Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections after CT-guided spinal injections

Clinical features and outcome of vertebral osteomyelitis after spinal injection: is it worth the price?

PURPOSE

Spinal injections are increasingly used for back pain treatment. Vertebral osteomyelitis (VO) after spinal injection (SIVO) is rare, but patient characteristics and outcome have not been well characterized. The aim of this study was to assess patient characteristics of SIVO in comparison to patients with native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO) and to determine predictors for 1-year survival.

METHODS

This is a single-center cohort study from a tertiary referral hospital. This is a retrospective analysis of Patients with VO who were prospectively enrolled into a spine registry from 2008 to 2019. Student's t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test or Chi-square test were applied for group comparisons. Survival analysis was performed using a log-rank test and a multivariable Cox regression model.

RESULTS

283 VO patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 44 (15.5%) had SIVO and 239 (84.5%) NVO. Patients with SIVO were significantly younger, had a lower Charlson comorbidity index and a shorter hospital stay compared to NVO. They also showed a higher rate of psoas abscesses and spinal empyema (38.6% [SIVO] vs. 20.9% [NVO]). Staphylococcus aureus (27%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (25%) were equally often detected in SIVO while S. aureus was more frequently than CNS in NVO (38.1% vs. 7.9%).Patients with SIVO (P = 0.04) had a higher 1-year survival rate (Fig. 1). After multivariate analysis, ASA score was associated with a lower 1-year survival in VO.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study emphasize unique clinical features of SIVO, which warrant that SIVO should be estimated as a separate entity of VO.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objectives

To describe the propensity of carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa to spread within a hospital critical care setting.

Methods

The study was conducted in a 700-bed tertiary centre in Cologne, Germany. P. aeruginosa resistant to piperacillin, ceftazidime, cefepime, imipenem, meropenem and ciprofloxacin, isolated from clinical and screening specimens from four critical care units from 2015 to 2020 were analysed. Genotyping was carried out by WGS (Illumina and MinION). MLST, core genome MLST (cgMLST) and resistome analysis was performed and merged with epidemiological data.

Results

Fifty-five out of 79 non-duplicate P. aeruginosa isolates were available, of which 20 were carbapenemase producers as follows: bla_VIM-1 (n = 1), bla_VIM-2 (n = 17), bla_VIM-4 (n = 1), and bla_NDM-1/bla_GES-5 (n = 1). Forty-two of 55 isolates were hospital-acquired. cgMLST revealed three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 15, ST111, bla_VIM-2, recovered between 2015 and 2020); Cluster 2 (n = 4, ST970, carbapenemase negative); and Cluster 3 (n = 2, ST357, carbapenemase negative). The bla_VIM-2 gene of Cluster 1 was integrated on the chromosome in a class 1 integron (type In59). Using conventional epidemiology, we were only able to confirm two patient-to-patient transmissions and one room-to-patient transmission on three different ICUs within Cluster 1. Isolates from Cluster 2 represented an outbreak occurring in 2019.

Conclusions

These data give insight into the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant P. aeruginosa. Transmission dynamics differed between carbapenemase- and non-carbapenemase-producing isolates. A continuous acquisition of clonally related ST111 VIM-2 P. aeruginosa, being the main carbapenemase-producing strain, was observed over the whole study period, as well as an overall higher genomic diversity among non-carbapenemase-producing P. aeruginosa.