BACKGROUND: Targeted screening for carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs), remains limited; recent data suggest that existing policies miss many carriers. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to measure the prevalence of CRO and CPO perirectal colonization at hospital unit admission and to use machine learning methods to predict probability of CRO and/or CPO carriage. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study of all patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) or solid organ transplant (SOT) unit at The Johns Hopkins Hospital between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017. Admission perirectal swabs were screened for CROs and CPOs. More than 125 variables capturing preadmission clinical and demographic characteristics were collected from the electronic medical record (EMR) system. We developed models to predict colonization probabilities using decision tree learning. RESULTS: Evaluating 2,878 admission swabs from 2,165 patients, we found that 7.5% and 1.3% of swabs were CRO and CPO positive, respectively. Organism and carbapenemase diversity among CPO isolates was high. Despite including many characteristics commonly associated with CRO/CPO carriage or infection, overall, decision tree models poorly predicted CRO and CPO colonization (C statistics, 0.57 and 0.58, respectively). In subgroup analyses, however, models did accurately identify patients with recent CRO-positive cultures who use proton-pump inhibitors as having a high likelihood of CRO colonization. CONCLUSIONS: In this inpatient population, CRO carriage was infrequent but was higher than previously published estimates. Despite including many variables associated with CRO/CPO carriage, models poorly predicted colonization status, likely due to significant host and organism heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND: Targeted screening for carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs), remains limited; recent data suggest that existing policies miss many carriers. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to measure the prevalence of CRO and CPO perirectal colonization at hospital unit admission and to use machine learning methods to predict probability of CRO and/or CPO carriage. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study of all patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) or solid organ transplant (SOT) unit at The Johns Hopkins Hospital between July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017. Admission perirectal swabs were screened for CROs and CPOs. More than 125 variables capturing preadmission clinical and demographic characteristics were collected from the electronic medical record (EMR) system. We developed models to predict colonization probabilities using decision tree learning. RESULTS: Evaluating 2,878 admission swabs from 2,165 patients, we found that 7.5% and 1.3% of swabs were CRO and CPO positive, respectively. Organism and carbapenemase diversity among CPO isolates was high. Despite including many characteristics commonly associated with CRO/CPO carriage or infection, overall, decision tree models poorly predicted CRO and CPO colonization (C statistics, 0.57 and 0.58, respectively). In subgroup analyses, however, models did accurately identify patients with recent CRO-positive cultures who use proton-pump inhibitors as having a high likelihood of CRO colonization. CONCLUSIONS: In this inpatient population, CRO carriage was infrequent but was higher than previously published estimates. Despite including many variables associated with CRO/CPO carriage, models poorly predicted colonization status, likely due to significant host and organism heterogeneity.
Authors: M Giannella; M Bartoletti; M C Morelli; S Tedeschi; F Cristini; F Tumietto; E Pasqualini; I Danese; C Campoli; N Di Lauria; S Faenza; G Ercolani; R Lewis; A D Pinna; P Viale Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jan A Roth; Manuel Battegay; Fabrice Juchler; Julia E Vogt; Andreas F Widmer Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 3.254
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: Pepijn Huizinga; Marjolein Kluytmans- van den Bergh; Miranda van Rijen; Ina Willemsen; Nils van 't Veer; Jan Kluytmans Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Erika M C D'Agata; Aby Varu; Sara F Geffert; Rafael Araos; Susan Mitchell; Aaron Situ; Chris Cameron Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Kavitha Prabaker; Michael Y Lin; Margaret McNally; Kartikeya Cherabuddi; Sana Ahmed; Andrea Norris; Karen Lolans; Ruba Odeh; Vishnu Chundi; Robert A Weinstein; Mary K Hayden Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Dror Marchaim; Teena Chopra; Ashish Bhargava; Christopher Bogan; Sorabh Dhar; Kayoko Hayakawa; Jason M Pogue; Suchitha Bheemreddy; Christopher Blunden; Maryann Shango; Jessie Swan; Paul R Lephart; Federico Perez; Robert A Bonomo; Keith S Kaye Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-11 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Elise M Martin; Brandy Bryant; Tristan R Grogan; Zachary A Rubin; Dana L Russell; David Elashoff; Daniel Z Uslan Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Sara M Karaba; Katherine E Goodman; Joe Amoah; Sara E Cosgrove; Pranita D Tamma Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Roel P J Willems; Karin van Dijk; Johannes C F Ket; Christina M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873