RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization increases the risk of MRSA infection. Detecting MRSA colonization can influence postoperative outcomes and prolong hospital stay. The conventional standard culture method for detecting MRSA colonization has limitations in terms of sensitivity and turnaround time. Hence, we sought out use of Xpert PCR kit for prompt evaluation of MRSA colonization to support MRSA prevention in a tertiary care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During 1st April-31st December 2022, 290 nasal and skin swab samples were collected from 257 patients and processed using routine culture (as gold standard method) and PCR-based MRSA detection assay (MRSA Xpert). RESULTS: A total of two hundred and ninety (290) swab samples from 257 patients were obtained, 33 of which were paired. The overall prevalence of MRSA colonization was 12% by both methods, with 90% of cases classified as community-associated (CA-MRSA) whereas 10% as hospital-acquired (HA-MRSA). The colonized group showed a higher subsequent MRSA infection rate (11% vs. 3.5%) compared to the noncolonized group. Culture identified 11% of screening samples as MRSA positive, Xpert MRSA assay showed 100% sensitivity and 95% specificity. The cost of a single MRSA Xpert assay was $50 while MRSA culture cost around $7.50. CONCLUSION: Our study findings suggest that the presence of MRSA colonization in our cohort of patients is consistent with the existing trends in hospital epidemiology. Both conventional culture and Xpert MRSA methods showed comparable efficacy for detection of MRSA colonization. Larger-scale studies are recommended to validate these findings conclusively.
Asunto(s)
Hospitales de Enseñanza , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa , Sensibilidad y Especificidad , Infecciones Estafilocócicas , Centros de Atención Terciaria , Humanos , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/aislamiento & purificación , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina/genética , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/diagnóstico , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/microbiología , Infecciones Estafilocócicas/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Pakistán/epidemiología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa/métodos , Adulto Joven , Portador Sano/microbiología , Portador Sano/diagnóstico , Portador Sano/epidemiología , Anciano , Adolescente , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Infección Hospitalaria/epidemiología , Infección Hospitalaria/diagnóstico , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of various commercially available alcohol-based hand sanitisers (ABHS) using European standard (EN 1500) method and perform ABHS testing with membrane filtration method. STUDY DESIGN: A Cross-sectional observational study. Place and Duration of the Study: Quality Control Section of the Microbiology Laboratory, The Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, from February to April 2023. METHODOLOGY: Efficacy of 14 commercially and widely accessible hand sanitisers was defined as reducing micro-organism growth. It was determined using the EN 1500 European standard test and membrane filtration method. RESULTS: Majority (92.8%) ABHS showed a significant bacterial reduction except one ABHS tested with the EN 1500 method. Only six ABHS products were tested through the membrane filtration method because high viscosity of hand sanitisers was causing damage to filter membranes. CONCLUSION: Continued vigilance in evaluating hand sanitiser's efficacy through robust testing methods is essential to ensure public health and prevent the dissemination of misleading products that may compromise hand hygiene practices. KEY WORDS: Hand sanitisers, European standard, Membrane filtration method, Antibacterial efficacy.