OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of enteral vancomycin in controlling MRSA endemicity in an intensive care burn unit. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MRSA is a serious clinical and epidemiologic problem. It is not uncommon that the traditional maneuvers, detection and isolation of carriers, fail to control endemicity due to MRSA. METHODS: All patients admitted to an Intensive Care Burn unit from January 1995 to February 2004 have been included in this prospective cohort study comprised 2 different periods. During period 1 (January 1995 to January 2000), barrier and isolation measures were enforced. During period 2 (February 2000 to February 2004), patients received enteral vancomycin 4 times daily in addition to selective digestive decontamination. RESULTS: A total of 777 patients were enrolled into the study: 402 in period 1, and 375 in period 2. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of patients between the 2 periods, except for the total body surface burned area, 30.3% in period 1 and 25.61% in period 2 (P = 0.009). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of patients who acquired MRSA from 115 in period 1 to 25 in period 2 (RR, 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.34). Similar reductions were observed in the number of patients with wound (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.12-0.32), blood (RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35), and tracheal aspirate (RR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.19), samples positive for MRSA. There was no emergence of either vancomycin-resistant enterococci or Staphylococcus aureus with intermediate sensitivity to glycopeptides in period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral vancomycin is an effective and safe method to control MRSA in intensive care burn units without VRE.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of enteral vancomycin in controlling MRSA endemicity in an intensive care burn unit. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: MRSA is a serious clinical and epidemiologic problem. It is not uncommon that the traditional maneuvers, detection and isolation of carriers, fail to control endemicity due to MRSA. METHODS: All patients admitted to an Intensive Care Burn unit from January 1995 to February 2004 have been included in this prospective cohort study comprised 2 different periods. During period 1 (January 1995 to January 2000), barrier and isolation measures were enforced. During period 2 (February 2000 to February 2004), patients received enteral vancomycin 4 times daily in addition to selective digestive decontamination. RESULTS: A total of 777 patients were enrolled into the study: 402 in period 1, and 375 in period 2. There were no significant differences in the characteristics of patients between the 2 periods, except for the total body surface burned area, 30.3% in period 1 and 25.61% in period 2 (P = 0.009). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of patients who acquired MRSA from 115 in period 1 to 25 in period 2 (RR, 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.34). Similar reductions were observed in the number of patients with wound (RR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.12-0.32), blood (RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.35), and tracheal aspirate (RR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.19), samples positive for MRSA. There was no emergence of either vancomycin-resistant enterococci or Staphylococcus aureus with intermediate sensitivity to glycopeptides in period 2. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral vancomycin is an effective and safe method to control MRSA in intensive care burn units without VRE.
Authors: M A de La Cal; E Cerdá; P García-Hierro; L Lorente; M Sánchez-Concheiro; C Díaz; H K van Saene Journal: Chest Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Rameshwar L Bang; Prem N Sharma; Suhas C Sanyal; Sarla Bang; Mohammed K Ebrahim Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.927
Authors: M A de la Cal; E Cerdá; H K F van Saene; P García-Hierro; E Negro; M L Parra; S Arias; D Ballesteros Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Usha Stiefel; David L Paterson; Nicole J Pultz; Steven M Gordon; David C Aron; Curtis J Donskey Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: María E Ochoa-Ardila; Ana García-Cañas; Karen Gómez-Mediavilla; Ana González-Torralba; Inmaculada Alía; Paloma García-Hierro; Nia Taylor; Hendrick K F van Saene; Miguel A de la Cal Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: D S Acton; M J Tempelmans Plat-Sinnige; W van Wamel; N de Groot; A van Belkum Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2008-08-08 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Jean M Carlet; Julian Bion; Margaret M Parker; Roman Jaeschke; Konrad Reinhart; Derek C Angus; Christian Brun-Buisson; Richard Beale; Thierry Calandra; Jean-Francois Dhainaut; Herwig Gerlach; Maurene Harvey; John J Marini; John Marshall; Marco Ranieri; Graham Ramsay; Jonathan Sevransky; B Taylor Thompson; Sean Townsend; Jeffrey S Vender; Janice L Zimmerman; Jean-Louis Vincent Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-12-04 Impact factor: 17.440