The Role of Negative Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Surveillance Swabs in Predicting the Need for Empiric Vancomycin Therapy in Intensive Care Unit Patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darunee Chotiprasitsakul ◽  
Pranita D. Tamma ◽  
Avinash Gadala ◽  
Sara E. Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Nasal Swab ◽  
Vancomycin Therapy ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
Mrsa Infection

OBJECTIVESThe role of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal surveillance swabs (nasal swabs) in guiding decisions about prescribing vancomycin is unclear. We aimed to determine the likelihood that patients with negative MRSA nasal swabs develop subsequent MRSA infections; to assess avoidable vancomycin days for patients with negative nasal swabs; and to identify risk factors for having a negative nasal swab and developing a MRSA infection during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay.METHODSThis retrospective cohort study was conducted in 6 ICUs at a tertiary-care hospital from December 2013 through June 2015. The negative predictive value (NPV), defined as the ability of a negative nasal swab to predict no subsequent MRSA infection, was calculated. Days of vancomycin continued or restarted after 3 days from the collection time of the first negative nasal swab were determined. A matched case-control study identified risk factors for having a negative nasal swab and developing MRSA infection.RESULTSOf 11,441 patients with MRSA-negative nasal swabs, the rate of subsequent MRSA infection was 0.22%. A negative nasal swab had a NPV of 99.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 99.1%–99.6%). Vancomycin was continued or started after nasal swab results were available in 1,431 patients, translating to 7,364 vancomycin days. No risk factors associated with MRSA infection were identified.CONCLUSIONSIn our hospital with a low prevalence of MRSA transmission, a negative MRSA nasal swab was helpful in identifying patients with low risk of MRSA infection in whom empiric vancomycin therapy could be stopped and in whom the subsequent initiation of vancomycin therapy during an ICU admission could be avoided.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:290–296

scholarly journals The Role of Negative Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Surveillance Swabs in Predicting the Need for Empiric Vancomycin Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S29-S29
Author(s):  
Darunee Chotiprasitsakul ◽  
Pranita D Tamma ◽  
Avinash Gadala ◽  
Sara E Cosgrove
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Nasal Swab ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Vancomycin Therapy ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Matched Case

Abstract Background The role of MRSA nasal surveillance swabs in guiding decisions about need for subsequent vancomycin therapy is unclear. Our objectives were to (1) determine the likelihood that patients with negative MRSA nasal swabs went on to develop MRSA infections during the same hospitalizations to assess if vancomycin therapy could be avoided once the nasal swab result returns negative, (2) assess days of vancomycin that potentially could be avoided, and (3) identify risk factors for having a negative MRSA nasal swab and developing an MRSA infection during the hospital stay. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted at six intensive care units (ICUs) at a tertiary care hospital in Baltimore from December 2013 to June 2015. MRSA nasal swabs are obtained at the time of admission and weekly thereafter for all ICU patients. The negative predictive value (NPV), defined as the ability of a negative MRSA nasal screening test to correctly predict no subsequent MRSA infection during the hospital stay, was calculated, accounting for the 3-day turnaround time of MRSA nasal surveillance swabs. Days of vancomycin therapy started or continued after 3 days from the first negative MRSA nasal swab were determined by chart review. A matched case–control study was performed to identify risk factors for patients with negative MRSA surveillance cultures who subsequently developed MRSA infections. Results Of 11,441 MRSA-nasal swab negative patients, the proportion of subsequent incident MRSA infections was 0.2%. Negative MRSA surveillance swabs had an NPV of 99.4% (95% CI 99.1–99.6%). Among 4,091 MRSA-negative patients receiving vancomycin, vancomycin was started or continued after 3 days since the first MRSA-negative nasal swab in 1,434 patients (35%), translating to 7,377 potentially avoidable vancomycin days. The matched case–control analysis did not identify risk factors associated with subsequent MRSA infection. Conclusion At our institution with robust infection control practices and low nosocomial MRSA transmission rates, patients with negative MRSA nasal swabs have a very low likelihood of subsequent MRSA infection during hospitalizations. MRSA nasal swabs can provide useful information when determining whether to initiate or stop empiric vancomycin. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Reduction in Inddence of Nosocomial Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Infection in an Intensive Care Unit: Role of Treatment With Mupirocin Ointment and Chlorhexidine Baths for Nasal Carriers of MRSA

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Maria Sandri ◽  
Micheline Gisele Dalarosa ◽  
Luciana Ruschel de Alcântara ◽  
Laura da Silva Elias ◽  
Alexandre Prehn Zavascki
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Nasal Carrier ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Mupirocin Ointment

After the introduction of routine treatment for every nasal carrier of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, active follow-up surveillance for nosocomial methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection was conducted for 5 years in an intensive care unit of a tertiary-care teaching hospital. There was a significant decrease in the incidence of nosocomial methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection during the later years of follow-up. Decolonization of nasal carriers of methicillin-resistant S. aureus is probably associated with such findings.

scholarly journals Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization Using Sponges

2015 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang-Seop Lee ◽  
Bianca Montalmont ◽  
Jessica A. O’Hara ◽  
Alveena Syed ◽  
Charma Chaussard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Nasal Swab ◽  
Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Chain Reaction ◽  
Methicillin Resistant ◽  
Nasal Swabs ◽  
Positive Specimen ◽  
Mrsa Infection ◽  
Polymerase Chain

OBJECTIVENasal swab culture is the standard method for identifying methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. However, this method is known to miss a substantial portion of those carrying MRSA elsewhere. We hypothesized that the additional use of a sponge to collect skin culture samples would significantly improve the sensitivity of MRSA detection.DESIGNHospitalized patients with recent MRSA infection were enrolled and underwent MRSA screening of the forehead, nostrils, pharynx, axilla, and groin with separate swabs and the forehead, axilla, and groin with separate sponges. Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing was conducted by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).PATIENTSA total of 105 MRSA patients were included in the study.RESULTSAt least 1 specimen from 56.2% of the patients grew MRSA. Among patients with at least 1 positive specimen, the detection sensitivities were 79.7% for the swabs and 64.4% for the sponges. Notably, 86.4% were detected by a combination of sponges and nasal swab, and 72.9% were detected by a combination of pharyngeal and nasal swabs, whereas only 50.9% were detected by nasal swab alone (P<0.0001 and P=0.0003, respectively). Most isolates had SCCmec type II (59.9%) and IV (35.7%). No correlation was observed between the SCCmec types and collection sites.CONCLUSIONScreening using a sponge significantly improves MRSA detection when used in addition to screening with the standard nasal swab.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;36(1): 28–33

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document