search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
338 Table 4. Comparison of Patients With Bacteremia Due to Antiseptic-Tolerant Versus -Susceptible S. aureus Variable


Median Age, y (IQR) Age ≤ 28 d


Median duration of bacteremia, d (IQR) CLABSI


Line removal


Musculoskeletal infection CHG use in prior 3 mo 1 CHG use


Recurrent CHG use CVL in situ


Hospital admission in prior 3 mo Surgery in prior 3 mo Underlying conditions Acquisition


Community acquired


Community-onset healthcare associated Nosocomial


Antibiotics in prior 3 mo Recurrent infectionc Mortality


Median length of stay, d (IQR) Methicillin resistant Clindamycin resistant


Antiseptic Tolerant S. aureus (n=44), No. (%)


0.74 (0.13–8.3) 8 (18.2) 1 (1–2)


15 (34.1) 10 (66.7) 1 (2.3)


24 (54.5) 11 (24)


13 (29.5) 25 (56.8) 37 (84.1) 23 (52.3) 39 (88.6)


7 (15.9) 17 (38.6) 20 (45.5) 39 (88.6) 8 (18.2) 2 (4.5)


14 (6–84) 13 (29.5) 13 (30.2)


Antiseptic Susceptible S. aureus,(n=75), No. (%)


6.3 (1.1–12.6) 5 (6.7) 1 (1–2)


13 (17.3) 10 (76.9) 31 (41.3) 25 (33.3) 11 (14.6) 14 (18.6) 21 (28) 36 (48)


26 (34.6) 38 (51.3)


41 (54.6) 16 (21.3) 18 (24) 39 (52) 2 (2.6) 2 (2.6)


10 (6–35) 12 (16.2) 13 (17.6)


P Value .008 .07 .67


.046 .69


<.001 .034 .22 .18


.003


<.001 .08


<.001 <.001


Adjusted P Value


0.22a OR 1.97 95% CI 0.66–5.87


Lauren M. Sommer et al


.88


.03 .54


0.9


0.15 1.6


0.24–3.34


0.03–0.84 0.36–7.03


.89 .62 .22 .9


.049b


1.1


0.56 0.37 1.1 3.3


0.27–4.35 0.06–5.53 0.08–1.78 0.19–6.48 1.5–21.1


<.001 .005 .63 .19 .11 .17


0.25


2.94


0.47–18.24


Note. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; CLABSI, central-line–associated bloodstream infection; CHG, chlorhexidine gluconate; CVL, central venous line. aIn multivariable analyses, age was dichotomized as > vs ≤ 0.33 years (the bottom quartile of age for all patients with S. aureus bacteremia). bAcquisition of infection is dichotomized as healthcare associated (CO-HCA and nosocomial) vs community-acquired. c3 patients withantiseptic-tolerant S.aureusandinfectionrecurrencehad CLABSI initially treated withCVL in situ comparedto 1 patient in the antiseptic-susceptible groupwith infection recurrence. If these 4 patients are removed from the analyses, a statistically significant relationship between antiseptic tolerance and infection recurrence remains (5/41 [12.2%] vs 1/74 [1.4%]; P = .03).


aureus and recurrence of infection; however, the reasons for this observation are unclear. Studiesusing ex vivo and in vivomodels sug- gest that S. aureus expressing such multidrug-resistance efflux pumps may have an enhanced ability to colonize surfaces as well as cause disease.38,39 Possibly, if such organisms have an enhanced coloniza- tion capacity, they may be more likely to cause recurrent infection despite appropriate treatment. This finding is, in part, also likely related to the higher rate of CLA-BSI in the tolerant group and recur- rences occurring as a result of not removing infected central lines in a minority of cases. Also, this phenomenonmight be a consequence of virulent strain types that happen to possess AT genes rather than a consequence of the genes themselves. Such findings further highlight the potential impact of AT strains for public health. Notably, however, the finding of higher recurrence in AT S. aureus infections may have been a result of these patients having a greater degree of medical complexity and thus being more likely to fail treatment. Additional limitations to this study should be acknowledged.


Foremost, these findings are from a single center with a previously described high prevalence of AT S. aureus20,21; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to all regions. The retrospective nature of


the study limits the degree to which clinical risk factors can be definitively associated with AT organisms. Additionally, given that colonization cultures were not examined in this study, we are unable to assess the impact of AT organism colonization on risk of subsequent bacteremia or the potential mitigating effects of anti- biotic/antiseptic use. In conclusion, genotypic AT is common among bloodstream


staphylococci and E. faecalis isolates at our institution. The pres- ence of AT genes was strongly associated with nosocomial acquis- ition of infection in staphylococci, implying a role for the hospital environment in selecting for these pathogens. Larger studies are needed to further explore and validate these findings.


Author ORCIDs. J. Chase McNeil, http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0232-7491


Acknowledgements. Weare grateful toMsLinda Lamberth as well as the staff of the TCH clinical microbiology laboratory for their assistance with this project.


Financial support. This study was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID grant no. K23AI099159) and The Texas Children’s Hospital Pediatric Pilot Research Fund (both to J.C.M.).


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132