Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T10:21:25.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Colonization by Staphylococcus Aureus Resistant to Methicillin and Ciprofloxacin During 20 Months' Surveillance in a Private Skilled Nursing Facility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Yee-Lean Lee
Affiliation:
Academic Geriatric Resources Program, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Geeta Gupta
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Thomas Cesario
Affiliation:
Academic Geriatric Resources Program, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Richard Lee
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Sandra Nothvogel
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
James Nassar
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Leo Flionis
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
Lauri Thrupp*
Affiliation:
Infectious Disease Division, Department of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California
*
Professor of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, University of California Irvine Medical Center, 101 City Dr S, Orange, CA 92668

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate endemic colonization with Staphylococcus aureus resistant to methicillin, ciprofloxacin, or both among patients of a private skilled nursing facility, with regard to colonization rate and site, and relation to infection and prior antibiotic use.

Design:

Prospective quarterly culture surveillance of nares and rectal specimens over 20 months' observation.

Results:

The mean prevalence was 3.8% in new admissions and 5.4% for in-house patients; cumulatively, 7.5% of the patients were colonized during the study period. The colonization rate remained stable during the study period. Screening of rectal, as well as nares, specimens detected substantially more colonized patients than would have been detected by nasal cultures alone. Five to seven percent of the colonized patients developed later infection with methicillin-ciprofloxacin-resistant S aureus. Colonized patients did not differ significantly from the noncolonized group in prior use of quinolones, but the colonized group was exposed significantly more frequently to other antibiotics than the noncolonized group. Eighty-three percent of methicillin-resistant S aureus (MRSA) isolated from infections and 89% from colonization were also ciprofloxacin resistant.

Conclusion:

Although all infecting and most colonizing isolates of MRSA were resistant to quinolones, the overall rate of colonization remained low and stable despite the continued use of quinolones. The findings suggest that good infection control practice has prevented broader spread of such strains in this facility.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996 

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. Irvine, PW, Van Buren, N, Crossley, K. Causes for hospitalization of nursing home residents: the role of infection. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985;32:103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Lee, YL, Thrupp, LD, Friis, RH, Fine, M, Maleki, P, Cesario, TC. Nosocomial infection and antibiotic utilization in geriatric patients: a pilot prospective surveillance program in skilled nursing facilities. Gerontology 1992;38:223232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Zimmer, JG, Bentley, DW, Valenti, W, Watson, NM. Systemic antibiotic use in nursing homes. A quality assessment. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986;34:703710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Brumfitt, W, Hamilton-Miller, J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . N Engl J Med 1989;320:11881194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Muder, RR, Brennen, C, Wagener, MM, et al. Methicillin-resistant staphylococcal colonization and infection in a long-term care facility. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:107112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Winn, RE, Ward, TT, Hartstein, AI. Epidemiological, bacteriological, and clinical observations on an interhospital outbreak of naf-cillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus . Curr Chemother 1979;2:10961097.Google Scholar
7. Preheim, LC, Rimland, DR, Bittner, MJ. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Veterans’ Administration medical centers. Infect Control 1987;8:191194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Budnick, LD, Schaefler, S, the New York MRSA Study Group. Ciprofloxacin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in New York health care facilities. Am J Public Health 1990;80:810813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests. 4th ed. Villanova, PA: National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards; 1990:M2A4.Google Scholar
10. Goering, RV, Winters, MA. Rapid method for epidemiology evaluation of gram-positive cocci by field inversion gel electrophoresis. J Clin Microbiol 1990;30:577580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hsu, CCS. Serial survey of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal carriage among residents in a nursing home. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991;12:416421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Raviglione, MC, Boyle, JF, Mariuz, P, Pablos-Mendez, A, Cortes, H, Melo, A. Ciprofloxacin-resistant methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an acute-care hospital. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:632639.Google Scholar
13. Darouiche, R, Wright, C, Hamill, R, Koza, M, Lewis, D, Markowsk, J. Eradication of colonization by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by using oral minocycline-rifampin and topical mupirocin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991;35:16121615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed