Reality check: should we try to detect and isolate vancomycin-resistant enterococci patients?

Role of surveillance cultures in infection control

Hospital-acquired infections are a known menace to the primary disease, for which a patient is admitted. These infections are twenty times more common in developing countries than in the developed ones. Surveillance for colonised patients can be passive or active process. In many hospitals, active surveillance culture for certain sentinel organisms followed by contact precautions for the same is an important part of infection control policy. Specific measures can be taken on early detection of multidrug-resistant organism, allowing prevention of widespread transmission in hospitals. Cultures are the most conventional and economical microbiological method of detection. The cost of active surveillance is a major challenge, especially for developing nations. These nations lack basic infrastructure and have logistic issues. The guidelines regarding this are not very clearly delineated for developing countries. Each hospital has its own challenges and the process is to be tailor-made accordingly. The following review delineates the various aspects of active surveillance for the colonisation of various organisms and the advantages and disadvantages of the same.

Distribution and drug resistance of pathogenic bacteria in emergency patients

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic resistance has become a global threat for human health, calling for rational use of antibiotics.

AIM

To analyze the distribution and drug resistance of the bacteria, providing the prerequisite for use of antibiotics in emergency patients.

METHODS

A total of 2048 emergency patients from 2013 to 2017 were enrolled. Their clinical examination specimens were collected, followed by isolation of bacteria. The bacterial identification and drug susceptibility testing were carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 3387 pathogens were isolated. The top six pathogens were Acinetobacter baumannii (660 strains), Staphylococcus aureus (436 strains), Klebsiella pneumoniae (347 strains), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (338 strains), Escherichia coli (237 strains), and Candida albicans (207 strains). The isolation rates of these pathogens decreased year by year except Klebsiella pneumoniae, which increased from 7.1% to 12.1%. Acinetobacter baumannii is a widely-resistant strain, with multiple resistances to imipenem, ciprofloxacin, minocycline and tigecycline. The Staphylococcus aureus had high resistance rates to levofloxacin, penicillin G, and tetracycline. But the susceptibility of it to vancomycin and tigecycline were 100%. Klebsiella pneumoniae had high resistance rates to imipenem, cefoperazone/sulbactam, amikacin, and ciprofloxacin, with the lowest resistance rate to tigecycline. The resistance rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to cefoperazone/sulbactam and imipenem were higher, with the resistance rate to amikacin below 10%. Besides, Escherichia coli had high resistance rates to ciprofloxacin and cefoperazone/sulbactam and low resistance rates to imipenem, amikacin, and tigecycline.

CONCLUSION

The pathogenic bacteria isolated from the emergency patients were mainly Acinetobacter baumannii, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans. The detection rates of drug-resistant bacteria were high, with different bacteria having multiple drug resistances to commonly used antimicrobial agents, guiding the rational use of drugs and reducing the production of multidrug-resistant bacteria.

The prevention and management of infections due to multidrug resistant organisms in haematology patients

Infections due to resistant and multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms in haematology patients and haematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients are an increasingly complex problem of global concern. We outline the burden of illness and epidemiology of resistant organisms such as gram-negative pathogens, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE), and Clostridium difficile in haematology cohorts. Intervention strategies aimed at reducing the impact of these organisms are reviewed: infection prevention programmes, screening and fluoroquinolone prophylaxis. The role of newer therapies (e.g. linezolid, daptomycin and tigecycline) for treatment of resistant and MDR organisms in haematology populations is evaluated, in addition to the mobilization of older agents (e.g. colistin, pristinamycin and fosfomycin) and the potential benefit of combination regimens.

Outcomes Associated With Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci: A Meta-Analysis

Background:

Because patients with vancomycin-resistantEnterococcusbacteremia (VREB) usually have a higher severity of illness, it has been unclear whether VREB is worse than vancomycin-susceptibleEnterococcusbacteremia (VSEB).

Methods:

Data on morbidity and case fatality rates and costs were pooled from studies comparing VREB and VSEB, identified by Medline (January 1986 to April 2002) and meeting abstracts. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with contingency table chi-square. Multivariate analyses (MVAs) controlling for other predictors were evaluated.

Results:

Thirteen studies compared case-fatality rates of VREB and VSEB. VREB case fatality was significantly higher (48.9% vs 19%; RR, 2.57; CI95, 2.27 to 2.91; attributable mortality = 30%). Five studies compared VREB with VSEB when bacteremia was the direct cause of death; VREB case fatality was significantly higher (39.1% vs 21.8%; RR, 1.79; CI95, 1.28 to 2.5; attributable mortality = 17%). Four MVAs found significant increases in case-fatality rates (OR 2.10 to 4.0), 3 showed trends toward increase (OR, 1.74 to 3.34 with wide confidence intervals), and 3 with low statistical power found no difference. VREB recurred in 16.9% versus 3.7% with VSEB (P< .0001). Three studies reported significant increases in LOS, costs, or both with VREB.

Conclusion:

Most studies have had inadequate sample size, inadequate adjustment for other predictors of adverse outcomes, or both, but available data suggest that VREB is associated with higher recurrence, mortality, and excess costs than VSEB including multiple studies adjusting for severity of illness.

Raising standards while watching the bottom line: making a business case for infection control

While society would benefit from a reduced incidence of nosocomial infections, there is currently no direct reimbursement to hospitals for the purpose of infection control, which forces healthcare institutions to make economic decisions about funding infection control activities. Demonstrating value to administrators is an increasingly important function of the hospital epidemiologist because healthcare executives are faced with many demands and shrinking budgets. Aware of the difficulties that face local infection control programs, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Board of Directors appointed a task force to draft this evidence-based guideline to assist hospital epidemiologists in justifying and expanding their programs. In Part 1, we describe the basic steps needed to complete a business-case analysis for an individual institution. A case study based on a representative infection control intervention is provided. In Part 2, we review important basic economic concepts and describe approaches that can be used to assess the financial impact of infection prevention, surveillance, and control interventions, as well as the attributable costs of specific healthcare-associated infections. Both parts of the guideline aim to provide the hospital epidemiologist, infection control professional, administrator, and researcher with the tools necessary to complete a thorough business-case analysis and to undertake an outcome study of a nosocomial infection or an infection control intervention.

What Infection Control Interventions Should Be Undertaken to Control Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria?

Multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria are an emerging problem. The present article addresses 2 relevant questions: (1) should active surveillance be performed to identify patients colonized with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria, and (2) should contact isolation precautions be taken with patients colonized or infected with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria? Data and variables that are needed to scientifically answer these questions are reviewed, as are existing data on Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacteriaceae (Escherichia coli and Klebsiella species in particular), and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Control of Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococci: One Size Fits All?

Infection caused by vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates; it poses a serious threat, in particular, to immunosuppressed patients. It generates high costs and challenges infection-control programs. Here, we look at the insights that mathematical models offer into the epidemiology of VRE colonization and infection, the potential benefits of various infection-control interventions, and the possibility of designing a tailored approach to controlling VRE. Models show that epidemics of VRE infection in diverse institutions may differ in the relative contributions of cross-transmission and the influx of new cases, as well as in the various mechanisms of local transmission. They also highlight the phenomenon of decreasing returns associated with many interventions and, hence, the need to identify the most important routes of transmission, to break the weakest links in the chain of transmission, and to contain the influx of cases of VRE infection. These observations also provide insights into the management of infection with other antibiotic-resistant nosocomial pathogens.

Impact of a formulary switch from ticarcillin-clavulanate to piperacillin-tazobactam on colonization with vancomycin-resistant enterococci

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is increasing, despite infection control measures. Limited data link ticarcillin-clavulanate to higher VRE prevalence.

METHODS

Active surveillance for VRE was conducted before and after a formulary switch from ticarcillin-clavulanate to piperacillin-tazobactam. Rectal swabs were obtained serially in 863 adult patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between November 1, 2000 and September 30, 2004.

RESULTS

In the postswitch period, 38 of 497 (7.6%) patients acquired VRE versus 42 of 366 (11.5%) patients in the preswitch period. Survival analysis showed an overall hazard ratio (HR) of .68 postswitch versus preswitch ( P = .07), with the greatest change in the surgical ICU (HR = .17, P = .006). Multivariate analysis showed an overall HR = .51 ( P = .004). Hospital-wide, nonstool VRE clinical cultures fell from 39 (.58/1000 patient days) in the 10-month preswitch period to 27 (.33/1000 patient days) in the 12-month postswitch period. Infection control practices and use of other antibiotics remained stable.

CONCLUSIONS

VRE acquisition appeared to decrease in association with a formulary change from ticarcillin-clavulanate to piperacillin-tazobactam.

Implications of colonization of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in renal dialysis patients. Learning to live with it?

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) commonly colonize, but less frequently infect, debilitated patients, such as those on chronic renal dialysis. The emergence of VRE amongst our cohort of renal replacement therapy patients posed considerable challenges in our attempts to prevent spread. Although 60 of 451 (13%) patients became colonized, only two patients required systemic antibiotics for confirmed or suspected invasive infection. Mortality and inpatient stay was greater in VRE-positive compared with VRE-negative patients (50% versus 10%) and patients who were screened on three or more occasions were likely to remain positive (e.g. 56% of patients screened on six occasions were positive). The application of recommended guidelines for the control of VRE, however, severely disrupted our renal dialysis programme and therefore had to be abandoned. As patients on renal dialysis are more likely to acquire VRE, remain colonized, require antibiotics and require regular inpatient or outpatient care more frequently than other patients, control measures should be adapted to minimize spread but not disrupt important and essential medical services.

Co-carriage rates of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria among a cohort of intensive care unit patients: implications for an active surveillance program

OBJECTIVE

To assess the co-colonization rates of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing bacteria and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) obtained on active surveillance cultures.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary-care hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted between September 2001 and November 2002 to the medical and surgical ICUs at the University of Maryland Medical System had active surveillance perirectal cultures performed. Samples were concurrently processed for VRE and ESBL-producing bacteria.

RESULTS

Of 1,362 patients who had active surveillance cultures on admission, 136 (10%) were colonized with VRE. Among these, 15 (positive predictive value, 11%) were co-colonized with ESBL. Among the 1,226 who were VRE negative, 1,209 were also ESBL negative (negative predictive value, 99%). Among the 1,362 who had active surveillance cultures on admission, 32 (2%) were colonized with ESBL. Among these, 15 (47%) were co-colonized with VRE. Of the 32 patients colonized with ESBL, 10 (31%) had positive clinical cultures for ESBL on the same hospital admission. For these 10 patients, the surveillance cultures were positive an average of 2.7 days earlier than the clinical cultures.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who are colonized with VRE can also be co-colonized with other antibiotic-resistant bacteria such as ESBL-producing bacteria. Our study is the first to measure co-colonization rates of VRE and ESBL-producing bacteria. Isolating VRE-colonized patients would isolate 47% of the ESBL-colonized patients without the need for further testing. Hence, active surveillance for VRE should also theoretically diminish the amount of patient-to-patient transmission of ESBL-producing bacteria.

Projected Benefits of Active Surveillance for Vancomycin‐Resistant Enterococci in Intensive Care Units

Hospitals use many strategies to control nosocomial transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Strategies include "passive surveillance," with isolation of patients with known previous or current VRE colonization or infection, and "active surveillance," which uses admission cultures, with subsequent isolation of patients who are found to be colonized with VRE. We created a mathematical model of VRE transmission in an intensive care unit (ICU) using data from an existing active surveillance program; we used the model to generate the estimated benefits associated with active surveillance. Simulations predicted that active surveillance in a 10-bed ICU would result in a 39% reduction in the annual incidence of VRE colonization when compared with no surveillance. Initial isolation of all patients, with withdrawal of isolation if the results of surveillance cultures are negative, was predicted to result in a 65% reduction. Passive surveillance was minimally effective. Using the best available data, active surveillance is projected to be effective for reducing VRE transmission in ICU settings.

Colonization and infection with multiple nosocomial pathogens among patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that patients colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) have a higher frequency of colonization or infection with other nosocomial pathogens than do patients who are not colonized with VRE.

DESIGN

A rectal swab culture survey was conducted to determine the point-prevalence of stool colonization with ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacilli in hospitalized patients with or without VRE stool colonization. For a 6-month period, the frequency of Clostridium difficile diarrhea and isolation of antibiotic-resistant (ie, ceftazidime-, piperacillin/tazobactam-, levofloxacin-, or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole-resistant) gram-negative bacilli, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and non-albicans Candida species from clinical specimens other than stool was examined.

SETTING

A Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.

PATIENTS

All patients hospitalized in the acute care facility and one nursing home unit during a 1-week period in February 2001.

RESULTS

VRE-colonized patients had a higher point-prevalence of rectal colonization with ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacilli than did patients not colonized with VRE (17% vs 4%; P = .026). During a 6-month period,the VRE-colonized patients were more likely to have Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea (26% vs 2%; P = .001), MRSA infection (17% vs 4%; P = .017), or colonization or infection with gram-negative bacilli resistant to 4 different antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

VRE-colonized patients in our institution have a higher frequency of colonization or infection with other nosocomial pathogens than do patients who are not colonized with VRE. This suggests that isolation measures implemented to control VRE could help limit the dissemination of other, coexisting pathogens.

The epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization in a medical intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To determine the epidemiology of colonization with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) among intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

DESIGN

Ten-month prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A 19-bed medical ICU of a 1,440-bed teaching hospital.

METHODS

Patients admitted to the ICU had rectal swab cultures for VRE on admission and weekly thereafter. VRE-positive patients were cared for using contact precautions. Clinical data, including microbiology reports, were collected prospectively during the ICU stay.

RESULTS

Of 519 patients who had admission stool cultures, 127 (25%) had cultures that were positive for VRE. Risk factors for VRE colonization identified by multiple logistic regression analysis were hospital stay greater than 3 days prior to ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI95], 2.3 to 5.7), chronic dialysis (AOR, 2.4; CI95, 1.2 to 4.5), and having been admitted to the study hospital one to two times (AOR, 2.3; CI95, 1.4 to 3.8) or more than two times (AOR, 6.5; CI95, 3.7 to 11.6) within the past 12 months. Of the 352 VRE-negative patients who had one or more follow-up cultures, 74 (21%) became VRE positive during their ICU stay (27 cases per 1,000 patient-ICU days).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of VRE culture positivity on ICU admission was high and a sizable fraction of ICU patients became VRE positive during their ICU stay despite contact precautions for VRE-positive patients. This was likely due in large part to prior VRE exposures in the rest of the hospital where these control measures were not being used.

Large variation in MRSA policies, procedures and prevalence in English intensive care units: a questionnaire analysis

OBJECTIVE

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major problem in intensive care units in most countries. Despite recommendations for screening and isolation of patients with MRSA our perception has been that there is little uniformity in approach in ICUs besides adherence to basic infection control procedures. We thus sought to identify MRSA prevalence and the variation of infection control policy across intensive care units in England.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up in English intensive care units.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 217 (96%) ICUs. Marked variation in practice was noted in terms of patient screening, staff screening, infection control procedures, isolation or cohorting of colonised/infected patients, and ward discharge policy. Point prevalence data showed that 16.2% of ICU patients were known to be colonised or infected with MRSA. There was a regional bias, but no difference was noted between high and low prevalence regions in terms of unit demographics or infection control policies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the lack of consistent policy across English ICUs regarding isolation, screening and discharge practices for MRSA. Prospective studies are urgently needed to determine best practice.

Epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium under a selective isolation policy at an urban county hospital

BACKGROUND

We report our experience in a county hospital with the use of selective contact isolation for patients with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREF). About 12% of patients with VREF are isolated for reasons such as draining wounds and uncontrolled diarrhea.

METHODS

Passive surveillance identified all inpatients (181) from 1995 to 1999 with cultures positive for VREF. Data were collected via electronic databases and from prospectively maintained infection control records. Isolates were typed with use of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis.

RESULTS

Nearly all patients (175/181) with VREF had been admitted at least 48 hours or had a history of previous hospitalization. Most patients (69%) had urine cultures positive for VREF without blood cultures positive for the organism. Only 12 of 127 (9.%) patients with complete data had VREF infection on the basis of receiving treatment and/or having more than 1 blood culture positive for VREF. After VREF became endemic, statistically significant increased prevalence was not detected via surveillance of clinical cultures nor sequential point-prevalence studies. Two major genotypes carrying vanB resistance genes were identified and persisted throughout the period studied. VREF persisted in individual patients up to 46 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of VREF infections in this facility has been low, despite appreciable colonization, for an extended period during which selective isolation was used.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci: why are they here, and where do they come from?

Vancomcyin-resistant enterococci (VRE) have emerged as nosocomial pathogens in the past 10 years, causing epidemiological controversy. In the USA, colonisation with VRE is endemic in many hospitals and increasingly causes infection, but colonisation is absent in healthy people. In Europe, outbreaks still happen sporadically, usually with few serious infections, but colonisation seems to be endemic in healthy people and farm animals. Vancomycin use has been much higher in the USA, where emergence of ampicillin-resistant enterococci preceded emergence of VRE, making them very susceptible to the selective effects of antibiotics. In Europe, avoparcin, a vancomycin-like glycopeptide, has been widely used in the agricultural industry, explaining the community reservoir in European animals. Avoparcin has not been used in the USA, which is consistent with the absence of colonisation in healthy people. From the European animal reservoir, VRE and resistance genes have spread to healthy human beings and hospitalised patients. However, certain genogroups of enterococci in both continents seem to be more capable of causing hospital outbreaks, perhaps because of the presence of a specific virulence factor, the variant esp gene. By contrast with the evidence of a direct link between European animal and human reservoirs, the origin of American resistance genes remains to be established. Considering the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and resistance genes, the emergence of VRE has emphasised the non-existence of boundaries between hospitals, between people and animals, between countries, and probably between continents.

Can antibiotic-resistant nosocomial infections be controlled?

Three decades ago infection-control programmes were created to control antibiotic-resistant nosocomial infections, but numbers of these infections have continued to increase, leading many to question whether control is feasible. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci were major problems during the 1990s. Many hospitals have tried antibiotic control but with limited efficacy against these pathogens. Studies of antibiotic restriction, substitution, and cycling have been promising, but more definitive data are needed. Increased compliance with hand hygiene would help but is unlikely to control this problem alone as a result of frequent contamination of other surfaces even when hands are cleansed and high transmission rates when hand hygiene is neglected. For 17 years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended contact precautions for preventing nosocomial spread of important antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Many studies confirm that this approach works when sufficient active-surveillance cultures are undertaken to detect the reservoir for spread. However, most healthcare facilities have not yet tried this approach.