Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:53:40.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of Results of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus, aureus Surveillance Culture of Nasal Specimens on Subsequent Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Jörg J. Ruhe*
Affiliation:
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
Barry Kreiswirth
Affiliation:
Public Health Research Institute, Newark, New Jersey
David C. Perlman
Affiliation:
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
Donna Mildvan
Affiliation:
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
Brian Koll
Affiliation:
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, New York
*
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Medical Center, First Avenue at 16th Street, New York, NY 10003 ([email protected])

Abstract

We studied the potential impact of results of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) surveillance culture of nasal specimens on physicians' vancomycin-prescribing habits. We compared 116 case patients who had positive results with 116 matched control subjects who had negative results. On multivariate analyses, a positive MRSA carrier status remained strongly predictive of vancomycin use within the subsequent 12 weeks.

Type
Concise Communcations
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Safdar, N, Bradley, EA. The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med 2008;121:310315.Google Scholar
2.Calfee, DP, Salgado, CD, Classen, D, et al.Strategies to prevent transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(suppl 1):S62S80.Google Scholar
3.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 1995;44(RR-12):113.Google Scholar
4.Sakoulas, G, Moellering, RC, Eliopoulos, GM. Adaptation of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the face of vancomycin therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:S40S50.Google Scholar
5.Lodise, TP, Miller, CD, Graves, J, et al.Predictors of high vancomycin MIC values among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:11381141.Google Scholar
6.Charlson, ME, Pompei, P, Ales, KL, et al.A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chron Dis 1987;40:373383.Google Scholar
7.Fridkin, SK, Hageman, JC, Morrison, M, et al.Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus disease in three communities. N Engl J Med 2005;352:14361444.Google Scholar
8.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. WHOCC ATC/DDD index, http://www.whocc.no/atcddd/. Updated October 27, 2009. Accessed November 4, 2009.Google Scholar
9.Varshney, AK, Mediavilla, JR, Robiou, N, et al.Diverse enterotoxin gene profiles among clonal complexes of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from the Bronx, New York. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009;75:68396849.Google Scholar
10.Garrouste-Orgeas, M, Timsit, JF, Kallel, H, et al.Colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in ICU patients: morbidity, mortality, and glycopeptide use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:687692.Google Scholar