4.5 Article

Community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage in hospitalized patients in tropical northern Australia

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 205-211

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2012.10.014

关键词

Aboriginal; Carriage; Community-associated infection; Indigenous; Meticillin-resistant; Staphylococcus aureus

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council [508829]
  2. NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Community-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) was first reported in remote Australian Aboriginal communities. It is a prominent clinical pathogen in northern Australia with potential for transmission within the local hospital setting. Aim: To determine epidemiological characteristics of S. aureus carriage within the Royal Darwin Hospital. Methods: We screened two patient groups: an 'admission group' recruited within 48 h of admission; and an 'inpatient group' recruited five or more days after admission. S. aureus isolates were characterized by antibiotic susceptibility testing and genotyped by a multilocus sequence type-based high-resolution melting scheme. Findings: S. aureus carriage on admission was 30.7% of 225 compared with 34.8% among 201 inpatients, with MRSA carriage of 2.2% and 18.9% respectively. We isolated CA-MRSA from 0.9% and 10.4%, and healthcare-associated (HCA)-MRSA from 1.3% and 9.0% of the admission and inpatient groups, respectively. Among the inpatient group, hospital-associated ST239 was the most common MRSA strain. CA-MRSA was represented by one clonal complex (CC) in the admission group (CC5) and seven CCs in the inpatient group (CC1, 93, 5, 6, 30, 75, 88). Conclusion: Inpatient carriage of multiple CA-MRSA lineages suggests selection for and transmission within the hospital of not only typical HCA-MRSA, but also diverse CA-MRSA strains. (C) 2012 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据