Literature DB >> 22759548

Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus--how well does it perform? A cross-sectional study.

Ann Matheson1, Peter Christie, Traiani Stari, Kim Kavanagh, Ian M Gould, Robert Masterton, Jacqui S Reilly.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland.
METHODS: Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence.
RESULTS: This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66% of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9%. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82%). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80%-90%, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group.
CONCLUSIONS: Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22759548     DOI: 10.1086/666639

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


  21 in total

1.  Dutch guideline on the laboratory detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

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

2.  MRSA screening by the Xpert MRSA PCR assay: pooling samples of the nose, throat, and groin increases the sensitivity of detection without increasing the laboratory costs.

Authors:  D S Blanc; I Nahimana; G Zanetti; G Greub
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 3.  A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of factors associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at time of hospital or intensive care unit admission.

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

Review 4.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an overview of basic and clinical research.

Authors:  Nicholas A Turner; Batu K Sharma-Kuinkel; Stacey A Maskarinec; Emily M Eichenberger; Pratik P Shah; Manuela Carugati; Thomas L Holland; Vance G Fowler
Journal:  Nat Rev Microbiol       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 60.633

5.  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasal real-time PCR: a predictive tool for contamination of the hospital environment.

Authors:  Daniel J Livorsi; David J Livorsi; Sana Arif; Patricia Garry; Madan G Kundu; Sarah W Satola; Thomas H Davis; Byron Batteiger; Amy B Kressel
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.254

6.  Prevalence and risk factors for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an HIV-positive cohort.

Authors:  Jason E Farley; Matthew J Hayat; Paul L Sacamano; Tracy Ross; Karen Carroll
Journal:  Am J Infect Control       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 2.918

Review 7.  Quantifying the impact of extranasal testing of body sites for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization at the time of hospital or intensive care unit admission.

Authors:  James A McKinnell; Susan S Huang; Samantha J Eells; Eric Cui; Loren G Miller
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.254

8.  Impact of Probiotics for Reducing Infections in Veterans (IMPROVE): Study protocol for a double-blind, randomized controlled trial to reduce carriage of Staphylococcus aureus.

Authors:  Shoshannah Eggers; Anna Barker; Susan Valentine; Timothy Hess; Megan Duster; Nasia Safdar
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  Swabbing Surgical Sites Does Not Improve the Detection of Staphylococcus aureus Carriage in High-Risk Surgical Patients.

Authors:  Jennifer Brown; Chin-Shang Li; Mauro Giordani; Kiarash Shahlaie; Eric O Klineberg; Joanna R Tripet-Diel; Marie S Ihara; Stuart H Cohen
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 2.150

10.  Preventing surgical site infections: a randomized, open-label trial of nasal mupirocin ointment and nasal povidone-iodine solution.

Authors:  Michael Phillips; Andrew Rosenberg; Bo Shopsin; Germaine Cuff; Faith Skeete; Alycia Foti; Kandy Kraemer; Kenneth Inglima; Robert Press; Joseph Bosco
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.