Jessica R Howard-Anderson1,2, Chris W Bower2,3,4, Gillian Smith2,3,4, Mary Elizabeth Sexton1, Monica M Farley1,2,3, Sarah W Satola1,2,3, Jesse T Jacob1,2. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Georgia Emerging Infections Program, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Atlanta Veterans' Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia. 4. Foundation for Atlanta Veterans' Education & Research, Decatur, Georgia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) bacteriuria and to determine whether urinary catheters increase the risk of subsequent CRE bacteremia. DESIGN: Using active population- and laboratory-based surveillance we described a cohort of patients with incident CRE bacteriuria and identified risk factors for developing CRE bacteremia within 1 year. SETTING: The study was conducted among the 8 counties of Georgia Health District 3 (HD3) in Atlanta, Georgia. PATIENTS: Residents of HD3 with CRE first identified in urine between 2012 and 2017. RESULTS: We identified 464 patients with CRE bacteriuria (mean yearly incidence, 1.96 cases per 100,000 population). Of 425 with chart review, most had a urinary catheter (56%), and many resided in long-term care facilities (48%), had a Charlson comorbidity index >3 (38%) or a decubitus ulcer (37%). 21 patients (5%) developed CRE bacteremia with the same organism within 1 year. Risk factors for subsequent bacteremia included presence of a urinary catheter (odds ratio [OR], 8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-34.9), central venous catheter (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.7-10.6) or another indwelling device (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.6-11.4), urine culture obtained as an inpatient (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.3-25.9), and being in the ICU in the week prior to urine culture (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.8). In a multivariable analysis, urinary catheter increased the risk of CRE bacteremia (OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.2-23.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CRE bacteriuria, urinary catheters increase the risk of CRE bacteremia. Future interventions should aim to reduce inappropriate insertion and early removal of urinary catheters.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) bacteriuria and to determine whether urinary catheters increase the risk of subsequent CRE bacteremia. DESIGN: Using active population- and laboratory-based surveillance we described a cohort of patients with incident CRE bacteriuria and identified risk factors for developing CRE bacteremia within 1 year. SETTING: The study was conducted among the 8 counties of Georgia Health District 3 (HD3) in Atlanta, Georgia. PATIENTS: Residents of HD3 with CRE first identified in urine between 2012 and 2017. RESULTS: We identified 464 patients with CRE bacteriuria (mean yearly incidence, 1.96 cases per 100,000 population). Of 425 with chart review, most had a urinary catheter (56%), and many resided in long-term care facilities (48%), had a Charlson comorbidity index >3 (38%) or a decubitus ulcer (37%). 21 patients (5%) developed CRE bacteremia with the same organism within 1 year. Risk factors for subsequent bacteremia included presence of a urinary catheter (odds ratio [OR], 8.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-34.9), central venous catheter (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.7-10.6) or another indwelling device (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.6-11.4), urine culture obtained as an inpatient (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.3-25.9), and being in the ICU in the week prior to urine culture (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.8). In a multivariable analysis, urinary catheter increased the risk of CRE bacteremia (OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.2-23.6). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CRE bacteriuria, urinary catheters increase the risk of CRE bacteremia. Future interventions should aim to reduce inappropriate insertion and early removal of urinary catheters.
Authors: Daniel J Morgan; Lindsay D Croft; Valerie Deloney; Kyle J Popovich; Chris Crnich; Arjun Srinivasan; Neil O Fishman; Kristina Bryant; Sara E Cosgrove; Surbhi Leekha Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-28 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: S Saint; J Wiese; J K Amory; M L Bernstein; U D Patel; J K Zemencuk; S J Bernstein; B A Lipsky; T P Hofer Journal: Am J Med Date: 2000-10-15 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: V Schechner; T Kotlovsky; M Kazma; H Mishali; D Schwartz; S Navon-Venezia; M J Schwaber; Y Carmeli Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2012-05-07 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: S M Pouch; C J Kubin; M J Satlin; D S Tsapepas; J R Lee; G Dube; M R Pereira Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Damon J A Toth; Karim Khader; Rachel B Slayton; Alexander J Kallen; Adi V Gundlapalli; Justin J O'Hagan; Anthony E Fiore; Michael A Rubin; John A Jernigan; Matthew H Samore Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: José Ramos-Vivas; Itziar Chapartegui-González; Marta Fernández-Martínez; Claudia González-Rico; Jesús Fortún; Rosa Escudero; Francesc Marco; Laura Linares; Miguel Montejo; Maitane Aranzamendi; Patricia Muñoz; Maricela Valerio; Jose María Aguado; Elena Resino; Irene Gracia Ahufinger; Aurora Paz Vega; Luis Martínez-Martínez; María Carmen Fariñas Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 4.379