Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T15:21:36.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prevalence among S. aureus Isolates on Surgical Site Infection Risk after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Part of: BARRY FARR AWARD RECIPIENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Loren G. Miller ,
James A. McKinnell ,
Michael E. Vollmer  and
Brad Spellberg
Loren G. Miller*
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Clinical Outcomes Research Unit (ID-CORE), Division of Infectious Diseases, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, California
James A. McKinnell
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Clinical Outcomes Research Unit (ID-CORE), Division of Infectious Diseases, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
Michael E. Vollmer
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Clinical Outcomes Research Unit (ID-CORE), Division of Infectious Diseases, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
Brad Spellberg
Affiliation:
David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, California Division of General Internal Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
*
Division of Infectious Diseases, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 West Carson Street, Box 466, Torrance, CA 90509 (lgmiller@ucla.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

Cephalosporins are recommended for antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent cardiothoracic surgical site infections (SSIs) except in patients with β-lactam allergy or in settings with a “high” prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among S. aureus isolates (hereafter, “MRSA prevalence”); however, “high” remains undefined. We sought to identify the MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis would minimize SSIs relative to β-lactam prophylaxis.

Methods.

We developed a decision analysis model to estimate SSI likelihood when either glycopeptides or β-lactams were used for prophylaxis in cardiothoracic surgery. Event probabilities were derived from a systematic literature review. A similar cost-minimization model was also developed.

Results.

At 0% MRSA prevalence, SSI probability was 3.64% with glycopeptide prophylaxis and 3.49% with β-lactam prophylaxis. At MRSA prevalences of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%, SSI probabilities with glycopeptide prophylaxis did not change, but they were 3.98%, 4.48%, 4.97%, and 5.47% with β-lactam prophylaxis. The threshold of MRSA prevalence at which glycopeptide prophylaxis minimized SSI probability and cost was 3%. In sensitivity analyses, variations in most model estimates only modestly affected the threshold.

Conclusion.

Glycopeptide prophylaxis minimizes the risk of SSIs and cost when MRSA prevalence exceeds 3%. At very low MRSA prevalence (between 3% and 10%), the SSI minimization provided by glycopeptide prophylaxis is small and may be within the error of the model. Given the current MRSA prevalence in most community and healthcare settings, clinicians should consider routine prophylaxis with vancomycin. Our findings may have important policy implications, as benefits in cardiothoracic surgery antibiotic prophylaxis must be weighed against the limitations of increased glycopeptide use.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , April 2011 , pp. 342 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

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. Martone, WJ, Nichols, RL. Recognition, prevention, surveillance, and management of surgical site infections: introduction to the problem and symposium overview. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33(suppl 2):S67–S68.10.1086/321859Google Scholar
2. Bratzier, DW, Houck, PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1706–1715.Google Scholar
3. Fong, IW, Baker, CB, McKee, DC. The value of prophylactic antibiotics in aorat-coronary bypass operations: a double-blind randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979;78:908–913.Google Scholar
4. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, LC, Silver, WR, Jarvis, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–280.Google Scholar
5. Hiramatsu, K. Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a new model of antibiotic resistance. Lancet Infect Dis 2001;1:147–155.Google Scholar
6. Fridkin, SK, Hageman, J, McDougal, LK, et al. Epidemiological and microbiological characterization of infections caused by Staphylococcus aureus with reduced susceptibility to vancomycin, United States, 1997-2001. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:429–439.10.1086/346207Google Scholar
7. Small, PM, Chambers, HF. Vancomycin for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis in intravenous drug users. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990;34:1227–1231.Google Scholar
8. Geraci, JE, Wilson, WR. Vancomycin therapy for infective endocarditis. Rev Infect Dis 1981;3(suppl):S250–S258.Google Scholar
9. Gentry, CA, Rodvold, KA, Novak, RM, Hershow, RC, Naderer, OJ. Retrospective evaluation of therapies for Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Pharmacotherapy 1997;17:990–997.Google Scholar
10. Deresinski, S. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an evolutionary, epidemiologic, and therapeutic Odyssey. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:562–573.Google Scholar
11. Kaplan, SL, Hulten, KG, Gonzalez, BE, et al. Three-year surveillance of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus infections in children. Clin Infect Dis 2005;40:1785–1791.10.1086/430312Google Scholar
12. Frazee, BW, Lynn, J, Charlebois, ED, Lambert, L, Lowery, D, Perdreau-Remington, F. High prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in emergency department skin and soft tissue infections. Ann Emerg Med 2005;45:311–320.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.10.011Google Scholar
13. Miller, LG, Perdreau-Remington, F, Bayer, AS, et al. Clinical and epidemiologic characteristics cannot distinguish community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection from methicillin-susceptible S. aureus infection: a prospective investigation. Clin Infect Dis 2007;44:471–482.10.1086/511033Google Scholar
14. King, MD, Humphrey, BJ, Wang, YF, Kourbatova, EV, Ray, SM, Blumberg, HM. Emergence of community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA 300 clone as the predominant cause of skin and soft-tissue infections. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:309–317.10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00005Google Scholar
15. Fowler, VG Jr, Miro, JM, Hoen, B, et al. Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis: a consequence of medical progress. JAMA 2005;293:3012–3021.10.1001/jama.293.24.3012Google Scholar
16. Fridkin, SK, Hageman, JC, Morrison, M, et al. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus disease in three communities. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1436–1444.10.1056/NEJMoa043252Google Scholar
17. Saginur, R, Croteau, D, Bergeron, MG, the ESPRIT Group. Comparative efficacy of teicoplanin and cefazolin for cardiac operation prophylaxis in 3027 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;120:1120–1130.10.1067/mtc.2000.110384Google Scholar
18. Salminen, U-S, Viljanen, TUT, Valtonen, W, Ikonen, TEH, Sahl-man, AE, Harjula, ALJ. Ceftriaxone versus vancomycin prophylaxis in cardiovascular surgery. J Antimicrob Chemother 1999;44:287–290.10.1093/jac/44.2.287Google Scholar
19. Finkelstein, R, Rabino, G, Mashiah, T, et al. Vancomycin versus cefazolin prophylaxis for cardiac surgery in the setting of a high prevalence of methicillin-resistant staphylococcal infections. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002;123:326–332.10.1067/mtc.2002.119698Google Scholar
20. Maki, DG, Bohn, MJ, Stolz, SM, Kroncke, GM, Acher, CW, My-erowitz, PD. Comparative study of cefazolin, cefamandole, and vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in cardiac and vascular operations. A double-blind randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;104:1423–1434.Google Scholar
21. Vuorisalo, S, Pokela, R, Syrjala, H. Comparison of vancomycin and cefuroxime for infection prophylaxis in coronary artery bypass surgery. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:234–239.10.1017/S0195941700087300Google Scholar
22. Fekety, FR Jr, Cluff, LE, Sabiston, DC Jr, Seidl, LG, Smith, JW, Thoburn, R. A study of antibiotic prophylaxis in cardiac surgery. /Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1969;57:757–763.Google Scholar
23. Goodman, JS, Schaffner, W, Collins, HA, Battersby, EJ, Koenig, MG. Infection after cardiovascular surgery—-clinical study including examination of antimicrobial prophylaxis. N Engl J Med 1968;278:117–123.Google Scholar
24. Austin, TW, Coles, JC, Burnett, R, Goldbach, M. Aortocoronary bypass procedures and sternotomy infections: a study of anti-staphylococcal prophylaxis. Can J Surg 1980;23:483–485.Google Scholar
25. Penketh, AR, Wansbrough-Jones, MH, Wright, E, Imrie, F, Pepper, JR, Parker, DJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Lancet 1985;325:1500.10.1016/S0140-6736(85)92267-6Google Scholar
26. Petitti, DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
27. Stone, PW, Chapman, RH, Sandberg, EA, Liljas, B, Neumann, PJ. Measuring costs in cost-utility analyses: variations in the literature. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:111–124.10.1017/S0266462300161100Google Scholar
28. Schmidt, K, Ramsdell, S. 2010 DRG expert. 26th ed. Salt Lake City, UT: Ingenix, 2009.Google Scholar
29. Mekontso-Dessap, A, Kirsch, M, Brun-Buisson, C, Loisance, D. Poststernotomy mediastinitis due to Staphylococcus aureus: comparison of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible cases. Clin Infect Dis 2001;32:877–883.10.1086/319355Google Scholar
30. Engemann, JJ, Carmeli, Y, Cosgrove, SE, et al. Adverse clinical and economic outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:592–598.Google Scholar
31. Bolon, MK, Morlote, M, Weber, SG, Koplan, B, Carmeli, Y, Wright, SB. Glycopeptides are no more effective than β-lactam agents for prevention of surgical site infection after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1357–1363.10.1086/383318Google Scholar
32. Rubin, ZA, Benoit, SR, Edwards, JR, Horan, TC, Jernigan, JA. Microbiology of deep surgical infections following coronary bypass, National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System, 1994-2003. Paper presented at: 43rd annual meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, October 6-9, 2005, San Francisco (abstract 1152).Google Scholar
33. Kaiser, AB, Kernodle, DS, Parker, RA. Low-inoculum model of surgical wound infection. J Infect Dis 1992;166:393–399.10.1093/infdis/166.2.393Google Scholar
34. Talbot, TR, Kaiser, AB. Surgical and trauma-related infections. In: Mandeli, GL, Bennet, JE, Dolin, R, eds. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 6th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2005:35–36.Google Scholar
35. Kernodle, DS, Kaiser, AB. Comparative prophylactic efficacy of cefazolin and vancomycin in a guinea pig model of Staphylococcus aureus wound infection. J Infect Dis 1993;168:152–157.Google Scholar
36. Kernodle, DS, Kaiser, AB. Efficacy of prophylaxis with /3-lactams and 0-lactam-β-lactamase inhibitor combinations against wound infection by methicillin-resistant and borderline-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus in a guinea pig model. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1993;37:702–707.10.1128/AAC.37.4.702Google Scholar
37. Chatellier, G, Zapletal, E, Lemaitre, D, Menard, J, Degoulet, P. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful nomogram in its proper context. BMJ 1996;312:426–429.Google Scholar
38. von Eiff, C, Becker, K, Machka, K, et al. Nasal carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. N Engl Med 2001;344:11–16.Google Scholar
39. Kluytmans, J, van Belkum, A, Verbrugh, H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev 1997;10:505–520.10.1128/CMR.10.3.505Google Scholar
40. Graham, PL III, Lin, SX, Larson, EL. A U.S. population-based survey of Staphylococcus aureus colonization. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:318–325.10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00006Google Scholar
41. Creech, CB II, Kernodle, DS, Alsentzer, A, Wilson, C, Edwards, KM. Increasing rates of nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in healthy children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005;24:617–621.10.1097/01.inf.0000168746.62226.a4Google Scholar
42. Hisata, K, Kuwahara-Arai, K, Yamanoto, M, et al. Dissemination of methicillin-resistant staphylococci among healthy Japanese children. J Clin Microbiol 2005;43:3364–3372.10.1128/JCM.43.7.3364-3372.2005Google Scholar
43. Davis, KA, Stewart, JJ, Crouch, HK, Florez, CE, Hospenthal, DR. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nares colonization at hospital admission and its effect on subsequent MRSA infection. Clin Infect Dis 2004;39:776–782.10.1086/422997Google Scholar
44. Zanetti, G, Goldie, SJ, Platt, R. Clinical consequences and cost of limiting use of vancomycin for perioperative prophylaxis: example of coronary artery bypass surgery. Emerg Infect Dis 2001;7:820–827.Google Scholar
45. Emanuel, EJ, Fuchs, VR. Who really pays for health care? the myth of “shared responsibility.” J JAMA 2008;299:1057–1059.10.1001/jama.299.9.1057Google Scholar
46. Darouiche, RO, Wall, MJ Jr, Itani, KMF, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:18–26.Google Scholar
47. Lin, L, Ibrahim, AS, Xu, X, et al. Thl-Thl7 cells mediate protective adaptive immunity against Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans infection in mice. PLoS Pathogens 2009;5:e1000703.10.1371/journal.ppat.1000703Google Scholar
48. Stranger-Jones, YK, Bae, T, Schneewind, O. Vaccine assembly from surface proteins of Staphylococcus aureus . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006;103:16942–16947.Google Scholar
49. Kuklin, NA, Clark, DJ, Secore, S, et al. A novel Staphylococcus aureus vaccine: iron surface determinant B induces rapid antibody responses in rhesus macaques and specific increased survival in a murine S. aureus sepsis model. Infect Immun 2006;74:2215–2223.10.1128/IAI.74.4.2215-2223.2006Google Scholar
50. Kachroo, S, Dao, T, Zabaneh, F, et al. Tolerance of vancomycin for surgical prophylaxis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and incidence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:381–385.10.1345/aph.1G565Google Scholar
51. Spellberg, B, Powers, JH, Brass, EP, Miller, LG, Edwards, JE Jr. Trends in antimicrobial drug development: implications for the future. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1279–1286.10.1086/420937Google Scholar
52. Boucher, HW, Talbot, GH, Bradley, JS, et al. Bad bugs, no drugs: no ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:1–12.10.1086/595011Google Scholar
53. Mossialos, E, Morel, CM, Edwards, S, Berenson, J, Gemmill-Toyama, M, Brogan, D. Policies and incentives for promoting innovation in antibiotic research, http://www.euro.who.int/_data/assets/pdf_file/0011/120143/E94241.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2010.Google Scholar