4.5 Article

Molecular Epidemiologic Analysis of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from Bacteremia and Nasal Colonization at 10 Intensive Care Units: Multicenter Prospective Study in Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF KOREAN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 604-611

出版社

KOREAN ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2011.26.5.604

关键词

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Intensive Care Units; Bacteremia; Molecular Epidemiology

资金

  1. Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2009-E00644-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolated at 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Korea. MRSA isolates from bacteremia and nasal colonization were collected prospectively from October 2008 through May 2009 at 10 University-affiliated hospital ICUs. A total of 83 and 175 MRSA strains were isolated from bacteremia and nasal colonization, respectively. Acquired group accounted for 69.9% (n = 58) of bacteremia and 73.1% (n = 128) of nasal colonization. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) type B (SCCmec type II/ST5) was dominant in the acquired group followed by PFGE type D (SCCmec type IVA/ST72; a community genotype). Seven of 58 (12.1%) acquired bacteremia and 15 of 128 (11.8%) acquired nasal colonizations had SCCmec type IVA/ST72 genotype, which indicated that the community genotype had already emerged as a cause of ICU acquired MRSA infection or colonization. Antibiotic resistance rates to ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, clindamycin and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole were 84.4%, 67.1%, 78.1%, and 12.0%, respectively. Susceptibility to ciprofloxacin best predicted a community genotype (sensitivity 96.5%; specificity 96.9%; odds ratio 861; 95% confidence interval 169-4,390, P < 0.001) and the positive predictive value was 90.2%. Among 23 nasal re-colonized strains, 7 MRSA strains (30.4%) were different from the originally colonized strains on the basis of PFGE types.

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