ABSTRACT
Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (SAB) is a common, serious infection that is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence suggests that infectious disease consultation (IDC) improves clinical management in patients with SAB. We examined whether the introduction of a routine bedside IDC service for adults with SAB improved clinical management and outcomes compared to telephone consultation. We conducted an observational cohort study of 571 adults with SAB at a teaching hospital in the United Kingdom between July 2006 and December 2012. A telephone consultation was provided on the day of positive blood culture in all cases, but an additional bedside IDC was provided after November 2009 (routine IDC group). Compared to patients in the pre-IDC group, those in the routine IDC group were more likely to have a removable focus of infection identified, echocardiography performed and follow-up blood cultures performed. They also received longer courses of antimicrobial therapy, were more likely to receive combination antimicrobial therapy and were more likely to have SAB recorded in the hospital discharge summary. There was a trend towards lower mortality at 30 days in the routine IDC group compared to the pre-IDC group (12% vs. 22%, p 0.07). Our findings suggest that routine bedside IDC should become the standard of care for adults with SAB.
Subject(s)
Bacteremia/diagnosis , Bacteremia/drug therapy , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Staphylococcal Infections/diagnosis , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purification , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bacteremia/mortality , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Staphylococcal Infections/mortality , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: There are limited data available on the epidemiology and prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the human population that encode the recently described mecA homologue, mecC. To address this knowledge gap we undertook a prospective prevalence study in England to determine the prevalence of mecC among MRSA isolates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and thirty-five sequential MRSA isolates from individual patients were collected from each of six clinical microbiology laboratories in England during 2011-12. These were tested by PCR or genome sequencing to differentiate those encoding mecA and mecC. mecC-positive isolates were further characterized by multilocus sequence typing, spa typing, antimicrobial susceptibility profile and detection of PBP2a using commercially available kits. RESULTS: Nine out of the 2010 MRSA isolates tested were mecC positive, indicating a prevalence among MRSA in England of 0.45% (95% CI 0.24%-0.85%). The remainder were mecA positive. Eight out of these nine mecC MRSA isolates belonged to clonal complex 130, the other being sequence type 425. Resistance to non-ß-lactam antibiotics was rare among these mecC MRSA isolates and all were phenotypically identified as MRSA using oxacillin and cefoxitin according to BSAC disc diffusion methodology. However, all nine mecC isolates gave a negative result using three different commercial PBP2a detection assays. CONCLUSIONS: mecC MRSA are currently rare among MRSA isolated from humans in England and this study provides an important baseline prevalence rate to monitor future changes, which may be important given the increasing prevalence of mecC MRSA reported in Denmark.
