Cargando…

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()

BACKGROUND: The optimal screening strategy in hospitals to identify secondary cases after contact with a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) index patient in a low prevalence setting is not well defined. We aimed at identifying factors associated with documented MRSA transmissions. MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bächli, Magi, Sommerstein, Rami, Casanova, Carlo, Droz, Sara, Küffer, Marianne, Marschall, Jonas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35330753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100211
_version_ 1784672640812711936
author Bächli, Magi
Sommerstein, Rami
Casanova, Carlo
Droz, Sara
Küffer, Marianne
Marschall, Jonas
author_facet Bächli, Magi
Sommerstein, Rami
Casanova, Carlo
Droz, Sara
Küffer, Marianne
Marschall, Jonas
author_sort Bächli, Magi
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The optimal screening strategy in hospitals to identify secondary cases after contact with a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) index patient in a low prevalence setting is not well defined. We aimed at identifying factors associated with documented MRSA transmissions. METHOD: Single center, retrospective, nested case-control study. We evaluated the screening strategy in our 950 bed tertiary care hospital from 2008 – 2014. Room and ward contacts of MRSA index patients present at time of MRSA identification were screened. We compared characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus Protein A (spa)-type matched contact patients (cases) to negative or spa-type mismatched contact patients (controls). RESULTS: Among 270,000 inpatients from 2008 – 2014, 215 MRSA screenings yielded 3013 contact patients, and 6 (0.2%) spa-type matched pairs. We included 225 controls for the nested case-control study. The contact type for the cases was more frequently “same room” and less frequently “same ward” compared with the controls (P = 0.001). Also, exposure time was longer for cases (median of 6 days [IQR 3–9]) than for controls (1 day [0–3], P=0.016). CONCLUSION: The extensive MRSA screening strategy revealed only few index/contact matches based on spa-typing. Prolonged exposure time and a shared room were significantly associated with MRSA transmission. A targeted screening strategy may be more useful in a low prevalence setting than screening entire wards.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8938870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89388702022-03-23 Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study() Bächli, Magi Sommerstein, Rami Casanova, Carlo Droz, Sara Küffer, Marianne Marschall, Jonas Infect Prev Pract Original Research Article BACKGROUND: The optimal screening strategy in hospitals to identify secondary cases after contact with a meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) index patient in a low prevalence setting is not well defined. We aimed at identifying factors associated with documented MRSA transmissions. METHOD: Single center, retrospective, nested case-control study. We evaluated the screening strategy in our 950 bed tertiary care hospital from 2008 – 2014. Room and ward contacts of MRSA index patients present at time of MRSA identification were screened. We compared characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus Protein A (spa)-type matched contact patients (cases) to negative or spa-type mismatched contact patients (controls). RESULTS: Among 270,000 inpatients from 2008 – 2014, 215 MRSA screenings yielded 3013 contact patients, and 6 (0.2%) spa-type matched pairs. We included 225 controls for the nested case-control study. The contact type for the cases was more frequently “same room” and less frequently “same ward” compared with the controls (P = 0.001). Also, exposure time was longer for cases (median of 6 days [IQR 3–9]) than for controls (1 day [0–3], P=0.016). CONCLUSION: The extensive MRSA screening strategy revealed only few index/contact matches based on spa-typing. Prolonged exposure time and a shared room were significantly associated with MRSA transmission. A targeted screening strategy may be more useful in a low prevalence setting than screening entire wards. Elsevier 2022-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8938870/ /pubmed/35330753 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100211 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Bächli, Magi
Sommerstein, Rami
Casanova, Carlo
Droz, Sara
Küffer, Marianne
Marschall, Jonas
Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title_full Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title_fullStr Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title_full_unstemmed Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title_short Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus Contact Screening Strategy in a Low Prevalence Setting; a Nested Case-Control Study()
title_sort meticillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus contact screening strategy in a low prevalence setting; a nested case-control study()
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8938870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35330753
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2022.100211
work_keys_str_mv AT bachlimagi meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy
AT sommersteinrami meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy
AT casanovacarlo meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy
AT drozsara meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy
AT kuffermarianne meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy
AT marschalljonas meticillinresistantstaphylococcusaureuscontactscreeningstrategyinalowprevalencesettinganestedcasecontrolstudy