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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |