hygiene in the health care setting (II). 
• Wash hands with soap and water when visibly dirty or soiled with blood or other body fluids (IB) or after using the toilet (II). 
• Use of an alcohol-based hand rub for all routine antisepsis is recommended for all clinical settings if the hands are not soiled (IA). If an alcohol-based hand rub is not obtainable, wash hands with soap and water (IB). Brushes are no longer recommended (even for surgical scrubs) (IB). 
• Perform hand hygiene: 
 ○ Before and after touching the patient (IB). 
 ○ Before handling an invasive device for patient care, regardless of whether gloves are worn (IB). 
 ○ After contact with body fluids or excretions, mucous membranes, nonintact skin, or wound dressings (IA). 
 ○ If moving from a contaminated body site to another body site during care of the same patient (IB). 
 ○ After contact with inanimate surfaces and objects (including medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the patient (IB). 
 ○ After removing sterile (II) or nonsterile gloves (IB). 
• Selection and handling of hand hygiene agents: 
 ○ Provide products with a low irritancy potential (IB). 
 ○ To maximize acceptance of hand hygiene products by health care workers, solicit input regarding the skin tolerance, feel, and fragrance of any products under consideration (IB). 
 ○ Determine any known interaction between products used to clean hands, skin care products, and the types of gloves used in the institution (II). 
 ○ Ensure that dispensers are accessible at point of care (IB). 
 ○ Provide alternative hand hygiene products for health care workers with confirmed allergies or adverse reactions to standard products (II). 
 ○ When alcohol-based hand rub is available in the health care facility, use of antimicrobial soap is not recommended (II). 
 ○ Soap and alcohol-based hand rub should not be used concomitantly (II). 
• Use of gloves: 
 ○ The use of gloves does not replace the need for hand hygiene (IB). 
 ○ Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes, or nonintact skin will occur (IC). 
 ○ Remove gloves after caring for a patient. Do not wear the same pair of gloves for more than 1 patient (IB). 
 ○ Change or remove gloves during patient care if moving from a contaminated body site to either another body site (including nonintact skin, mucous membrane, or medical device) within the same patient or the environment (II). 
• Other aspects of hand hygiene: 
 ○ Do not wear artificial fingernails or extenders when having direct contact with the patient (IA). 
 ○ Keep natural nails short. 
• Hand hygiene promotion programs: 
 ○ In hand hygiene–promotion programs for health care workers, focus specifically on factors currently found to have a significant influence on behavior and not solely on the type of hand hygiene product. The strategy should be multifaceted and multimodal and include education and senior executive support for implementation (IA). 
 ○ Educate health care workers about the type of patient-care activities that can result in hand contamination and about the advantages and disadvantages of various methods used to clean their hands (II). 
 ○ Monitor health care workers’ adherence to recommended hand hygiene practices and provide them with performance feedback (IA). 
 ○ Encourage partnerships between patients, their families, and health care workers to promote hand hygiene in the health care setting (II). 

Catheter-related bloodstream infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections in the NICU. Central line–related infections are in large part a result of poor technique at the time of placement and ongoing care of the catheter site. Attempts to reduce the incidence of central line–associated bloodstream infections primarily fall into 1 of 5 categories: (1) clinical practice guidelines for the insertion and maintenance of indwelling lines14; (2) prophylactic administration of antibiotic agents (including antibiotic lock therapy); (3) topical emollients to reduce skin penetrance of bacteria; (4) promotion of breastfeeding; and (5) gowning for visitors and attendants. The goal of all infection-control programs should be to reduce the rate of central line–associated bloodstream infections to zero.

Both chlorhexidine (2%) and povidone-iodine are recommended for skin antisepsis in infants 2 months or older15,16; however, chlorhexidine is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for infants younger than 2 months. In a randomized trial, use of a chlorhexidine-impregnated gauze dressing (0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate in a 70% alcohol solution) in infants of very low birth weight reduced central venous catheter colonization when compared with use of a 10% povidone-iodine scrub but did not reduce the incidence of central line–associated bloodstream infections.17 Notably, in the chlorhexidine group, contact dermatitis occurred in 15% of neonates weighing less than 1000 g. In a meta-analysis of studies comparing chlorhexidine gluconate solution with a povidone-iodine solution, the overall risk reduction (for central line–associated bloodstream infections) with chlorhexidine gluconate compared with a povidone-iodine solution was approximately 50%.18 

Extraluminal contamination of the intracutaneous tract is believed to be responsible for catheter-related infections that happen in the week after placement.19 Catheters are more mobile during the first week after insertion and can slide in and out of the insertion site, drawing organisms down into the catheter tract. Techniques to reduce the likelihood of extraluminal contamination include proper hand hygiene, aseptic catheter insertion (including use of a maximal sterile barrier for catheter insertion and care [IA]), use of a topical antiseptic (IA), and use of sterile dressing (IA). Although transparent dressings permit easier inspection of the catheter site, they have no proven benefit in reducing infection.20 Catheter sites must be monitored visually or by palpation on a daily basis (IB) and should be redressed and cleaned on a weekly basis (IA). In neonates, there are no data indicating that tunneled catheters have a lower risk of infection than nontunneled catheters.21 

After the first week of placement, intraluminal colonization after hub manipulation and contamination is responsible for most central line–associated bloodstream infections.19 Mahieu et al22 demonstrated that the frequency of catheter manipulations was directly related to the frequency of central line–associated bloodstream infections. Tubing used to administer blood products or lipid emulsions should be changed daily (IB). Tubing used to infuse dextrose and amino acids should be replaced every 4 to 7 days. It is important to remove all central venous catheters when they are no longer essential (1A). Many NICUs remove central catheters when the volume of enteral feedings reaches 80 to 100 mL/kg per day. Topical antibiotic agents or creams should not be used at the insertion site for catheters (1B).

Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections have been published.23 These guidelines make specific recommendations for umbilical catheters. Levels of evidence are indicated in parentheses (Table 4).

TABLE 4

Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-related Infections

1. Remove and do not replace umbilical artery catheters if any signs of central line–associated bloodstream infection, vascular insufficiency in the lower extremities, or thrombosis are present (Category II). 
2. Remove and do not replace umbilical venous catheters if any signs of central line–associated bloodstream infection or thrombosis are present (Category II). 
3. Cleanse the umbilical insertion site with an antiseptic before catheter insertion. Avoid tincture of iodine because of the potential effect on the neonatal thyroid. Other iodine-containing products (eg, povidone-iodine) can be used (Category IB). 
4. Do not use topical antibiotic ointment or creams on catheter insertion sites because of the potential to promote fungal infections and antimicrobial resistance (Category IA). 
5. Add low doses of heparin (0.25–1.0 U/mL) to the fluid infused through umbilical arterial catheter (Category IB). 
6. Remove umbilical catheters as soon as possible when no longer needed or when any sign of vascular insufficiency to the lower extremities is observed. Optimally, umbilical artery catheters should not be left in place for more than 5 d (Category II). 
7. Umbilical venous catheters should be removed as soon as possible when no longer needed but can be used up to 14 d if managed aseptically (Category II). 
8. An umbilical catheter may be replaced if it is malfunctioning and there is no other indication for catheter removal and the total duration of catheterization has not exceeded 5 d for an umbilical artery catheter or 14 d for an umbilical vein catheter (Category II). 
1. Remove and do not replace umbilical artery catheters if any signs of central line–associated bloodstream infection, vascular insufficiency in the lower extremities, or thrombosis are present (Category II). 
2. Remove and do not replace umbilical venous catheters if any signs of central line–associated bloodstream infection or thrombosis are present (Category II). 
3. Cleanse the umbilical insertion site with an antiseptic before catheter insertion. Avoid tincture of iodine because of the potential effect on the neonatal thyroid. Other iodine-containing products (eg, povidone-iodine) can be used (Category IB). 
4. Do not use topical antibiotic ointment or creams on catheter insertion sites because of the potential to promote fungal infections and antimicrobial resistance (Category IA). 
5. Add low doses of heparin (0.25–1.0 U/mL) to the fluid infused through umbilical arterial catheter (Category IB). 
6. Remove umbilical catheters as soon as possible when no longer needed or when any sign of vascular insufficiency to the lower extremities is observed. Optimally, umbilical artery catheters should not be left in place for more than 5 d (Category II). 
7. Umbilical venous catheters should be removed as soon as possible when no longer needed but can be used up to 14 d if managed aseptically (Category II). 
8. An umbilical catheter may be replaced if it is malfunctioning and there is no other indication for catheter removal and the total duration of catheterization has not exceeded 5 d for an umbilical artery catheter or 14 d for an umbilical vein catheter (Category II). 

Recently, there has been a focus on implementing “NICU care bundles” to reduce the incidence of hospital-acquired infections. Care bundles are groups of interventions (extrapolated from studies in adults or recommendations from professional organizations) that are likely to be effective. This multifaceted approach has reduced the incidence of health care–associated sepsis in each center or groups of centers where it has been implemented.24,27 

Coagulase-negative staphylococci are the most common cause of central line–associated bloodstream infections in the United States. Therefore, the use of low-dose vancomycin in parenteral alimentation solutions (at concentrations above the minimal inhibitory concentration) has been suggested as a way to decrease the incidence of bacteremia attributable to coagulase-negative staphylococci. Five randomized clinical trials of low-dose vancomycin in preterm neonates have been conducted, all of which date from the late 1990s. In 4 of the studies, there was a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of coagulase-negative staphylococcal sepsis (relative risk [RR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.24)28; however, there were no significant differences in mortality or length of stay. The use of antibiotic lock therapy has also been investigated. Lock solutions containing vancomycin are instilled into the catheter lumen to reduce intraluminal colonization. Most randomized clinical trials of antibiotic lock therapy have been completed in adults and older children.29 A meta-analysis of these trials demonstrated a significant reduction in bloodstream infections (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26–0.95). Use of vancomycin as a true lock solution (instilling it for a defined period rather than flushing it through the catheter) conferred greater benefit. The single study of antibiotic lock therapy in the neonatal population30 demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in central line–associated bloodstream infections (RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.01–0.57). No increase in vancomycin resistance occurred in this study; however, the study was not sufficiently powered to address that question. Because of the concern for development of vancomycin-resistant organisms and the lack of long-term efficacy data, neither continuous infusions of vancomycin nor antibiotic lock therapy can be recommended.

Invasive fungal infections are responsible for 9% to 12% of health care–associated infections in infants weighing less than 1500 g.31 In a prospective study from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development research network, 9% of infants weighing less than 1000 g developed candidiasis.32 Death or neurodevelopment impairment occurred in 73% of these infants. Prophylactic fluconazole has been suggested as a way to decrease the incidence of invasive fungal disease. The rationale is that prevention of fungal colonization in high-risk infants will lower the risk of invasive disease. A meta-analysis of 5 trials comparing systemic fluconazole with placebo, demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of invasive fungal infections (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31–0.73)33; however, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death before discharge from the hospital and insufficient data to assess neurodevelopmental outcomes. There is a concern that the use of azoles to prevent fungal infections will lead to an increase in fluconazole resistance or will result in toxicity, especially among the most immature infants for whom there are limited pharmacokinetic data.

In many NICUs, it is policy that care providers and visitors wear gowns on entering the nursery. Eight trials have evaluated the benefit of gowning.34 A meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant effect of a gowning policy on reducing the incidence of systemic nosocomial infection (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.90–1.71). For that reason, gowns should not be required for routine admission to the NICU by health care workers or visitors. Despite the lack of overall benefit, gowns and gloves should be worn when an infant is colonized with a resistant or invasive pathogen, consistent with appropriate isolation requirements. Additional personal protective equipment may be required on the basis of isolation requirements of the specific pathogen or clinical condition and the activity or procedure to be performed.

The CDC published guidelines for preventing health care–associated pneumonia in 2003.35 These guidelines were not specifically designed to address the unique issues facing the mechanically ventilated patient in the NICU; however, many of the recommendations are relevant to all patient populations.

General concepts discussed in the CDC document include the following:

  1. Staff Education and Involvement in Infection Prevention. All providers should receive appropriate information relating to the epidemiology of and infection control procedures for preventing health care–associated pneumonia. There should be procedures in place to ensure worker competency, including performance of appropriate infection-control activities. Staff should be involved with implementation of interventions to prevent health care–associated pneumonia using performance-improvement tools and techniques (IA).

  2. Infection and Microbiologic Surveillance. Surveillance for health care–associated pneumonia in patients in the NICU should be performed to determine trends and help identify outbreaks or other problems (IB). Routine surveillance cultures of patients or equipment should not be performed (II).

  3. Prevention of Transmission of Microorganisms. Within the NICU, risks for acquisition of microorganisms that could result in health care–associated pneumonia can be reduced by (1) proper sterilization or disinfection and maintenance of equipment and devices (IA), and (2) prevention of person-to-person transmission of bacteria by use of Standard Precautions as well as other isolation practices when appropriate (IA).

  4. Modifying Host Risk for Infection. Aspiration is a major risk for the development of health care–associated pneumonia. Devices such as endotracheal tubes, tracheostomy tubes, or enteral tubes should be removed from patients as soon as appropriate and clinically indicated (IB). In the absence of medical contraindication(s), the head of the bed should be elevated at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees for mechanically ventilated patients (II). A comprehensive oral-hygiene program should be followed for the infant (II).

Suctioning practices and position of the infant in the bed may influence tracheal colonization. The use of closed-suctioning systems allows endotracheal suctioning without disconnecting patients from the ventilator. Closed-suctioning methods reduce physiologic disruptions (hypoxia and decrease in heart rate), and NICU nurses judged them to be easier to use than an open system.36,37 Closed-suctioning systems provide an opportunity for bacterial contamination when pooled secretions in the lumen are reintroduced into the lower respiratory tract with repeat suctioning. On the other hand, closed-suctioning systems could potentially reduce environmental contamination of the endotracheal tube. In studies evaluating mechanically ventilated adults, airway colonization was more common when closed-suctioning systems were used,38,39 but ventilator-associated pneumonia rates were equal to or slightly less than the rates among patients managed with open systems.38,40 CDC recommenations35 do not endorse one system over the other, and there is no recommendation addressing the frequency at which closed-suctioning systems should be changed.

Tracheal colonization from oropharyngeal contamination is less common among neonates on mechanical ventilation when the neonates are placed in a lateral position on the bed as compared with the supine position (30% for lateral versus 87% for supine; P < .01).41 Keeping the endotracheal tube and the ventilator circuit in a horizontal position might reduce tracking of oropharyngeal sections down into the lower respiratory tract.42 The lateral position also is associated with reduced aspiration of gastric secretions into the trachea.41 Using a nonsupine position may reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia.43 

The skin of the preterm newborn infant has compromised barrier and immune function. In addition, the skin of the extremely preterm infant can be easily damaged and serve as a portal for the entry of organisms into the bloodstream. Topical emollients have been used to decrease transepidermal water losses and have been suggested as a method to decrease health care–associated infections. In a meta-analysis of 4 trials completed in industrialized countries, a significantly increased risk of coagulase-negative staphylococcal infection was found in infants treated with prophylactic topical ointment.44 In contrast, infants born at <33 weeks’ gestation in Bangladesh treated topically with sunflower oil were 41% less likely to develop health care–associated infections than were control infants.45 The lack of effectiveness of topical emollients in industrialized countries may be attributable to different mechanisms of transcutaneous sepsis. In industrialized countries, instrumentation is used more commonly, and sites of insertion can serve as a portal for bacterial invasion. In developing countries, environmental contamination and malnutrition play a greater role, and invasive devices are used less frequently. Therefore, bacterial invasion is likely attributable to microscopic sites of skin barrier compromise, which might be protected by the use of an emollient.

The use of human milk feedings has been associated with a lower risk of sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants.46 Human milk contains a large number of immunoprotective substances, prebiotics, and probiotics and has been shown to decrease the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in infancy.47 Although a number of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies have concluded that human milk feedings had a protective effect on infection in preterm infants, a meta-analysis of 9 studies (6 cohort and 3 randomized clinical trials from India) failed to show an advantage of human milk feedings.48 The authors believed there were serious methodologic flaws in all of the cohort studies, “including poor study design, inadequate sample sizes, neglecting to account for some confounders, failure to eliminate the effects associated with maternal choice of feeding method and other sociodemographic variables.” In addition, the definition of human milk feedings was not consistent among studies. It is important to note that necrotizing enterocolitis was excluded from this systematic review.

A number of other practices may provide opportunities to reduce colonization of the critically ill neonate with health care–associated pathogens or to modify the risk of developing disease if colonized. Specific practices that may provide benefit include (1) appropriate vaccination of health care workers (eg, influenza vaccine and tetanus toxoid, reduced diphtheria toxoid, and acellular pertussis, adsorbed); (2) cohorting in selected outbreak situations; and (3) visitation guidelines to identify ill/infected visitors.

The use and misuse of antibiotics can be associated with alteration in neonates’ microflora and the development of antibiotic resistance. This is a particular concern within the confines of a NICU, where there is a population of vulnerable children who have medical conditions that may require frequent and/or prolonged antibiotic use, long hospitalizations, crowded conditions, and frequent contact and interventions.

Antimicrobial resistance can be intrinsic (ie, present without exposure to antimicrobial agents) or acquired. An example of intrinsic resistance is the resistance of Gram-negative organisms to vancomycin. Acquired antimicrobial resistance is driven by antimicrobial exposure, as is seen in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and the extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms. These patterns of resistance represent adaptations of bacteria to antibiotic exposure.

Judicious use of antibiotic agents is commonly recommended as appropriate in the NICU, but it is not commonly practiced. The critically ill nature of patients in the NICU prompts frequent and prolonged use of antimicrobial agents. Judicious use of antibiotic agents in the NICU would include limiting use to only those situations in which a bacterial infection is likely, discontinuing empirical treatment when a bacterial infection has not been identified, changing the antibiotic agents administered to those with the narrowest spectrum on the basis of susceptibility testing, and treating for the appropriate duration. Although clinical situations will vary, these principles remain consistent. It is also relevant to consider the potential for different antibiotic agents to drive the development of resistance. ESBL-producing organisms (primarily Gram-negative enteric agents) are present in many NICUs because of the frequent use of third-generation cephalosporins and other broad-spectrum β-lactam antibiotic agents. Curtailing the use of third-generation cephalosporins and using other antibiotic agents, such as aminoglycosides for empirical therapy, has been associated with less antibiotic resistance, including ESBL-producing organisms. Good infection-control practices also play a significant role in reducing horizontal transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America have developed guidelines for “Antimicrobial Stewardship” to reduce antimicrobial resistance.49 These guidelines are designed to address programmatic changes that improve control of antibiotic resistance (see Table 1 for levels of evidence). Strategies that might be helpful in the NICU setting include the following: (1) auditing antimicrobial use of practitioners and providing feedback (IA); (2) formulary restriction and preauthorization requirements for selected antimicrobial agents (IB); (3) education of prescribers and nurses concerning the role of antimicrobial use and the development of resistance (IB); (4) development of clinical guidelines/pathways for selected conditions (IA); (5) antimicrobial order forms (IB); (6) specific plans for streamlining (broad- to narrow-spectrum antibiotic agents) or deescalating (elimination of redundant or unnecessary) antimicrobial agents (IB); (7) dose optimization on the basis of individual characteristics (eg, weight, renal status, drug-drug interactions) (IB); and (8) switching from parenteral to oral antibiotic agents when appropriate and feasible (IB). Data are not sufficient to recommend antimicrobial cycling or routine use of combination therapy merely to prevent the development of resistance; however, antimicrobial combinations may be valuable for preventing development of resistance in specific circumstances.

Health care–associated infections are an important medical morbidity facing an already vulnerable group of infants. The epidemiology and strategies that can reduce these infections are well known; however, implementation of strategies that can influence the occurrence of health care–associated infections within the NICU requires a concerted team effort by all individuals who participate in the care of these infants. Each care provider must understand his or her role in preventing health care–associated infections and have a willingness to modify behaviors such that they comply with recognized infection-control practices. All too frequently, the health of a tiny infant whose life is being saved through the use of the best in 21st-century technology is jeopardized by the smallest of acts—such as a care provider neglecting to wash his or her hands. Recognition of the importance of even the most basic care practices can result in behavior modification within the NICU and improve compliance with established infection-control practices.

Richard A. Polin, MD

Susan Denson, MD

Michael T. Brady, MD

Lu-Ann Papile, MD, Chairperson

Jill E. Baley, MD

Waldemar A. Carlo, MD

James J. Cummings, MD

Praveen Kumar, MD

Richard A. Polin, MD

Rosemarie C. Tan, MD, PhD

Kristi L. Watterberg, MD

CAPT Wanda D. Barfield, MD, MPH – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Ann L. Jefferies, MD – Canadian Pediatric Society

George A. Macones, MD – American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Rosalie O. Mainous, PhD, APRN, NNP-BC – National Association of Neonatal Nurses

Tonse N. K. Raju, MD, DCH – National Institutes of Health

Kasper S .Wang, MD – AAP Section on Surgery

Jim Couto, MA

Michael T. Brady, MD, Chairperson

Carrie L. Byington, MD

H. Dele Davies, MD

Kathryn M. Edwards, MD

Mary P. Glode, MD

Mary Anne Jackson, MD

Harry L. Keyserling, MD

Yvonne A. Maldonado, MD

Dennis L. Murray, MD

Walter A. Orenstein, MD

Gordon E. Schutze, MD

Rodney E. Willoughby, MD

Theoklis E. Zaoutis, MD

Marc A. Fischer, MD – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Bruce Gellin, MD – National Vaccine Program Office

Richard L. Gorman, MD – National Institutes of Health

Lucia Lee, MD – Food and Drug Administration

R. Douglas Pratt, MD – Food and Drug Administration

Jennifer S. Read, MD – National Vaccine Program Office

Joan Robinson, MD – Canadian Pediatric Society

Marco Aurelio Palazzi Safadi, MD – Sociedad Latinoamericana de Infectologia Pediatrica (SLIPE)

Jane Seward, MBBS, MPH – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Jeffrey R. Starke, MD – American Thoracic Society

Geoffrey Simon, MD – Committee on Practice Ambulatory Medicine

Tina Q. Tan, MD – Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society

Carol J. Baker, MD – Red Book Associate Editor

Henry H. Bernstein, DO – Red Book Associate Editor

David W. Kimberlin, MD – Red Book Associate Editor

Sarah S. Long, MD – Red Book Online Associate Editor

H. Cody Meissner, MD – Visual Red Book Associate Editor

Larry K. Pickering, MD – Red Book Editor

Lorry G. Rubin, MD

Jennifer Frantz, MPH

     
  • CDC

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • ESBL

    extended-spectrum β-lactamase

  •  
  • RR

    relative risk

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

The guidance in this report does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

1
Bizzarro
MJ
,
Sabo
B
,
Noonan
M
,
Bonfiglio
MP
,
Northrup
V
,
Diefenbach
K
Central Venous Catheter Initiative Committee
.
A quality improvement initiative to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in a neonatal intensive care unit
.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2010
;
31
(
3
):
241
248
[PubMed]
2
Cimiotti
JP
,
Haas
J
,
Saiman
L
,
Larson
EL
.
Impact of staffing on bloodstream infections in the neonatal intensive care unit
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2006
;
160
(
8
):
832
836
[PubMed]
3
Garland
JS
,
Uhing
MR
.
Strategies to prevent bacterial and fungal infection in the neonatal intensive care unit
.
Clin Perinatol
.
2009
;
36
(
1
):
1
13
[PubMed]
4
Garland
JS
.
Strategies to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in neonates
.
Clin Perinatol
.
2010
;
37
(
3
):
629
643
[PubMed]
5
Payne
NR
,
Finkelstein
MJ
,
Liu
M
,
Kaempf
JW
,
Sharek
PJ
,
Olsen
S
.
NICU practices and outcomes associated with 9 years of quality improvement collaboratives
.
Pediatrics
.
2010
;
125
(
3
):
437
446
[PubMed]
6
Larson
E
.
Skin hygiene and infection prevention: more of the same or different approaches?
Clin Infect Dis
.
1999
;
29
(
5
):
1287
1294
[PubMed]
7
Harbarth
S
,
Pittet
D
,
Grady
L
, et al
.
Interventional study to evaluate the impact of an alcohol-based hand gel in improving hand hygiene compliance
.
Pediatr Infect Dis J
.
2002
;
21
(
6
):
489
495
[PubMed]
8
Aboelela
SW
,
Stone
PW
,
Larson
EL
.
Effectiveness of bundled behavioural interventions to control healthcare-associated infections: a systematic review of the literature
.
J Hosp Infect
.
2007
;
66
(
2
):
101
108
[PubMed]
9
Boyce
JM
,
Pittet
D
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America
.
Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force
.
MMWR Recomm Rep
.
2002
;
51
(
RR-16
):
1
45, quiz CE1–CE4
[PubMed]
10
Larson
EL
,
Quiros
D
,
Lin
SX
.
Dissemination of the CDC’s Hand Hygiene Guideline and impact on infection rates
.
Am J Infect Control
.
2007
;
35
(
10
):
666
675
[PubMed]
11
American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Guidelines for Perinatal Care. Infection control. In: Lockwood CJ, Lemons JA, eds. 6th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2007:349–370
12
Larson
EL
,
Cimiotti
J
,
Haas
J
, et al
.
Effect of antiseptic handwashing vs alcohol sanitizer on health care-associated infections in neonatal intensive care units
.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
.
2005
;
159
(
4
):
377
383
[PubMed]
13
Pittet
D
,
Allegranzi
B
,
Boyce
J
World Health Organization World Alliance for Patient Safety First Global Patient Safety Challenge Core Group of Experts
.
The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care and their consensus recommendations
.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2009
;
30
(
7
):
611
622
[PubMed]
14
O’Grady
NP
,
Alexander
M
,
Dellinger
EP
, et al
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
.
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections
.
Am J Infect Control
.
2002
;
30
(
8
suppl 1
):
476
489
[PubMed]
15
Garland
JS
,
Alex
CP
,
Uhing
MR
,
Peterside
IE
,
Rentz
A
,
Harris
MC
.
Pilot trial to compare tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate to povidone-iodine antisepsis for central venous catheter placement in neonates
.
J Perinatol
.
2009
;
29
(
12
):
808
813
[PubMed]
16
Datta
MK
,
Clarke
P
.
Current practices of skin antisepsis for central venous catheter insertion in UK tertiary-level neonatal units
.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
.
2008
;
93
(
4
):
F328
17
Garland
JS
,
Alex
CP
,
Mueller
CD
, et al
.
A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates
.
Pediatrics
.
2001
;
107
(
6
):
1431
1436
[PubMed]
18
Chaiyakunapruk
N
,
Veenstra
DL
,
Lipsky
BA
,
Saint
S
.
Chlorhexidine compared with povidone-iodine solution for vascular catheter-site care: a meta-analysis
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2002
;
136
(
11
):
792
801
[PubMed]
19
Garland
JS
,
Alex
CP
,
Sevallius
JM
, et al
.
Cohort study of the pathogenesis and molecular epidemiology of catheter-related bloodstream infection in neonates with peripherally inserted central venous catheters
.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
.
2008
;
29
(
3
):
243
249
[PubMed]
20
Hoffmann
KK
,
Weber
DJ
,
Samsa
GP
,
Rutala
WA
.
Transparent polyurethane film as an intravenous catheter dressing. A meta-analysis of the infection risks
.
JAMA
.
1992
;
267
(
15
):
2072
2076
[PubMed]
21
Chien
LY
,
Macnab
Y
,
Aziz
K
,
Andrews
W
,
McMillan
DD
,
Lee
SK
Canadian Neonatal Network
.
Variations in central venous catheter-related infection risks among Canadian neonatal intensive care units
.
Pediatr Infect Dis J
.
2002
;
21
(
6
):
505
511
[PubMed]
22
Mahieu
LM
,
De Muynck
AO
,
Ieven
MM
,
De Dooy
JJ
,
Goossens
HJ
,
Van Reempts
PJ
.
Risk factors for central vascular catheter-associated bloodstream infections among patients in a neonatal intensive care unit
.
J Hosp Infect
.
2001
;
48
(
2
):
108
116
[PubMed]
23
O’Grady
NP
,
Alexander
M
,
Burns
LA
, et al
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)
.
Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections
.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2011
;
52
(
9
):
e162
e193
[PubMed]
24
Kilbride
HW
,
Wirtschafter
DD
,
Powers
RJ
,
Sheehan
MB
.
Implementation of evidence-based potentially better practices to decrease nosocomial infections
.
Pediatrics
.
2003
;
111
(
4 pt 2
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/supplement_E1/e519
[PubMed]
25
Bloom
BT
,
Craddock
A
,
Delmore
PM
, et al
.
Reducing acquired infections in the NICU: observing and implementing meaningful differences in process between high and low acquired infection rate centers
.
J Perinatol
.
2003
;
23
(
6
):
489
492
[PubMed]
26
Andersen
C
,
Hart
J
,
Vemgal
P
,
Harrison
C
.
Prospective evaluation of a multi-factorial prevention strategy on the impact of nosocomial infection in very-low-birth weight infants
.
J Hosp Infect
.
2005
;
61
(
2
):
162
167
[PubMed]
27
Aly
H
,
Herson
V
,
Duncan
A
, et al
.
Is bloodstream infection preventable among premature infants? A tale of two cities
.
Pediatrics
.
2005
;
115
(
6
):
1513
1518
[PubMed]
28
Craft
AP
,
Finer
NN
,
Barrington
KJ
.
Vancomycin for prophylaxis against sepsis in preterm neonates
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2000
;(
2
):
CD001971
[PubMed]
29
Safdar
N
,
Maki
DG
.
Use of vancomycin-containing lock or flush solutions for prevention of bloodstream infection associated with central venous access devices: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized trials
.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2006
;
43
(
4
):
474
484
[PubMed]
30
Garland
JS
,
Alex
CP
,
Henrickson
KJ
,
McAuliffe
TL
,
Maki
DG
.
A vancomycin-heparin lock solution for prevention of nosocomial bloodstream infection in critically ill neonates with peripherally inserted central venous catheters: a prospective, randomized trial
.
Pediatrics
.
2005
;
116
(
2
). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/116/2/e198
[PubMed]
31
Stoll
BJ
,
Hansen
N
,
Fanaroff
AA
, et al
.
Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network
.
Pediatrics
.
2002
;
110
(
2 pt 1
):
285
291
[PubMed]
32
Benjamin DK Jr, Stoll BJ, Gantz MG, et al. Neonatal candidiasis: epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical judgment. Pediatrics. 2010;126(4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/126/4/e865
33
Clerihew
L
,
Austin
N
,
McGuire
W
.
Prophylactic systemic antifungal agents to prevent mortality and morbidity in very low birth weight infants
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2007
;(
4
):
CD003850
[PubMed]
34
Webster
J
,
Pritchard
MA
.
Gowning by attendants and visitors in newborn nurseries for prevention of neonatal morbidity and mortality
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2003
;(
3
):
CD003670
[PubMed]
35
Tablan
OC
,
Anderson
LJ
,
Besser
R
,
Bridges
C
,
Hajjeh
R
CDC
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
.
Guidelines for preventing health-care—associated pneumonia, 2003: recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
.
MMWR Recomm Rep
.
2004
;
53
(
RR-3
):
1
36
[PubMed]
36
Cordero
L
,
Sananes
M
,
Ayers
LW
.
Comparison of a closed (Trach Care MAC) with an open endotracheal suction system in small premature infants
.
J Perinatol
.
2000
;
20
(
3
):
151
156
[PubMed]
37
Woodgate
PG
,
Flenady
V
.
Tracheal suctioning without disconnection in intubated ventilated neonates
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2001
;(
2
):
CD003065
[PubMed]
38
Deppe
SA
,
Kelly
JW
,
Thoi
LL
, et al
.
Incidence of colonization, nosocomial pneumonia, and mortality in critically ill patients using a Trach Care closed-suction system versus an open-suction system: prospective, randomized study
.
Crit Care Med
.
1990
;
18
(
12
):
1389
1393
[PubMed]
39
Johnson
KL
,
Kearney
PA
,
Johnson
SB
,
Niblett
JB
,
MacMillan
NL
,
McClain
RE
.
Closed versus open endotracheal suctioning: costs and physiologic consequences
.
Crit Care Med
.
1994
;
22
(
4
):
658
666
[PubMed]
40
Combes
P
,
Fauvage
B
,
Oleyer
C
.
Nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a prospective randomised evaluation of the Stericath closed suctioning system
.
Intensive Care Med
.
2000
;
26
(
7
):
878
882
[PubMed]
41
Torres
A
,
Serra-Batlles
J
,
Ros
E
, et al
.
Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: the effect of body position
.
Ann Intern Med
.
1992
;
116
(
7
):
540
543
[PubMed]
42
Aly
H
,
Badawy
M
,
El-Kholy
A
,
Nabil
R
,
Mohamed
A
.
Randomized, controlled trial on tracheal colonization of ventilated infants: can gravity prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia?
Pediatrics
.
2008
;
122
(
4
):
770
774
[PubMed]
43
Drakulovic
MB
,
Torres
A
,
Bauer
TT
,
Nicolas
JM
,
Nogué
S
,
Ferrer
M
.
Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised trial
.
Lancet
.
1999
;
354
(
9193
):
1851
1858
[PubMed]
44
Soll
RF
,
Edwards
WH
.
Emollient ointment for preventing infection in preterm infants
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2000
;(
2
):
CD001150
[PubMed]
45
Darmstadt
GL
,
Saha
SK
,
Ahmed
AS
, et al
.
Effect of topical treatment with skin barrier-enhancing emollients on nosocomial infections in preterm infants in Bangladesh: a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2005
;
365
(
9464
):
1039
1045
[PubMed]
46
Schanler
RJ
.
Evaluation of the evidence to support current recommendations to meet the needs of premature infants: the role of human milk
.
Am J Clin Nutr
.
2007
;
85
(
2
):
625S
628S
[PubMed]
47
Goldman
AS
.
The immune system in human milk and the developing infant
.
Breastfeed Med
.
2007
;
2
(
4
):
195
204
[PubMed]
48
de Silva
A
,
Jones
PW
,
Spencer
SA
.
Does human milk reduce infection rates in preterm infants? A systematic review
.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed
.
2004
;
89
(
6
):
F509
F513
49
Dellit
TH
,
Owens
RC
,
McGowan
JE
 Jr
, et al
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
.
Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship
.
Clin Infect Dis
.
2007
;
44
(
2
):
159
177
[PubMed]