OBJECTIVE: To test whether intensive care unit (ICU) nasal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) predicts the presence or absence of MRSA infections requiring antimicrobial treatment. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical ICU at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a 1252-bed urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Seven hundred forty-nine consecutive patients admitted to the medical ICU over a 7-mo period (November 2007 through June 2008). INTERVENTIONS: Nasal swabs were obtained at ICU admission and weekly thereafter for MRSA detection by using polymerase chain reaction. All subjects were followed for the development of MRSA infection during their ICU stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four (21.9%) patients had positive nasal colonization with MRSA at the time of ICU admission. The predictive accuracy of MRSA nasal colonization for ICU-acquired MRSA infections, either lower respiratory tract infection or bloodstream infection, was poor (lower respiratory tract infection: sensitivity, 24.2%; specificity, 78.5%; positive predictive value, 17.7%; and negative predictive value, 84.4%; and bloodstream infection: sensitivity, 23.1%; specificity, 78.2%; positive predictive value, 11.0%; and negative predictive value, 89.7%). Addition of nasal-colonization results obtained during the ICU stay did not appreciably change the predictive accuracy of this test for identification of subsequent lower respiratory tract infections and bloodstream infections attributed to MRSA requiring antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, nasal colonization with MRSA was found to be a poor predictor for the subsequent occurrence of MRSA lower respiratory tract infections and MRSA bloodstream infections requiring antimicrobial treatment. Clinicians should be cautious in using the results of nasal-colonization testing to determine the need for MRSA treatment among patients with ICU-acquired infections.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether intensive care unit (ICU) nasal screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) predicts the presence or absence of MRSA infections requiring antimicrobial treatment. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: Medical ICU at Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a 1252-bed urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Seven hundred forty-nine consecutive patients admitted to the medical ICU over a 7-mo period (November 2007 through June 2008). INTERVENTIONS: Nasal swabs were obtained at ICU admission and weekly thereafter for MRSA detection by using polymerase chain reaction. All subjects were followed for the development of MRSA infection during their ICU stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred sixty-four (21.9%) patients had positive nasal colonization with MRSA at the time of ICU admission. The predictive accuracy of MRSA nasal colonization for ICU-acquired MRSA infections, either lower respiratory tract infection or bloodstream infection, was poor (lower respiratory tract infection: sensitivity, 24.2%; specificity, 78.5%; positive predictive value, 17.7%; and negative predictive value, 84.4%; and bloodstream infection: sensitivity, 23.1%; specificity, 78.2%; positive predictive value, 11.0%; and negative predictive value, 89.7%). Addition of nasal-colonization results obtained during the ICU stay did not appreciably change the predictive accuracy of this test for identification of subsequent lower respiratory tract infections and bloodstream infections attributed to MRSA requiring antimicrobial treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, nasal colonization with MRSA was found to be a poor predictor for the subsequent occurrence of MRSA lower respiratory tract infections and MRSA bloodstream infections requiring antimicrobial treatment. Clinicians should be cautious in using the results of nasal-colonization testing to determine the need for MRSA treatment among patients with ICU-acquired infections.
Authors: Andre C Kalil; Mark L Metersky; Michael Klompas; John Muscedere; Daniel A Sweeney; Lucy B Palmer; Lena M Napolitano; Naomi P O'Grady; John G Bartlett; Jordi Carratalà; Ali A El Solh; Santiago Ewig; Paul D Fey; Thomas M File; Marcos I Restrepo; Jason A Roberts; Grant W Waterer; Peggy Cruse; Shandra L Knight; Jan L Brozek Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Joseph R Paonessa; Raj D Shah; Chiagozie I Pickens; Bryan D Lizza; Helen K Donnelly; Michael Malczynski; Chao Qi; Richard G Wunderink Journal: Chest Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Abigail W Greenstein; Susan Boyle-Vavra; Carol W Maddox; Xiwei Tang; Lisa C Halliday; Jeffrey D Fortman Journal: Comp Med Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Renata L Pacheco; Renata D Lobo; Maura S Oliveira; Elthon F Farina; Cleide R Santos; Silvia F Costa; Maria Clara Padoveze; Cilmara P Garcia; Priscila A Trindade; Ligia M Quitério; Evandro A Rivitti; Elsa M Mamizuka; Anna S Levin Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Ae-Chin Oh; Jin Kyung Lee; Ha Na Lee; Young Jun Hong; Yoon Hwan Chang; Seok-Il Hong; Dong Ho Kim Journal: Mol Med Rep Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 2.952
Authors: Anthony D Bai; Lisa Burry; Adrienne Showler; Marilyn Steinberg; Daniel Ricciuto; Tania Fernandes; Anna Chiu; Sumit Raybardhan; George A Tomlinson; Chaim M Bell; Andrew M Morris Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.471