A molecular epidemiologic study of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in patients undergoing middle ear surgery

How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hands of health care personnel (HCP) can transmit multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), resulting in infections. Our aim was to determine MDRO prevalence on HCP hands in adult acute care and nursing facility settings.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed. Studies were included if they reported microbiologic culture results following HCP hands sampling; included prevalent MDROs, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter baumannii, or Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and were conducted in acute care or nursing facility settings.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles comprising 6,840 hand cultures were included. Pooled prevalence for MRSA, P aeruginosa, A baumannii, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus were 4.26%, 4.59%, 6.18%, and 9.03%, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity in rates of pathogen isolation were observed across studies (I² = 81%-95%). Only 4 of 59 studies sampled for C difficile, with 2 of 4 finding no growth. Subgroup analysis of MRSA revealed the highest HCP hand contamination rates in North America (8.28%). Sample collection methods used were comparable for MRSA isolation (4%-7%) except for agar direct contact (1.55%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of common MDROs on HCP hands vary by pathogen, care setting, culture acquisition method, study design, and geography. When obtained at an institutional level, these prevalence data can be utilized to enhance knowledge, practice, and research to prevent health care-associated infections.

What To Think If the Results of the National Institutes of Health Randomized Trial of Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureusand Vancomycin-ResistantEnterococcusControl Measures Are Negative (and Other Advice to Young Epidemiologists): A Review and an Au Revoir

The incidence of methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus(MRSA) and vancomycin-resistantEnterococcus(VRE) infections continues to rise in National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system hospitals, and these pathogens are reportedly causing more than 100,000 infections and many deaths each year in US healthcare facilities. This has led some to insist that control measures are now urgently needed, but several recent articles have suggested that isolation of patients does not work, is not needed, or is unsafe, or that a single cluster-randomized trial could be used to decide such matters. At least 101 studies have reported controlling MRSA infection and 38 have reported controlling VRE infection by means of active detection by surveillance culture and use of isolation for all colonized patients in healthcare settings where the pathogens are epidemic or endemic, in academic and nonacademic hospitals, and in acute care, intensive care, and long-term care settings. MRSA colonization and infection have been controlled to exceedingly low levels in multiple nations and in the state of Western Australia for decades by use of active detection and isolation. Studies suggesting problems with using such data to control MRSA colonization and infection have their own problems, which are discussed. Randomized trials are epidemiologic tools that can sometimes provide erroneous results, and they have not been considered necessary for studying isolation before it is used to control other important infections, such as tuberculosis, smallpox, and severe acute respiratory syndrome. No single epidemiologic study should be considered definitive. One should always weigh all available evidence. Infection with antibiotic-resistant pathogens such as MRSA and VRE is controllable to a low level by active detection and isolation of colonized and infected patients. Effective measures should be used to minimize the morbidity and mortality attributable to these largely preventable infections.

Prospective Surveillance of Community-Onset and Healthcare-Associated Methicillin-ResistantStaphylococcus aureusIsolated from a University-Affiliated Hospital in Japan

We conducted a prospective comparative study of community-onset (CO) and healthcare-associated (HA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) strains between 2000 and 2001 at Tokyo Women's Medical University Hospital (1,500 beds) in Japan. Of the 172 consecutive MRSA isolates analyzed, 13 (8%) were categorized as CO-MRSA. The mean age of patients with CO-MRSA was significantly younger than that of patients with HA-MRSA. Most CO-MRSA strains were isolated from skin and more likely to be susceptible to erythromycin, clindamycin, tetracycline, levofloxacin, and spectinomycin compared to HA-MRSA isolates. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) analysis, staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec(SCCmec) typing, and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) revealed that CO-MRSA strains were divided into the following multi-clones: 3 clone A: II: ST5 (PFGE type: SCCmec type: MLST sequence type); 1 L: II: ST5; 1 H: IV: ST1; 1 I: IV: ST81; 2 D: IV: ST8; 1 B: IV: ST89; 1 B: IV: ST379; and 3 B: IV: ST91. Of the 159 HAMRSA strains, 124 (78%) belonged to a single clone (PFGE clone A: SCCmec type II: tst and sec positive: coagulase type II: multi-drug resistance). Four CO-MRSA strains belonging to PFGE clone B: SCCmec type IV: MLST clonal complex 509 (ST89, 91, 379) had the exfoliative toxin B (etb) genes, but all CO-MRSA and HA-MRSA strains did not possess the Panton-Valentine leukocidin (pvl) genes. These results demonstrate that multiple lineages of CO-MRSA have the potential for dissemination in the community in Japan.

Clinical effectiveness of ototopical application of mupirocin ointment in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus otorrhea

OBJECTIVE

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) otorrhea has become an increasing problem with regard to infection through the tympanic membrane perforation and postsurgical infection. In particular, dry ear, at the preoperative stage, is considered to be a crucial factor in surgery. We evaluated how to control MRSA otorrhea before and after ear surgery.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Twenty-six patients having MRSA otorrhea were enrolled in the present study and randomly divided into 2 groups, namely, mupirocin ointment therapy for 16 patients and ofloxacin ear drops for 10 patients. Approximately 0.6 mg of mupirocin ointment was administered locally to the tympanic membrane and the promontory around and through the perforation with its adjacent external ear canal 1 to 4 times for 2 or 3 weeks at the clinic. On the other hand, ofloxacin ear drops were administered daily by the patients for 2 or 3 weeks at home.

RESULTS

Complete elimination of MRSA from the ear was obtained in all patients of the mupirocin group. This showed a significant improvement (p < 0.001) as compared with the ofloxacin group (improvement + cure rate, 40%). Local application of mupirocin did not aggravate hearing acuity of any patients who were evaluated by pure-tone audiometry before and after treatment.

CONCLUSION

The present findings first indicate that minimally essential application of mupirocin ointment is an extremely useful ototopical agent against MRSA otorrhea without ototoxicity.

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and enterococcus

BACKGROUND

Infection control programs were created three decades ago to control antibiotic-resistant healthcare-associated infections, but there has been little evidence of control in most facilities. After long, steady increases of MRSA and VRE infections in NNIS System hospitals, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors made reducing antibiotic-resistant infections a strategic SHEA goal in January 2000. After 2 more years without improvement, a SHEA task force was appointed to draft this evidence-based guideline on preventing nosocomial transmission of such pathogens, focusing on the two considered most out of control: MRSA and VRE.

METHODS

Medline searches were conducted spanning 1966 to 2002. Pertinent abstracts of unpublished studies providing sufficient data were included.

RESULTS

Frequent antibiotic therapy in healthcare settings provides a selective advantage for resistant flora, but patients with MRSA or VRE usually acquire it via spread. The CDC has long-recommended contact precautions for patients colonized or infected with such pathogens. Most facilities have required this as policy, but have not actively identified colonized patients with surveillance cultures, leaving most colonized patients undetected and unisolated. Many studies have shown control of endemic and/or epidemic MRSA and VRE infections using surveillance cultures and contact precautions, demonstrating consistency of evidence, high strength of association, reversibility, a dose gradient, and specificity for control with this approach. Adjunctive control measures are also discussed.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance cultures are essential to identify the reservoir for spread of MRSA and VRE infections and make control possible using the CDC's long-recommended contact precautions.