Blog
About

14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      The Prevalence of Resistant Bacterial Colonization in Chronic Hemodialysis Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Backgound: Hospitalized dialysis patients are at increased risk for colonization and infection with resistant bacterial strains. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) colonization in 198 hemodialysis outpatients, 75 of whom had longitudinal screening data from prior hospitalization. Nasal specimens for MRSA, perirectal specimens for VRE, and permanent catheter exit site specimens were collected. Results: MRSA colonization was present in 5.6% and VRE colonization in 3.14%. Univariate analyses revealed that prior exposure (defined as infection/colonization) with MRSA, hospitalization, and low serum albumin were associated with MRSA colonization. VRE colonization was associated with hospitalization, prior VRE or MRSA exposure, low serum albumin, and low ferritin. Multivariate analyses revealed MRSA colonization was predicted by prior MRSA exposure and VRE colonization was predicted by prior VRE exposure and number of hospitalizations. Among the 75 participants with longitudinal screening data, MRSA colonization was associated with prior MRSA history, and VRE colonization was associated with prior MRSA or VRE. Conclusions: Generally low rates of MRSA and VRE colonization were observed in hemodialysis outpatients. Prior hospital screening was predictive of future outpatient colonization and may be useful in risk assessment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus.

          Infection control programs were created three decades ago to control antibiotic-resistant healthcare-associated infections, but there has been little evidence of control in most facilities. After long, steady increases of MRSA and VRE infections in NNIS System hospitals, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors made reducing antibiotic-resistant infections a strategic SHEA goal in January 2000. After 2 more years without improvement, a SHEA task force was appointed to draft this evidence-based guideline on preventing nosocomial transmission of such pathogens, focusing on the two considered most out of control: MRSA and VRE. Medline searches were conducted spanning 1966 to 2002. Pertinent abstracts of unpublished studies providing sufficient data were included. Frequent antibiotic therapy in healthcare settings provides a selective advantage for resistant flora, but patients with MRSA or VRE usually acquire it via spread. The CDC has long-recommended contact precautions for patients colonized or infected with such pathogens. Most facilities have required this as policy, but have not actively identified colonized patients with surveillance cultures, leaving most colonized patients undetected and unisolated. Many studies have shown control of endemic and/or epidemic MRSA and VRE infections using surveillance cultures and contact precautions, demonstrating consistency of evidence, high strength of association, reversibility, a dose gradient, and specificity for control with this approach. Adjunctive control measures are also discussed. Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA and VRE infections and make control possible using the CDC's long-recommended contact precautions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in the stool of colonized patients.

            Colonization and infection with vancomycin-resistant enterococci have been associated with exposure to antibiotics that are active against anaerobes. In mice that have intestinal colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, these agents promote high-density colonization, whereas antibiotics with minimal antianaerobic activity do not. We conducted a seven-month prospective study of 51 patients who were colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci, as evidenced by the presence of the bacteria in stool. We examined the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool during and after therapy with antibiotic regimens and compared the effect on this density of antianaerobic agents and agents with minimal antianaerobic activity. In a subgroup of 10 patients, cultures of environmental specimens (e.g., from bedding and clothing) were obtained. During treatment with 40 of 42 antianaerobic-antibiotic regimens (95 percent), high-density colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci was maintained (mean [+/-SD] number of organisms, 7.8+/-1.5 log per gram of stool). The density of colonization decreased after these regimens were discontinued. Among patients who had not received antianaerobic antibiotics for at least one week, 10 of 13 patients who began such regimens had an increase in the number of organisms of more than 1.0 log per gram (mean increase, 2.2 log per gram), whereas among 10 patients who began regimens of antibiotics with minimal antianaerobic activity, there was a mean decrease in the number of enterococci of 0.6 log per gram (P=0.006 for the difference between groups). When the density of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool was at least 4 log per gram, 10 of 12 sets of cultures of environmental specimens had at least one positive sample, as compared with 1 of 9 sets from patients with a mean number of organisms in stool of less than 4 log per gram (P=0.002). For patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci in stool, treatment with antianaerobic antibiotics promotes high-density colonization. Limiting the use of such agents in these patients may help decrease the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares colonization at hospital admission and its effect on subsequent MRSA infection.

              Asymptomatic colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been described as a risk factor for subsequent MRSA infection. MRSA is an important nosocomial pathogen but has currently been reported in patients without typical risk factors for nosocomial acquisition. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of asymptomatic nares MRSA colonization on the development of subsequent MRSA infection. The incidence of MRSA infection was examined in patients with and patients without MRSA or methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) colonization at admission to the hospital and in those who developed colonization during hospitalization. Patients admitted to 5 representative hospital units were prospectively evaluated. Nares samples were obtained for culture at admission and during hospitalization. Laboratory culture results were monitored to identify all MRSA infections that occurred during the study period and 1 year thereafter. Of the 758 patients who had cultures of nares samples performed at admission, 3.4% were colonized with MRSA, and 21% were colonized with MSSA. A total of 19% of patients with MRSA colonization at admission and 25% who acquired MRSA colonization during hospitalization developed infection with MRSA, compared with 1.5% and 2.0% of patients colonized with MSSA (P<.01) and uncolonized (P<.01), respectively, at admission. MRSA colonization at admission increased the risk of subsequent MRSA infection, compared with MSSA colonization (relative risk [RR], 13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7-64) or no staphylococcal colonization (RR, 9.5; 95% CI, 3.6-25) at admission. Acquisition of MRSA colonization also increased the risk for subsequent MRSA infection, compared with no acquisition (RR, 12; 95% CI, 4.0-38). MRSA colonization of nares, either present at admission to the hospital or acquired during hospitalization, increases the risk for MRSA infection. Identifying MRSA colonization at admission could target a high-risk population that may benefit from interventions to decrease the risk for subsequent MRSA infection.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2007
                July 2007
                31 May 2007
                : 27
                : 4
                : 352-359
                Affiliations
                Sections on aNephrology and bInfectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, and cDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., USA
                Article
                103383 Am J Nephrol 2007;27:352–359
                10.1159/000103383
                17541264
                © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 5, References: 19, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Original Report: Patient-Oriented, Translational Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article