Jog, S. et al. Impact of preoperative screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by real-time polymerase chain reaction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J. Hosp. Infect. 69, 124-130

Department of Microbiology and Infection Prevention and Control, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
Journal of Hospital Infection (Impact Factor: 2.54). 07/2008; 69(2):124-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2008.02.008
Source: PubMed


We report a significant reduction in the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery after the introduction of preoperative screening using a same-day polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. This was an observational cohort study set in a cardiac surgery unit based in southwest England. We studied 1462 patients admitted for cardiac surgery between October 2004 and September 2006. The IDI MRSA PCR test was used preoperatively to screen 765 patients between October 2005 and September 2006. Patients identified as carriers were treated with nasal mupirocin ointment and topical triclosan for five days, with single-dose teicoplanin instead of flucloxacillin as perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis. The rate of SSI following cardiac surgery in this group was compared to 697 patients who underwent surgery without screening between October 2004 and September 2005. After introduction of PCR screening, the overall rate of SSI fell from 3.30% to 2.22% with a significant reduction in the rate of MRSA infections (relative risk reduction: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.056-0.95). PCR screening combined with suppression of MRSA at the time of cardiac surgery is feasible in routine clinical practice and is associated with a significant reduction in subsequent MRSA SSIs.

1 Follower
11 Reads
  • Source
    • "Several authors also used decolonization protocols on all preoperative patients, but used surveillance to determine the duration of the decolonization. For example: In MRSA carriers, Jog et al. [29], used surveillance to extend the decolonization period with mupirocin and triclosan to five days, (United Kingdom’s National Health Services recommends five days of decolonization for newly identified carriers [34]), and to substitute preoperative antibiotics gentamicin and teicoplanin for gentamicin and flucloxacillin. The authors observed a significant reduction in MRSA infections. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) found that Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is associated with up to 375,000 infections and 23,000 deaths in the United States. It is a major cause of surgical site infections, with a higher mortality and longer duration of care than Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. A multifactorial bundled approach is needed to control this epidemic, with single interventions unlikely to have a significant impact on attenuating MRSA infection rates. Active surveillance has been studied in a wide range of surgical patients, including surgical intensive care and non-intensive care units; cardiac, vascular, orthopedic, obstetric, head and neck cancer and gastrostomy patients. There is sufficient evidence demonstrating a beneficial effect of surveillance and eradication prior to surgery to recommend its use on an expanded basis. Studies on MRSA surveillance in surgical patients that were published over the last 10 years were reviewed. In at least five of these studies, the MRSA colonization status of patients was reported to be a factor in preoperative antibiotic selection, with the modification of treatment regiments including the switching to vancomycin or teicoplanin in MRSA positive preoperative patients. Several authors also used decolonization protocols on all preoperative patients but used surveillance to determine the duration of the decolonization. Universal decolonization of all patients, regardless of MRSA status has been advocated as an alternative prevention protocol in which surveillance is not utilized. Concern exists regarding antimicrobial stewardship. The daily and universal use of intranasal antibiotics and/or antiseptic washes may encourage the promotion of bacterial resistance and provide a competitive advantage to other more lethal organisms. Decolonization protocols which indiscriminately neutralize all bacteria may not be the best approach. If a patient's microbiome is markedly challenged with antimicrobials, rebuilding it with replacement commensal bacteria may become a future therapy. Preoperative MRSA surveillance allows the selection of appropriate prophylactic antibiotics, the use of extended decolonization protocols in positive patients, and provides needed data for epidemiological studies.
    05/2014; 3(1):18. DOI:10.1186/2047-2994-3-18
  • Source
    • "Two studies did not identify the test method used during specific phases [21,22]. As part of the preparation process, the specimens were broth-enriched in four studies [19,22,24,27]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening, and PCR versus no screening for several clinical outcomes, including MRSA colonization and infection rates. An electronic literature search was conducted on studies evaluating polymerase chain reaction techniques and methicillin (also spelled meticillin) resistant Staphylococcus aureus that were published from 1993 onwards using Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, BIOSIS Previews, and EMBASE. Due to the presence of heterogeneity in the selected studies, the clinical findings of individual studies were described. Nine studies that compared screening for MRSA using PCR versus screening using chromogenic agar in a hospital setting, and two studies that compared screening using PCR with no or targeted screening were identified. Some studies found lower MRSA colonization and acquisition, infection, and transmission rates in screening with PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, and the turnaround time for screening test results was lower for PCR. One study reported a lower number of unnecessary isolation days with screening using PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, but the proportion of patients isolated was similar between both groups. The turnaround time for test results and number of isolation days were lower for PCR versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening. The use of PCR for MRSA screening demonstrated a lower turnaround time and number of isolation days compared with chromogenic agar. Given the mixed quality and number of studies (11 studies), gaps remain in the published literature and the evidence remains insufficient. In addition to screening, factors such as the number of contacts between healthcare workers and patients, number of patients attended by one healthcare worker per day, probability of colonization among healthcare workers, and MRSA status of hospital shared equipment and hospital environment must be considered to control the transmission of MRSA in a hospital setting.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 12/2011; 11(1):336. DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-11-336 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "PCR data are rare, and the question still remains whether or not the PCR advantage in turnaround times will actually reduce MRSA cross-infection (Table 3 (Tab. 3)) [13], [31], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. One has to bear in mind that in most studies active MRSA screening is only one element in a broad range of measures (e.g., isolation policy) to drive down infection rates [50]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates is a serious public health problem whose ever-increasing rate is commensurate with the pressure it is exerting on the healthcare system. At present, more than 20% of clinical S. aureus isolates in German hospitals are methicillin resistant. Strategies from low-prevalence countries show that this development is not necessarily inevitable. In the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, thanks to a rigorous prevention programme, MRSA prevalence has been kept at an acceptably low level (<1–3%). Central to these ‘search and destroy’ control strategies is an admission screening using several MRSA swabs taken from mucocutaneous colonisation sites of high-risk patients (‘MRSA surveillance’). It has also been reported that the speed with which MRSA carriage is detected has an important role to play, as it is a key component of any effective strategy to prevent the pathogen from spreading. Since MRSA culturing involves a 2–3 day delay before the final results are available, rapid detection techniques (commonly referred to as ‘MRSA rapid tests’) using PCR methods and, most recently, rapid culturing methods have been developed. The implementation of rapid tests reduces the time of detection of MRSA carriers from 48–72 to 2–5 h. Clinical evaluation data have shown that MRSA can thus be detected with very high sensitivity. Specificity however is sometimes impaired due to false-positive PCR signals occurring in mixed flora specimens. In order to rule out any false-positive PCR results, a culture screen must always be carried out simultaneously. The data provide preliminary evidence that a PCR assay can reduce nosocomial MRSA transmission in high-risk patients or high-risk areas, whereas an approach that screens all patients admitted to the hospital is probably not effective. Information concerning the cost-effectiveness of rapid MRSA tests is still sparse and thus the issue remains debated.
    German medical science : GMS e-journal 02/2009; 7:Doc06. DOI:10.3205/000065
Show more