Outcomes associated with vancomycin-resistant enterococci: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus bacteremia (VREB) usually have a higher severity of illness, it has been unclear whether VREB is worse than vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus bacteremia (VSEB). METHODS: Data on morbidity and case fatality rates and costs were pooled from studies comparing VREB and VSEB, identified by Medline January 1986 to April 2002) and meeting abstracts. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed with contingency table chi-square. Multivariate analyses (MVAs) controlling for other predictors were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen studies compared case-fatality rates of VREB and VSEB. VREB case fatality was significantly higher (48.9% vs 19%; RR, 2.57; CI95, 2.27 to 2.91; attributable mortality = 30%). Five studies compared VREB with VSEB when bacteremia was the direct cause of death; VREB case fatality was significantly higher (39.1% vs 21.8%; RR, 1.79; CI95, 1.28 to 2.5; attributable mortality = 17%). Four MVAs found significant increases in case-fatality rates (OR, 2.10 to 4.0), 3 showed trends toward increase (OR, 1.74 to 3.34 with wide confidence intervals), and 3 with low statistical power found no difference. VREB recurred in 16.9% versus 3.7% with VSEB (P < .0001). Three studies reported significant increases in LOS, costs, or both with VREB. CONCLUSION: Most studies have had inadequate sample size, inadequate adjustment for other predictors of adverse outcomes, or both, but available data suggest that VREB is associated with higher recurrence, mortality, and excess costs than VSEB including multiple studies adjusting for severity of illness.

Cost-effectiveness of perirectal surveillance cultures for controlling vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus.

BACKGROUND: Several hospitals opting not to use active surveillance cultures to identify carriers of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) have reported that adoption of other parts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for controlling VRE has had little to no impact. Because use of surveillance cultures and contact isolation controlled a large outbreak at this hospital, their costs were estimated for comparison with the excess costs of VRE bacteremias occurring at a higher rate at a hospital not employing these measures. SETTING: Two university hospitals. METHODS: Inpatients deemed high risk for VRE acquisition at this hospital underwent weekly perirectal surveillance cultures. Estimated costs of cultures and resulting isolation during a 2-year period were compared with the estimated excess costs of more frequent VRE bacteremias at another hospital of similar size and complexity not using surveillance cultures to control spread throughout the hospital. RESULTS: Of 54,052 patients admitted, 10,400 had perirectal swabs taken. Cultures and isolation cost an estimated $253,099. VRE culture positivity was limited to 193 (0.38%) and VRE bacteremia to 1 (0.002%) as compared with 29 bacteremias at the comparison hospital. The estimated attributable cost of VRE bacteremia at the comparison hospital of $761,320 exceeded the cost of the control program at this hospital by threefold. CONCLUSIONS: The excess costs of VRE bacteremia may justify the costs of preventive measures. The costs of VRE infections at other body sites, of deaths from untreatable infections, and of dissemination of genes for vancomycin resistance also help to justify the costs of implementing an effective control program.

Comparison of four antiseptic preparations for skin in the prevention of contamination of percutaneously drawn blood cultures: a randomized trial.

A number of skin antiseptics have been used to prevent the contamination of blood cultures, but the comparative efficacies of these agents have not been extensively evaluated. We therefore sought to compare the efficacy of four skin antiseptics in preventing blood culture contamination in a randomized, crossover, investigator-blinded study conducted in an emergency department and the inpatient wards of a university hospital. The patient group included all patients from whom blood samples were obtained percutaneously for culture. Skin antisepsis was performed with 10% povidone-iodine, 70% isopropyl alcohol, tincture of iodine, or povidone-iodine with 70% ethyl alcohol (i.e., Persist). The blood culture contamination rate associated with each antiseptic was then determined. A total of 333 (2.62%) of 12,692 blood cultures were contaminated during the study period compared to 413 (3.21%) of 12,859 blood cultures obtained during the previous 12-month period (relative risk = 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.94; P = 0.006). During the study, the contamination rates were determined to be 2.93% with povidone-iodine, 2.58% with tincture of iodine, 2.50% with isopropyl alcohol, and 2.46% with Persist (P = 0.62). We detected no significant differences in the blood culture contamination rates among these four antiseptics, although there was some evidence suggesting greater efficacy among the alcohol-containing antiseptics. Among the evaluated antiseptics, isopropyl alcohol may be the optimal antiseptic for use prior to obtaining blood for culture, given its convenience, low cost, and tolerability.