Cargando…

Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae

BACKGROUND: Stool samples are the gold standard for detecting gastrointestinal colonization with multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E), but they cannot be rapidly collected. Perianal swabs can be efficiently collected and are considered safe in neutropenic patients, but there are sparse dat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Satlin, Michael, Hovan, Michael, Westblade, Lars, Calfee, David P, Walsh, Thomas J, Kreiswirth, Barry N, Jenkins, Stephen G
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631564/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1589
_version_ 1783269503195414528
author Satlin, Michael
Hovan, Michael
Westblade, Lars
Calfee, David P
Walsh, Thomas J
Kreiswirth, Barry N
Jenkins, Stephen G
author_facet Satlin, Michael
Hovan, Michael
Westblade, Lars
Calfee, David P
Walsh, Thomas J
Kreiswirth, Barry N
Jenkins, Stephen G
author_sort Satlin, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Stool samples are the gold standard for detecting gastrointestinal colonization with multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E), but they cannot be rapidly collected. Perianal swabs can be efficiently collected and are considered safe in neutropenic patients, but there are sparse data comparing their performance characteristics to those of stool samples for detecting colonization with MDR-E. METHODS: Stool and perianal swab samples (ESwab™) were collected as part of a prospective study of patients with acute leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. We analyzed perianal swab and stool samples that were collected from subjects simultaneously, defined as within one day of each other. One-hundred microliters of vortexed Amies liquid from the swab and 1 μL of stool were directly plated onto chromogenic ESBL agar and MacConkey agar with 1 μg/mL ciprofloxacin (Mac-Cipro), and these plates were incubated for 48 and 24 hours, respectively. Colonies isolated on these plates were identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. We then compared the yield of stool and swab samples for detection of ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R-E) and fluoroquinolone-resistant (FQ-R-E) Enterobacteriaceae. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had 122 perianal swab and stool samples collected simultaneously and had these samples plated onto ESBL agar. Twenty-one of these paired samples yielded CRO-R-E from either sample, including 17 cases where CRO-R-E were detected from the perianal swab (81% sensitivity) and 18 cases where CRO-R-E were detected from stool (86% sensitivity). The most common CRO-R-E were Escherichia coli (n = 13), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 5), and Citrobacter freundii (n = 3). Sixty paired perianal swab and stool samples were also plated onto Mac-Cipro agar and 21 yielded FQ-R-E in either sample. The perianal swab sample was positive in all 21 cases (100% sensitivity) and the stool samples were positive in 20 of these cases (95% sensitivity). All FQ-R-E were E. coli (n = 18) or K. pneumoniae (n = 5). CONCLUSION: Perianal swabs have comparable performance characteristics to stool samples for detection of CRO-R-E and FQ-R-E, and thus may be employed to rapidly and safely detect gastrointestinal colonization with MDR-E on an inpatient unit. DISCLOSURES: M. Satlin, Hardy Diagnostics: Investigator, Research support; 
 T. J. Walsh, The Medicines Company: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Astellas: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Allergan: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Merck: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; S. G. Jenkins, Cormedix: Consultant, Consulting fee; Bayer: Consultant, Consulting fee; Merck: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Research grant
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5631564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56315642017-11-07 Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Satlin, Michael Hovan, Michael Westblade, Lars Calfee, David P Walsh, Thomas J Kreiswirth, Barry N Jenkins, Stephen G Open Forum Infect Dis Abstracts BACKGROUND: Stool samples are the gold standard for detecting gastrointestinal colonization with multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MDR-E), but they cannot be rapidly collected. Perianal swabs can be efficiently collected and are considered safe in neutropenic patients, but there are sparse data comparing their performance characteristics to those of stool samples for detecting colonization with MDR-E. METHODS: Stool and perianal swab samples (ESwab™) were collected as part of a prospective study of patients with acute leukemia and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. We analyzed perianal swab and stool samples that were collected from subjects simultaneously, defined as within one day of each other. One-hundred microliters of vortexed Amies liquid from the swab and 1 μL of stool were directly plated onto chromogenic ESBL agar and MacConkey agar with 1 μg/mL ciprofloxacin (Mac-Cipro), and these plates were incubated for 48 and 24 hours, respectively. Colonies isolated on these plates were identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry and underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. We then compared the yield of stool and swab samples for detection of ceftriaxone-resistant (CRO-R-E) and fluoroquinolone-resistant (FQ-R-E) Enterobacteriaceae. RESULTS: A total of 108 patients had 122 perianal swab and stool samples collected simultaneously and had these samples plated onto ESBL agar. Twenty-one of these paired samples yielded CRO-R-E from either sample, including 17 cases where CRO-R-E were detected from the perianal swab (81% sensitivity) and 18 cases where CRO-R-E were detected from stool (86% sensitivity). The most common CRO-R-E were Escherichia coli (n = 13), Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 5), and Citrobacter freundii (n = 3). Sixty paired perianal swab and stool samples were also plated onto Mac-Cipro agar and 21 yielded FQ-R-E in either sample. The perianal swab sample was positive in all 21 cases (100% sensitivity) and the stool samples were positive in 20 of these cases (95% sensitivity). All FQ-R-E were E. coli (n = 18) or K. pneumoniae (n = 5). CONCLUSION: Perianal swabs have comparable performance characteristics to stool samples for detection of CRO-R-E and FQ-R-E, and thus may be employed to rapidly and safely detect gastrointestinal colonization with MDR-E on an inpatient unit. DISCLOSURES: M. Satlin, Hardy Diagnostics: Investigator, Research support; 
 T. J. Walsh, The Medicines Company: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Astellas: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Allergan: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; Merck: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant; S. G. Jenkins, Cormedix: Consultant, Consulting fee; Bayer: Consultant, Consulting fee; Merck: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Research grant Oxford University Press 2017-10-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5631564/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1589 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Abstracts
Satlin, Michael
Hovan, Michael
Westblade, Lars
Calfee, David P
Walsh, Thomas J
Kreiswirth, Barry N
Jenkins, Stephen G
Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title_full Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title_fullStr Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title_short Comparison of Perianal Swab and Stool Samples for Detection of Gastrointestinal Colonization with Ceftriaxone-Resistant and Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae
title_sort comparison of perianal swab and stool samples for detection of gastrointestinal colonization with ceftriaxone-resistant and fluoroquinolone-resistant enterobacteriaceae
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5631564/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofx163.1589
work_keys_str_mv AT satlinmichael comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT hovanmichael comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT westbladelars comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT calfeedavidp comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT walshthomasj comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT kreiswirthbarryn comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae
AT jenkinsstepheng comparisonofperianalswabandstoolsamplesfordetectionofgastrointestinalcolonizationwithceftriaxoneresistantandfluoroquinoloneresistantenterobacteriaceae