4.5 Article

Risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection in patients with nasal MRSA colonization

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
卷 41, 期 12, 页码 1253-1257

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2013.05.021

关键词

Cohort studies; Nasal mucosa; Microbiology; Staphylococcal infections; Etiology; Prevention and control; Surgical wound infection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at increased risk for invasive infection compared with noncolonized patients; however, the magnitude of risk for MRSA surgical site infection (SSI) is unclear. To aid in planning of infection prevention strategies, we sought to assess the incidence of MRSA SSI in MRSA carriers. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at our tertiary care center of inpatients who underwent MRSA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screen of the nares within 30 days before a National Healthcare Safety Network principal procedure between April 2008 and July 2010. Results: The rate of MRSA SSI was 1.86% in the MRSA PCR-positive group (n=431) and 0.20% in the MRSA PCR-negative group (n=9432). Multivariate analysis identified MRSA PCR-positive status as an independent risk factor for MRSA SSI (odds ratio, 9.20; 95% confidence interval, 3.81-20.47; P<.0001); other risk factors included duration of surgery >= 137 minutes, American Society of Anesthesiologists score >= 3, and abdominal surgery. Conclusions: Surgical patients with a positive nasal MRSA PCR screen had a 9-fold greater odds of developing a subsequent MRSA SSI compared with patients with a negative nasal MRSA PCR screen. The incidence of MRSA SSI in PCR-positive patients was low (1.86%), however, and identifying subsets of patients at greatest risk for SSI may help target decolonization and other interventions. Copyright (C) 2013 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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