OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine whether rapid screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays leads to the earlier isolation of patients at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization, (2) to assess compliance with routine MRSA screening protocols, (3) to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MRSA real-time PCR assay (Cepheid) by comparison with culture, and (4) to compare turnaround times for PCR assay results with those for culture results. DESIGN: Before-and-after study conducted in a 700-bed acute tertiary care referral hospital. Study periods were (1) a 5-week period before PCR testing began, (2) a 10-week period when the PCR assay was used, and (3) a 5-week period after PCR testing was discontinued. RESULTS: Among 489 at-risk patients, MRSA was isolated from 20 (33%) of 60 patients during period 1, 77 (22%) of 349 patients during period 2, and 18 (23%) of 80 patients during period 3. Twenty-two (27%) of 82 at-risk patients were not screened during period 1, compared with 40 (10%) of 389 at-risk patients not screened during period 2 (P < .001). More MRSA-positive patients were preemptively isolated during periods 1 and 3 compared with period 2 (34 [24%] of 140 vs 28 [8%] of 389; P < .001); however, more MRSA-positive patients were isolated after notification of MRSA-positive results during period 2 (47 [13%] of 349) compared with periods 1 and 3 (2 [1%] of 140; P < .001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the PCR assay were 95%, 97%, 82%, and 99%, respectively. The mean turnaround time from receipt of specimens in the laboratory to PCR assay result was 2.6 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid screening with the Xpert MRSA PCR assay facilitated compliance with screening policies and the earlier isolation of MRSA-positive patients. Discrepant results confirm that PCR testing should be used as a screening tool rather than as a diagnostic tool.
OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine whether rapid screening with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays leads to the earlier isolation of patients at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization, (2) to assess compliance with routine MRSA screening protocols, (3) to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MRSA real-time PCR assay (Cepheid) by comparison with culture, and (4) to compare turnaround times for PCR assay results with those for culture results. DESIGN: Before-and-after study conducted in a 700-bed acute tertiary care referral hospital. Study periods were (1) a 5-week period before PCR testing began, (2) a 10-week period when the PCR assay was used, and (3) a 5-week period after PCR testing was discontinued. RESULTS: Among 489 at-risk patients, MRSA was isolated from 20 (33%) of 60 patients during period 1, 77 (22%) of 349 patients during period 2, and 18 (23%) of 80 patients during period 3. Twenty-two (27%) of 82 at-risk patients were not screened during period 1, compared with 40 (10%) of 389 at-risk patients not screened during period 2 (P < .001). More MRSA-positive patients were preemptively isolated during periods 1 and 3 compared with period 2 (34 [24%] of 140 vs 28 [8%] of 389; P < .001); however, more MRSA-positive patients were isolated after notification of MRSA-positive results during period 2 (47 [13%] of 349) compared with periods 1 and 3 (2 [1%] of 140; P < .001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the PCR assay were 95%, 97%, 82%, and 99%, respectively. The mean turnaround time from receipt of specimens in the laboratory to PCR assay result was 2.6 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid screening with the Xpert MRSA PCR assay facilitated compliance with screening policies and the earlier isolation of MRSA-positive patients. Discrepant results confirm that PCR testing should be used as a screening tool rather than as a diagnostic tool.
Authors: M F Q Kluytmans-van den Bergh; M C Vos; B M W Diederen; C M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls; A Voss; J A J W Kluytmans Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2013-07-27 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Anuradha Ganesan; Katrina Crawford; Katrin Mende; Clinton K Murray; Bradley Lloyd; Michael Ellis; David R Tribble; Amy C Weintrob Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: James A McKinnell; Loren G Miller; Samantha J Eells; Eric Cui; Susan S Huang Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-19 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Shana O Kelley; Chad A Mirkin; David R Walt; Rustem F Ismagilov; Mehmet Toner; Edward H Sargent Journal: Nat Nanotechnol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 39.213
Authors: Erica S Shenoy; Jiyeon Kim; Eric S Rosenberg; Jessica A Cotter; Hang Lee; Rochelle P Walensky; David C Hooper Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-04-09 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Christopher Fuller; Julie Robotham; Joanne Savage; Susan Hopkins; Sarah R Deeny; Sheldon Stone; Barry Cookson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240