Cargando…

Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance

The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 da...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Fenfang, Ayers, Tracy L., Park, Sarah Y., Miller, F. DeWolfe, MacFadden, Ralph, Nakata, Michele, Lee, Myra Ching, Effler, Paul V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318695
http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162
_version_ 1782234766908588032
author Li, Fenfang
Ayers, Tracy L.
Park, Sarah Y.
Miller, F. DeWolfe
MacFadden, Ralph
Nakata, Michele
Lee, Myra Ching
Effler, Paul V.
author_facet Li, Fenfang
Ayers, Tracy L.
Park, Sarah Y.
Miller, F. DeWolfe
MacFadden, Ralph
Nakata, Michele
Lee, Myra Ching
Effler, Paul V.
author_sort Li, Fenfang
collection PubMed
description The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 days and to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and Cerner algorithms at 3-, 10-, 30-, 90-, and 365-day analysis periods. Overall, no removal produced the lowest estimates of susceptibility. Estimates with either NCCLS or Cerner differed by <2% when the analysis period was the same; with either method, the difference observed between a 90- and a 365-day period was <1%. The effect of duplicate isolate removal was greater for inpatient than outpatient settings. Considering the ease of implementation and comparability of results, we recommend using the first isolate of a given species per patient to calculate susceptibility frequencies for S. aureus to oxacillin.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3366743
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33667432012-06-07 Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance Li, Fenfang Ayers, Tracy L. Park, Sarah Y. Miller, F. DeWolfe MacFadden, Ralph Nakata, Michele Lee, Myra Ching Effler, Paul V. Emerg Infect Dis Research The effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on Staphylococcal aureus susceptibility to oxacillin was compared by using antimicrobial test results for 14,595 isolates from statewide surveillance in Hawaii in 2002. No removal was compared to most resistant and most susceptible methods at 365 days and to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS) and Cerner algorithms at 3-, 10-, 30-, 90-, and 365-day analysis periods. Overall, no removal produced the lowest estimates of susceptibility. Estimates with either NCCLS or Cerner differed by <2% when the analysis period was the same; with either method, the difference observed between a 90- and a 365-day period was <1%. The effect of duplicate isolate removal was greater for inpatient than outpatient settings. Considering the ease of implementation and comparability of results, we recommend using the first isolate of a given species per patient to calculate susceptibility frequencies for S. aureus to oxacillin. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2005-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3366743/ /pubmed/16318695 http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is a publication of the U.S. Government. This publication is in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from this work may be reprinted freely. Use of these materials should be properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Fenfang
Ayers, Tracy L.
Park, Sarah Y.
Miller, F. DeWolfe
MacFadden, Ralph
Nakata, Michele
Lee, Myra Ching
Effler, Paul V.
Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title_full Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title_fullStr Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title_full_unstemmed Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title_short Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Surveillance
title_sort isolate removal methods and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus surveillance
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3366743/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16318695
http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1110.050162
work_keys_str_mv AT lifenfang isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT ayerstracyl isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT parksarahy isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT millerfdewolfe isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT macfaddenralph isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT nakatamichele isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT leemyraching isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance
AT efflerpaulv isolateremovalmethodsandmethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureussurveillance