Routine Use of Contact Precautions for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus: Which Way Is the Pendulum Swinging?

Implementation of contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organisms in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era: An updated national Emerging Infections Network (EIN) survey

OBJECTIVE

To understand how healthcare facilities employ contact precautions for patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era and explore changes since 2014.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physicians involved in infection prevention or hospital epidemiology.

METHODS

In September 2022, we sent via email an 8-question survey on contact precautions and adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission in inpatient facilities. We also asked about changes since the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data and compared results to a similar survey administered in 2014.

RESULTS

Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey and 201 reported working in infection prevention. A majority of facilities (66% and 69%) routinely use contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) respectively, compared to 93% and 92% in 2014. Nearly all (>90%) use contact precautions for Candida auris, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. More variability was reported for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing gram-negative organisms. Compared to 2014, fewer hospitals perform active surveillance for MRSA and VRE. Overall, 90% of facilities used chlorhexidine gluconate bathing in all or select inpatients, and 53% used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge. Many respondents (44%) reported changes to contact precautions since COVID-19 that remain in place.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity exists in the use of transmission-based precautions and adjunctive infection prevention measures aimed at reducing MDRO transmission. This variation reflects a need for updated and specific guidance, as well as further research on the use of contact precautions in healthcare facilities.

Nasal Iodophor Antiseptic vs Nasal Mupirocin Antibiotic in the Setting of Chlorhexidine Bathing to Prevent Infections in Adult ICUs: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Universal nasal mupirocin plus chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in intensive care units (ICUs) prevents methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections and all-cause bloodstream infections. Antibiotic resistance to mupirocin has raised questions about whether an antiseptic could be advantageous for ICU decolonization.

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs mupirocin for universal ICU nasal decolonization in combination with CHG bathing.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two-group noninferiority, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial conducted in US community hospitals, all of which used mupirocin-CHG for universal decolonization in ICUs at baseline. Adult ICU patients in 137 randomized hospitals during baseline (May 1, 2015-April 30, 2017) and intervention (November 1, 2017-April 30, 2019) were included.

Intervention

Universal decolonization involving switching to iodophor-CHG (intervention) or continuing mupirocin-CHG (baseline).

Main Outcomes and Measures

ICU-attributable S aureus clinical cultures (primary outcome), MRSA clinical cultures, and all-cause bloodstream infections were evaluated using proportional hazard models to assess differences from baseline to intervention periods between the strategies. Results were also compared with a 2009-2011 trial of mupirocin-CHG vs no decolonization in the same hospital network. The prespecified noninferiority margin for the primary outcome was 10%.

Results

Among the 801 668 admissions in 233 ICUs, the participants' mean (SD) age was 63.4 (17.2) years, 46.3% were female, and the mean (SD) ICU length of stay was 4.8 (4.7) days. Hazard ratios (HRs) for S aureus clinical isolates in the intervention vs baseline periods were 1.17 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 5.0 vs 4.3/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 4.1 vs 4.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 18.4% [95% CI, 10.7%-26.6%] for mupirocin-CHG, P < .001). For MRSA clinical cultures, HRs were 1.13 for iodophor-CHG (raw rate: 2.3 vs 2.1/1000 ICU-attributable days) and 0.99 for mupirocin-CHG (raw rate: 2.0 vs 2.0/1000 ICU-attributable days) (HR difference in differences significantly lower by 14.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-25.5%] for mupirocin-CHG, P = .007). For all-pathogen bloodstream infections, HRs were 1.00 (2.7 vs 2.7/1000) for iodophor-CHG and 1.01 (2.6 vs 2.6/1000) for mupirocin-CHG (nonsignificant HR difference in differences, -0.9% [95% CI, -9.0% to 8.0%]; P = .84). Compared with the 2009-2011 trial, the 30-day relative reduction in hazards in the mupirocin-CHG group relative to no decolonization (2009-2011 trial) were as follows: S aureus clinical cultures (current trial: 48.1% [95% CI, 35.6%-60.1%]; 2009-2011 trial: 58.8% [95% CI, 47.5%-70.7%]) and bloodstream infection rates (current trial: 70.4% [95% CI, 62.9%-77.8%]; 2009-2011 trial: 60.1% [95% CI, 49.1%-70.7%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Nasal iodophor antiseptic did not meet criteria to be considered noninferior to nasal mupirocin antibiotic for the outcome of S aureus clinical cultures in adult ICU patients in the context of daily CHG bathing. In addition, the results were consistent with nasal iodophor being inferior to nasal mupirocin.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03140423.

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: Epidemiology, Infection Prevention, and Control

Vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) is a pathogen of growing concern due to increasing development of antibiotic resistance, increasing length of hospitalizations and excess mortality. The utility of some infection control practices are debatable, as newer developments in infection prevention strategies continued to be discovered. This article summarizes the significance of VRE and VRE transmission, along with highlighting key changes in infection control practices within the past 5 years.

Can we reduce contact precautions days for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin resistant Enterococcus infected patients?

BACKGROUND

Patients with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and VRE (vancomycin resistant Enterococcus) are placed under contact precautions according to the Center of Disease Control protocol. Contact precautions however increases patient isolation from Health Care Workers, increase overall hospital costs and may increase depression and anxiety. Our aim in this study was to observe the effects of shortening the number of days of contact precautions for patients infected with MRSA and VRE.

METHOD

We observed patients as two cohorts (Pre-Pilot and Pilot) in one Medical Intensive Care Unit, one Surgical Intensive Care Unit & two medical floors during 2014-2015. In the Pre-pilot period contact precautions were kept throughout admission. In the Pilot period contact precautions were initially placed followed by universal gloving. Comparisons were made for MRSA and VRE infection rates. Total costs were estimated assuming the average cost of 1 gown was $26 per patient per day.

RESULTS

Mean isolation days were reduced from 11.9 days to 6.8 days for MRSA and 12.8 days to 8.4 days for VRE. There were 86 MRSA infections in the Pre-Pilot period and 73 MRSA infections during the Pilot period (p=0.052). Incidence of hospital acquired MRSA in the wards decreased from 15 to 7 cases and 6 to 2 cases in the Intensive Care Unit in both the Pilot and Pre-Pilot periods respectively. Cost reduced by $2476 and $17,336 per month for VRE and MRSA patients. Number of readmissions also decreased by 39% for MRSA and 50% for VRE.

CONCLUSIONS

A reduction in contact precautions has reduced patient costs without affecting the rate of MRSA and VRE infection within a one-year period.

Chlorhexidine versus routine bathing to prevent multidrug-resistant organisms and all-cause bloodstream infections in general medical and surgical units (ABATE Infection trial): a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Universal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units.

METHODS

The ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867.

FINDINGS

There were 189 081 patients in the baseline period and 339 902 patients (156 889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73-0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79-0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (<1%) adverse events, all involving chlorhexidine, among 183 013 patients in units assigned to chlorhexidine, and none were reported for mupirocin.

INTERPRETATION

Decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine bathing and targeted mupirocin for MRSA carriers did not significantly reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in non-critical-care patients.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Patient contact is the main risk factor for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of healthcare workers' gloves and gowns in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To determine which healthcare worker (HCW) roles and patient care activities are associated with acquisition of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) on HCW gloves or gowns after patient care, as a surrogate for transmission to other patients.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Medical and surgical intensive care units at a tertiary-care academic institution.ParticipantsVRE-colonized patients on Contact Precautions and their HCWs.

METHODS

Overall, 94 VRE-colonized patients and 469 HCW-patient interactions were observed. Research staff recorded patient care activities and cultured HCW gloves and gowns for VRE before doffing and exiting patient room.

RESULTS

VRE were isolated from 71 of 469 HCWs' gloves or gowns (15%) following patient care. Occupational/physical therapists, patient care technicians, nurses, and physicians were more likely than environmental services workers and other HCWs to have contaminated gloves or gowns. Compared to touching the environment alone, the odds ratio (OR) for VRE contamination associated with touching both the patient (or objects in the immediate vicinity of the patient) and environment was 2.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-0.77) and the OR associated with touching only the patient (or objects in the immediate vicinity) was 3.65 (95% CI, 1.17-11.41). Independent risk factors for transmission of VRE to HCWs were touching the patient's skin (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.15-4.13) and transferring the patient into or out of bed (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.15-6.43).

CONCLUSION

Patient contact is a major risk factor for HCW contamination and subsequent transmission. Interventions should prioritize contact precautions and hand hygiene for HCWs whose activities involve touching the patient.

Frequent contamination of nursing scrubs is associated with specific care activities

BACKGROUND

The objective of this article is to assess health care worker (HCW) and patient care factors associated with bacterial contamination of scrubs.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study of critical care HCWs. Participants were given 4 sets of new scrubs; each set was sampled 8 times during the 8-month study period on random days in the last 4 hours of the shift. Total colony counts and presence of prespecified pathogenic bacteria were assessed. Generalized estimating equation was used to identify factors associated with contamination.

RESULTS

There were 720 samples obtained from 90 HCWs; 30% of samples were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. Multivariate analysis showed that providing care for patients with wounds (odds ratio [OR], 1.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.62; P < .01) or giving a bath (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.96-2.22; P = .07) was associated with higher odds of scrub contamination. A second model showed the average log colony count of bacterial contamination of scrubs was higher when a bath was given (log colony count difference, 0.21; P = .05) but lower among HCWs assigned to care for at least 1 patient on contact precautions (log colony count difference, 0.28; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

HCW attire was frequently contaminated with bacteria. Providing care for patients with wounds or giving a bath were associated with scrub contamination by pathogenic bacteria. However, the amount of contamination was lower among HCWs who were assigned to care for patients on contact precautions.

A Discrete Event Simulation Model of Patient Flow in a General Hospital Incorporating Infection Control Policy for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE)

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients are assigned to available staffed beds based on patient acuity and services required. In hospitals with double-occupancy rooms, patients must be additionally matched by gender. Patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) must be bedded in single-occupancy rooms or cohorted with other patients with similar MRSA/VRE flags.

METHODS

We developed a discrete event simulation (DES) model of patient flow through an acute care hospital. Patients are matched to beds based on acuity, service, gender, and known MRSA/VRE colonization. Outcomes included time to bed arrival, length of stay, patient-bed acuity mismatches, occupancy, idle beds, acuity-related transfers, rooms with discordant MRSA/VRE colonization, and transmission due to discordant colonization.

RESULTS

Observed outcomes were well-approximated by model-generated outcomes for time-to-bed arrival (6.7 v. 6.2 to 6.5 h) and length of stay (3.3 v. 2.9 to 3.0 days), with overlapping 90% coverage intervals. Patient-bed acuity mismatches, where patient acuity exceeded bed acuity and where patient acuity was lower than bed acuity, ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 and 8.6 to 11.1 mismatches per h, respectively. Values for observed occupancy, total idle beds, and acuity-related transfers compared favorably to model-predicted values (91% v. 86% to 87% occupancy, 15.1 v. 14.3 to 15.7 total idle beds, and 27.2 v. 22.6 to 23.7 transfers). Rooms with discordant colonization status and transmission due to discordance were modeled without an observed value for comparison. One-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses were performed for idle beds and rooms with discordant colonization.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a DES model of patient flow incorporating MRSA/VRE flags. The model allowed for quantification of the substantial impact of MRSA/VRE flags on hospital efficiency and potentially avoidable nosocomial transmission.

When should contact precautions be discontinued for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus?

When to discontinue contact precautions for patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains unresolved and policies vary between hospitals. We prospectively performed admission active surveillance cultures on patients known to have been MRSA positive for at least 1 year to determine the proportion who remained positive. The proportion of patients with MRSA who remained positive was 19.9%; however, this significantly decreased over time, particularly after 5 years.

Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: Epidemiology, Infection Prevention, and Control

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) infections have acquired prominence as a leading cause of health care-associated infections. Understanding VRE epidemiology, transmission modes in health care settings, risk factors for colonization, and infection is essential to prevention and control of VRE infections. Infection control strategies are pivotal in management of VRE infections and should be based on patient characteristics, hospital needs, and available resources. Hand hygiene is basic to decrease acquisition of VRE. The effectiveness of surveillance and contact precautions is variable and controversial in endemic settings, but important during VRE outbreak investigations and control. Environmental cleaning, chlorhexidine bathing, and antimicrobial stewardship are vital in VRE prevention and control.

Policies for Controlling Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in US Healthcare Facilities Reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network, 2014

We examined reported policies for the control of common multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in US healthcare facilities using data from the National Healthcare Safety Network Annual Facility Survey. Policies for the use of Contact Precautions were commonly reported. Chlorhexidine bathing for preventing MDRO transmission was also common among acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016:1-4.