Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
J Surg Res ; 283: 1047-1052, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2239291

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Initiation of broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics is common when infection is suspected in hospitalized adults. The benefits of early utilization of effective antibiotics are well documented. However, the negative effects of inappropriate antibiotic use have led to antimicrobial stewardship mandates. Recent data demonstrate the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal screening to steward anti-MRSA empiric antibiotics in pneumonia. We hypothesize that MRSA PCR nasal swabs would also be effective to rule out other MRSA infection to effectively limit unnecessary antibiotics for any infectious source. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of all adult patient encounters from October 2019-July 2021 with MRSA PCR nasal testing. We then reviewed all charts to evaluate for the presence of infections based on source cultures results, as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were calculated from 2 × 2 contingency tables. RESULTS: Among all patients with MRSA nasal screening, 1189 patients had any infection. Prevalence of MRSA nasal carriage among patients screened was 12%. Prevalence of MRSA infection among all infections was 7.5%. MRSA nasal swabs demonstrated a negative predictive value of 100% for MRSA urinary tract infection, 97.9% for MRSA bacteremia, 97.8% for MRSA pneumonia, 92.1% for MRSA wound infection, and 96.6% for other MRSA infections. Overall, MRSA PCR nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 68.5%, specificity of 90.1%, positive predictive value of 23.7%, and negative predictive value of 98.5% for any infections. CONCLUSIONS: MRSA PCR nasal swabs have a high negative predictive value for all infections. Our data support the use of MRSA PCR nasal swabs to rule out MRSA infection and thereby allow early de-escalation of MRSA coverage in hospitalized patients requiring empiric antibiotics. Implementation of MRSA screening could decrease antibiotic-associated morbidity, resistance, and costs. More studies should be conducted to validate these results and support these findings.


Subject(s)
Antimicrobial Stewardship , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus , Pneumonia, Staphylococcal , Staphylococcal Infections , Adult , Humans , Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/genetics , Staphylococcal Infections/diagnosis , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy , Staphylococcal Infections/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Pneumonia, Staphylococcal/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Staphylococcal/drug therapy , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Polymerase Chain Reaction
2.
J Surg Res ; 283: 999-1004, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2237456

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Since the implementation of national stay-at-home orders during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been rising concerns regarding prolonged social isolation that many individuals face. Given the link between increased stress and alcohol and drug use, our study investigated admission trends and patterns of alcohol and drug use in trauma patients. METHODS: This was a single center, retrospective cohort study comparing trauma patients admitted before the pandemic and during the first wave. We compared patient demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes of substance screen negative, positive, and unscreened patients admitted. Patients screened positive if they had a positive urine drug screen (UDS) and/or a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥10 mg/dL. RESULTS: There were 3906 trauma admissions in the year prior to and 3469 patients in the first year of the pandemic. No significant demographic differences were presented across time periods. Rates of UDS and BAC screening remained consistent. Equivalent rates of alcohol and drug positivity occurred (34% versus 33%, 17% versus 18%, P = 0.49). The total prevalence of alcohol use disorders (4% versus 5%, P < 0.001) and psychiatric disorders (6% versus 7%, P = 0.02) increased during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of diagnosed alcohol use and psychiatric disorders in trauma patients increased during the COVID-19 pandemic while rates of acute alcohol and drug screen positivity remained the same. These observations suggest a possible link between pandemic stressors and exacerbation of alcohol use and psychiatric conditions in trauma patients. During a changing pandemic landscape, it remains pertinent to increased screening for these conditions regardless of substance screen positivity upon admission.


Subject(s)
Alcoholism , COVID-19 , Wounds and Injuries , Humans , Pandemics , Blood Alcohol Content , Retrospective Studies , Trauma Centers , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethanol , Wounds and Injuries/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL