PloS one · 2015
Microbiological screening is necessary to distinguish carriers of plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamase-producing enterobacteriaceae and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae because of clinical similarity.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Conen Anna, Frei Reno, Adler Hildegard, Dangel Marc, Fux Christoph A, Widmer Andreas F
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Plasmid-mediated AmpC beta-lactamase-producing (pAmpC) Enterobacteriaceae are increasing worldwide, difficult to identify and often confounded with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) producers. The low prevalence precludes routine universal admission screening. Therefore, we evaluated potential risk factors for carriage of pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae that would allow targeted screening to improve yield and reduce cost.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a case control study at a tertiary care center from 1/2006 to 12/2010. Cases were adult patients in whom pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae were isolated; controls were chosen among carriers of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Both infected and colonized patients were included.
RESULTS: Over five years, we identified 40 pAmpC producers in 39 patients among 16,247 screened consecutive isolates of Enterobacteriaceae. The pAmpC prevalence was low (0.25%), but more than 30% of pAmpC carriers received incorrect empirical antibiotic treatment. When compared with 39 ESBL controls, pAmpC carriage was associated with clinically confirmed infections in 74% (versus 51%) (p=0.035), mainly of the urinary tract, previous antibiotic exposure in 63% (versus 36%) (p=0.035) and carriage of a nasogastric tube in 23% (versus 0%) (p=0.002). In the multivariate regression analysis only clinically confirmed infections remained significantly associated with pAmpC carriage (OR 1.44 (95%CI 1.15-2.57)). No other clinical and blood test-associated risk factor allowed discrimination of pAmpC-carrying patients from ESBL controls. The type of acquisition - nosocomial versus community-acquired - was also non-informative for resistance type, as 46% of pAmpC- and 44% of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae were community-acquired.
CONCLUSIONS: This study could not identify a clinical profile that would allow targeted screening for pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae when compared to ESBL carriers. Because empiric antimicrobial therapy was inappropriate in more than 30%, rapid identification of pAmpC carriers is needed. New microbiological methods are therefore required to simplify rapid and reliable detection of pAmpC carriers.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a case control study at a tertiary care center from 1/2006 to 12/2010. Cases were adult patients in whom pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae were isolated; controls were chosen among carriers of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Both infected and colonized patients were included.
RESULTS: Over five years, we identified 40 pAmpC producers in 39 patients among 16,247 screened consecutive isolates of Enterobacteriaceae. The pAmpC prevalence was low (0.25%), but more than 30% of pAmpC carriers received incorrect empirical antibiotic treatment. When compared with 39 ESBL controls, pAmpC carriage was associated with clinically confirmed infections in 74% (versus 51%) (p=0.035), mainly of the urinary tract, previous antibiotic exposure in 63% (versus 36%) (p=0.035) and carriage of a nasogastric tube in 23% (versus 0%) (p=0.002). In the multivariate regression analysis only clinically confirmed infections remained significantly associated with pAmpC carriage (OR 1.44 (95%CI 1.15-2.57)). No other clinical and blood test-associated risk factor allowed discrimination of pAmpC-carrying patients from ESBL controls. The type of acquisition - nosocomial versus community-acquired - was also non-informative for resistance type, as 46% of pAmpC- and 44% of ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae were community-acquired.
CONCLUSIONS: This study could not identify a clinical profile that would allow targeted screening for pAmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae when compared to ESBL carriers. Because empiric antimicrobial therapy was inappropriate in more than 30%, rapid identification of pAmpC carriers is needed. New microbiological methods are therefore required to simplify rapid and reliable detection of pAmpC carriers.