Nijssen S, Bonten M J M, Weinstein R A
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Acute Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Clin Infect Dis. 2005 Feb 1;40(3):405-9. doi: 10.1086/427281. Epub 2005 Jan 10.
Infection-control strategies usually combine several interventions. The relative value of individual interventions, however, is rarely determined. We assessed the effect of daily microbiological surveillance alone (e.g., without report of culture results or isolating colonized patients) as an infection-control measure on the spread of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) in a medical intensive care unit (MICU).
Colonization of patients with MSSA and MRSA was assessed by cultures of nasal swabs obtained daily and, if a patient was intubated, by cultures of additional endotracheal aspirates. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was used to determine relatedness between MSSA or MRSA isolates in surveillance cultures (i.e., cultures of nasal swab specimens obtained daily) and those in clinical cultures (i.e., any other culture performed for clinical purposes). Adherence to infection-control measures by health care workers (HCWs) was determined by observations of HCW-patient interaction.
During a 10-week period, surveillance cultures were performed for 158 patients. Fifty-five patients (34.8%) were colonized with MSSA, and 9 (5.7%) were colonized with MRSA. Sixty-two patients were colonized before admission to the hospital (53 had MSSA, and 9 had MRSA). Two patients appeared to have acquired MSSA in the MICU, but, on the basis of genotyping analysis, we determined that this was not the result of cross-acquisition.
Surveillance cultures and genotyping of MRSA and MSSA isolates demonstrated the absence of cross-transmission among patients in the MICU, despite ongoing introduction of these pathogens. Reporting culture results and isolating colonized patients, as suggested by some guidelines, would have falsely suggested the success of such infection-control policies.
感染控制策略通常结合多种干预措施。然而,很少确定个体干预措施的相对价值。我们评估了仅进行每日微生物监测(例如,不报告培养结果或隔离定植患者)作为一种感染控制措施对医疗重症监护病房(MICU)中耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MSSA)和耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)传播的影响。
通过每日采集鼻拭子培养评估患者的MSSA和MRSA定植情况,如果患者进行了气管插管,则通过额外采集气管内吸出物进行培养。脉冲场凝胶电泳用于确定监测培养(即每日采集的鼻拭子标本培养)中的MSSA或MRSA分离株与临床培养(即为临床目的进行的任何其他培养)中的分离株之间的相关性。通过观察医护人员与患者的互动来确定医护人员(HCW)对感染控制措施的依从性。
在为期10周的期间内,对158名患者进行了监测培养。55名患者(34.8%)定植有MSSA,9名患者(5.7%)定植有MRSA。62名患者在入院前就已定植(53名有MSSA,9名有MRSA)。两名患者似乎在MICU中获得了MSSA,但根据基因分型分析,我们确定这不是交叉感染的结果。
对MRSA和MSSA分离株进行监测培养和基因分型表明,尽管这些病原体不断传入,但MICU患者之间不存在交叉传播。按照一些指南的建议报告培养结果并隔离定植患者,会错误地表明此类感染控制政策取得了成功。