Cutaneous methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a suburban community hospital pediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Studies on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections have typically focused on pediatric and adult populations at urban tertiary care hospitals. Limited data exist on MRSA rates in skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) in suburban community hospital pediatric emergency departments (PED). OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of MRSA in SSTIs in a contemporary suburban community hospital PED population. METHODS: Patients 0-21 years old with SSTI wound cultures who were seen at our PED from 2003-2007 were studied. Data analyzed included type of infection (abscess vs. non-abscess), site of infection, and culture results. Chi-squared and t-tests were used as appropriate; p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: During the study period, 204 cultures were obtained for SSTIs, 11 of which were contaminants. The subjects had a mean age of 12.9 years (SD 6.8 years); 60% were male. The prevalence of MRSA was 27%; MRSA was present in 30% of abscesses vs. 2.2% of non-abscess SSTI (p < 0.005). By year, the prevalence of MRSA was 10% in 2003, 31% in 2004, 33% in 2005, 31% in 2006, and 29% in 2007. No differences between MRSA and non-MRSA infections were present for gender, age, or site of infection. CONCLUSIONS: At our suburban community hospital pediatric ED, MRSA was present in 30% of all SSTI wound cultures; MRSA was unlikely with non-abscess SSTI. Our overall MRSA prevalence data among SSTIs are consistent with previously published reports in pediatric ED populations but may be less than those reported in the adult literature.

The prevalence of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted disease in women with symptoms of a simple urinary tract infection stratified by low colony count criteria.

OBJECTIVES: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) and early pelvic infections due to sexually transmitted disease (STD) may cause similar symptoms. Therefore, a simple history and urine dip to establish a diagnosis of UTI may result in overtreatment of UTIs and undertreatment of STDs. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of women with symptoms suggestive of a UTI who are urine culture positive versus urine culture negative, the prevalence of STDs between groups, and if elements of the history or examination may predict those requiring STD screening. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study in an urban emergency department. Women 18-55 years of age with urinary frequency, urgency, dysuria, and no new vaginal discharge or change in discharge were enrolled. The following were performed: detailed history; bladder catheterization for urinalysis, urine dip, and urine culture; pelvic examination and cervical samples for gonorrhea and Chlamydia trachomatis DNA ligase; and wet mount examinations. Main outcome measurements were the percentage of women who were urine culture positive (using low count criteria of 10(2) colony-forming units [CFU]/mL), the proportion of STDs between urine culture groups, and univariate analysis and logistic regression of historical and examination elements. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were enrolled; the mean age was 26 years (range, 18-51 years). All had samples for DNA ligase (one quantity not sufficient) and urinalysis or urine dip, while 75 of 92 had urine cultures performed. A total of 57.3% (43/75) were urine culture positive at 10(2) CFU/mL, while the STD rate for those with urine cultures was 17.3% (13/75). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of STDs between urine culture positive and urine culture negative groups. The only variable on logistic regression predictive of an STD (based on all 91 patients) was more than one sex partner in the past year (p = 0.013). No other element of the history or pelvic examination helped differentiate those who tested positive for an STD. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 17.3% of women with symptoms of a UTI in this study had an STD, while only 57.3% were urine culture positive by catheterization using low count criteria. The proportion of STDs between those with and without a UTI was not significantly different.

A randomized, clinical trial comparing oral celecoxib 200 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 600 mg for acute pain.

OBJECTIVE: Celecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor used to treat pain. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacies of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of acute pain. The null hypothesis was that no difference between celecoxib and ibuprofen exists. METHODS: The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. After consent, patients rated their pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and categorical intensity pain scale. Patients were then randomized to receive 200-mg or 400-mg celecoxib or 600-mg ibuprofen (all orally). Patients were contacted 5 hours after receiving study medication when a second VAS score was recorded, along with categorical pain intensity, pain relief score, side effects, and number of rescue medications taken. The main outcome measures were change in visual analog pain and categorical pain intensity scores, and pain relief scores, at five hours. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients were evaluated and 105 were enrolled. Thirty-four received celecoxib 200 mg, 32 received celecoxib 400 mg, and 39 received ibuprofen 600 mg. Ninety-one were available for the five-hour VAS and 88 for the five-hour categorical pain intensity and pain relief analysis: The two patients who were unable to read a VAS were excluded, and two enrolled patients withdrew prior to medication. One patient was excluded because his injury was a fracture, and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference among the treatment groups in age, time from injury to medication, initial VAS score, percent lost to follow-up, or treatment with adjunctive therapy. There was no statistical difference in change of VAS among the groups at five hours: ibuprofen 600 mg (-23.8 mm [95% CI = -31.56 mm to -16.1 mm] [n = 32]), celecoxib 200 mg (-16.1 mm [95% CI = -24.3 mm to -7.98 mm] [n = 31]), and celecoxib 400 mg (-12.4 mm [95% CI = -23.1 mm to -1.8 mm] [n = 30]) (p = 0.16). There was no significant difference between the groups, at five hours, in change of categorical pain intensity (p = 0.11) or pain relief scores (p = 0.059), though the pain relief scale approached significance favoring ibuprofen. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference exists among emergency department (ED) patients treated for acute pain, at five hours, with celecoxib 200 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, or ibuprofen 600 mg, though the power of the study to detect a change was low, 36%. However, the magnitude of pain relief for celecoxib, coupled with the cost of the medication, questions its use in the immediate ED setting.