Assessment of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii–colonized patients: Which specimens produce the highest yield?

Casey Morrell, Kristina McClanahan, Lauren Daniel, James Burks, Argentina Charles, Ashley Marin, Jeanne Negley, Melanie Roderick, Carolyn Stover
{"title":"Assessment of carbapenem-resistant <i>Acinetobacter baumannii</i>–colonized patients: Which specimens produce the highest yield?","authors":"Casey Morrell, Kristina McClanahan, Lauren Daniel, James Burks, Argentina Charles, Ashley Marin, Jeanne Negley, Melanie Roderick, Carolyn Stover","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRA) bacteria are an urgent public health threat. Accurate and timely testing of CRA is important for proper infection control practices to minimize spread. In 2017, the CDC estimated 8,500 CRA cases among hospitalized patients, 700 deaths, and $281 million in attributable healthcare costs. Treatment options are extremely limited for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections, making CRAB a unique concern. Colonization screening is a valuable tool for containment but requires sampling of 4 body sites. Identifying a reliable specimen collection site for CRAB is important to inform public health recommendations as screening can cost healthcare facilities valuable time and resources. Methods: Results of all screening specimens of patients with at least 1 site positive for CRAB on a unique collection date were extracted from the Southeast Regional data of Antimicrobial Resistance Lab Network (SEARLN) data. Non-CRAB screening and screenings that did not yield at least 1 positive result on a single collection date were excluded. We also limited our data to include only the following screening sites, which have been validated by the Tennessee Department of Health’s State Public Health Laboratory: axilla and groin, rectal, sputum, and wound. For each specimen source, we calculated the percentage of positive specimen among CRAB-colonized patients. Data were extracted and analyzed using SAS version 9.4 software. Results: The SEARLN data contained 594 CRAB screening specimens collected over 4 years, 2018 through 2021, and 486 of those specimens yielded CRAB. For CRAB-colonized patients screened in this study, wound specimens had the highest positivity rate at 93.4% (95% CI, 89.9%–96.9%) of samples culturing CRAB. Sputum followed at 87.7%, then axilla and groin at 77.6% and rectal at 59.7%. Conclusions: Wound specimens produced the highest proportion of positive cultures among CRAB-positive patients, making them the sample type with the highest prevalence in our study. For healthcare facilities with limited time and resources seeking to optimize their CRAB screening process, wound specimens may be the most reliable single site for detecting CRAB colonization in patients with an open wound. When a wound is not present, sputum may be a good alternative single-source collection site. More research should be conducted before CRAB screening recommendations are updated. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter (CRA) bacteria are an urgent public health threat. Accurate and timely testing of CRA is important for proper infection control practices to minimize spread. In 2017, the CDC estimated 8,500 CRA cases among hospitalized patients, 700 deaths, and $281 million in attributable healthcare costs. Treatment options are extremely limited for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) infections, making CRAB a unique concern. Colonization screening is a valuable tool for containment but requires sampling of 4 body sites. Identifying a reliable specimen collection site for CRAB is important to inform public health recommendations as screening can cost healthcare facilities valuable time and resources. Methods: Results of all screening specimens of patients with at least 1 site positive for CRAB on a unique collection date were extracted from the Southeast Regional data of Antimicrobial Resistance Lab Network (SEARLN) data. Non-CRAB screening and screenings that did not yield at least 1 positive result on a single collection date were excluded. We also limited our data to include only the following screening sites, which have been validated by the Tennessee Department of Health’s State Public Health Laboratory: axilla and groin, rectal, sputum, and wound. For each specimen source, we calculated the percentage of positive specimen among CRAB-colonized patients. Data were extracted and analyzed using SAS version 9.4 software. Results: The SEARLN data contained 594 CRAB screening specimens collected over 4 years, 2018 through 2021, and 486 of those specimens yielded CRAB. For CRAB-colonized patients screened in this study, wound specimens had the highest positivity rate at 93.4% (95% CI, 89.9%–96.9%) of samples culturing CRAB. Sputum followed at 87.7%, then axilla and groin at 77.6% and rectal at 59.7%. Conclusions: Wound specimens produced the highest proportion of positive cultures among CRAB-positive patients, making them the sample type with the highest prevalence in our study. For healthcare facilities with limited time and resources seeking to optimize their CRAB screening process, wound specimens may be the most reliable single site for detecting CRAB colonization in patients with an open wound. When a wound is not present, sputum may be a good alternative single-source collection site. More research should be conducted before CRAB screening recommendations are updated. Disclosures: None
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌定植患者的评估:哪些标本产量最高?
背景:耐碳青霉烯不动杆菌(CRA)细菌是一种紧迫的公共卫生威胁。准确和及时地检测CRA对于采取适当的感染控制措施以尽量减少传播非常重要。2017年,疾病预防控制中心估计住院患者中有8500例CRA病例,700例死亡,可归因的医疗费用为2.81亿美元。耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)感染的治疗选择极为有限,这使得CRAB成为一个独特的问题。菌落筛选是遏制的重要工具,但需要在4个身体部位取样。确定可靠的标本采集地点对于告知公共卫生建议非常重要,因为筛查可能耗费医疗机构宝贵的时间和资源。方法:从东南地区抗微生物药物耐药性实验室网络(SEARLN)数据中提取在特定采集日期至少有1个位点呈螃蟹阳性的所有筛查标本的结果。排除非螃蟹筛查和在单个采集日期未产生至少1个阳性结果的筛查。我们还限制了我们的数据,仅包括以下筛查部位,这些部位已被田纳西州卫生部的国家公共卫生实验室验证:腋窝和腹股沟、直肠、痰和伤口。对于每个标本来源,我们计算了螃蟹定植患者中阳性标本的百分比。采用SAS 9.4版软件进行数据提取和分析。结果:SEARLN数据包含2018年至2021年4年间收集的594份螃蟹筛查样本,其中486份样本产生了螃蟹。在本研究筛选的螃蟹定殖患者中,伤口标本培养螃蟹的阳性率最高,为93.4% (95% CI, 89.9%-96.9%)。其次是痰液,占87.7%,其次是腋窝和腹股沟,占77.6%,直肠占59.7%。结论:伤口标本在螃蟹阳性患者中产生阳性培养的比例最高,是本研究中患病率最高的标本类型。对于时间和资源有限的医疗机构来说,寻求优化其螃蟹筛选过程,伤口标本可能是检测开放伤口患者中螃蟹定植的最可靠的单一地点。当伤口不存在时,痰液可能是一个很好的单一来源收集点。在更新筛查建议之前,应该进行更多的研究。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using whole genome sequencing to characterize Clostridioides difficile isolates at a tertiary center in Melbourne, Australia Influenza outbreak management tabletop exercise for congregate living settings Bring it on again: antimicrobial stewardship in transplant infectious diseases: updates and new challenges Professor Mahmood Bhutta on disrupting unhealthy supply chains and promoting environmental sustainability in health care Oral amoxicillin challenges for low-risk penicillin-allergic patients at a large Veterans Affairs facility: a retrospective feasibility analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1