Timing of Acquisition of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nasal Carriage: Can we Limit Repeat Screening?

INTRODUCTION: Broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics are routinely administered to hospitalized patients with potential infections. These antibiotics provide protection; however, they come with their own negative effects. The utility of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal screening to steward anti-MRSA empiric antibiotics in hospitalized patients is established. With this current study, we look to determine the optimal frequency of MRSA nasal testing to help limit unnecessary testing consistent with the efforts of Choosing Wisely. We hypothesize that MRSA PCR nasal swab conversion will be low within the first 2 wk after index swab collection. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of all adult patient encounters from October 2019-July 2021 with MRSA PCR nasal testing. We excluded duplicate patient encounters. Further exclusion criteria included patients with a single MRSA PCR swab and those who tested positive for MRSA colonization on their index swab. We evaluated how many conversions from negative to positive there were, and the timing of those relative to those that did not develop colonization while in the hospital. RESULTS: 263 patients had multiple MRSA nares screening. 215 patients had 2 swab collections, 35 patients had 3 swab collections, 9 patients had 4 swab collections, and 4 patients had 5 swab collections. 14 converted from negative to positive. The time of conversions ranged from within 0-36 d, with an overall cumulative conversion of 5%. The rate of cumulative conversion from one week was 1.9%, for 2 wk it was 3.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that MRSA PCR nasal swab conversion is unlikely to occur within 2 wk. Therefore, to optimize resources, further investigation should be conducted to target guidelines as well as systems to limit repeat swab testing. We will investigate the utility of this after implementation.

Evaluating Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Polymerase Chain Reaction Nasal Screening as a Tool for Antimicrobial Stewardship.

INTRODUCTION: Initiation of broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics is common when infection is suspected in hospitalized adults. The benefits of early utilization of effective antibiotics are well documented. However, the negative effects of inappropriate antibiotic use have led to antimicrobial stewardship mandates. Recent data demonstrate the utility of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nasal screening to steward anti-MRSA empiric antibiotics in pneumonia. We hypothesize that MRSA PCR nasal swabs would also be effective to rule out other MRSA infection to effectively limit unnecessary antibiotics for any infectious source. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of all adult patient encounters from October 2019-July 2021 with MRSA PCR nasal testing. We then reviewed all charts to evaluate for the presence of infections based on source cultures results, as the gold standard. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were calculated from 2 × 2 contingency tables. RESULTS: Among all patients with MRSA nasal screening, 1189 patients had any infection. Prevalence of MRSA nasal carriage among patients screened was 12%. Prevalence of MRSA infection among all infections was 7.5%. MRSA nasal swabs demonstrated a negative predictive value of 100% for MRSA urinary tract infection, 97.9% for MRSA bacteremia, 97.8% for MRSA pneumonia, 92.1% for MRSA wound infection, and 96.6% for other MRSA infections. Overall, MRSA PCR nasal swabs had a sensitivity of 68.5%, specificity of 90.1%, positive predictive value of 23.7%, and negative predictive value of 98.5% for any infections. CONCLUSIONS: MRSA PCR nasal swabs have a high negative predictive value for all infections. Our data support the use of MRSA PCR nasal swabs to rule out MRSA infection and thereby allow early de-escalation of MRSA coverage in hospitalized patients requiring empiric antibiotics. Implementation of MRSA screening could decrease antibiotic-associated morbidity, resistance, and costs. More studies should be conducted to validate these results and support these findings.

Tracheostomy is Safe in Patients with Prolonged Intubation After Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy improves outcomes for critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Data are limited on the use and benefit of tracheostomies for intubated, critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. During the surge in COVID 19 infections in metropolitan New York/New Jersey, our hospital cared for many COVID-19 patients who required prolonged intubation. This study describes the outcomes in COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy. METHODS: We present a case series of patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy at a single institution. Tracheostomies were performed on patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation beyond 3 wk. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and ventilator settings prior to tracheostomy were reviewed. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included time on mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: Fifteen COVID-19 patients underwent tracheostomy at an average of 31 d post intubation. Two patients (13%) died. Half of our cohort was liberated from the ventilator (8 patients, 53%), with an average time to liberation of 14 ± 6 d after tracheostomy. Among patients off mechanical ventilation, 5 (63%) had their tracheostomies removed prior to discharge. The average intensive care length of stay was 47 ± 13 d (range 29-74 d) and the average hospital stay was 59 ± 16 d (range 34-103 d). CONCLUSIONS: This study reports promising outcomes in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure and need for prolonged ventilation who undergo tracheostomy during their hospitalization. Further research is warranted to establish appropriate indications for tracheostomy in COVID-19 and confirm outcomes.

Utilizing triage rates to improve ICU admission guidelines of elderly rib fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: Elderly rib fracture patients are generally admitted to an ICU which may result in overutilization of scarce resources. We hypothesized that this practice results in significant overtriage. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients over age 70 with acute rib fracture(s) as sole indication for ICU admission. Primary outcomes were adverse events (intubation, pneumonia, death), which we classified as meriting ICU admission. We utilized Cribari matrices to calculate triage rates. RESULTS: 101 patients met study criteria. 12% had adverse events occurring on average at day 5. Our undertriage rate was 6% and overtriage rate 87%. The 72 overtriaged patients utilized 295 total ICU days. Evaluating guideline modification, ≥3 fractures appears optimal. Changing to this would have liberated 50 ICU days with 3% undertriage. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with small numbers of rib fractures are overtriaged to ICUs. Modifying guidelines to ≥3 rib fractures will improve resource utilization and save ICU beds.

Center for Trauma Survivorship improves postdischarge follow-up and retention.

BACKGROUND: Although the need for high-level care persists postdischarge, severely injured trauma survivors have historically poor adherence to follow-up. We hypothesized that a dedicated Center for Trauma Survivorship (CTS) improves follow-up and facilitates postdischarge specialty care. METHODS: A retrospective study of "CTS eligible" trauma patients before (January to December 2017) and after (January to December 2019) creation of the CTS was performed. Patients with an intensive care unit stay ≥2 days or a New Injury Severity Score of ≥16 are CTS eligible. The before (PRE) cohort was followed through December 2018 and the after (CTS) cohort through December 2020. Primary outcome was follow-up within the hospital system exclusive of mental health and rehabilitative therapy appointments. Secondary outcomes include postdischarge surgical procedures and specialty-specific follow-up. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or hospital duration in the PRE (n = 177) and CTS (n = 119) cohorts. Of the CTS group, 91% presented for outpatient follow-up within the hospital system, compared with 73% in the PRE group (p < 0.001). In the PRE cohort, only 39% were seen by the trauma service compared with 62% in the CTS cohort (p < 0.001). Center for Trauma Survivorship patients also had increased follow-up with other providers (80% vs. 65%; p = 0.006). Notably, 33% of CTS patients had additional surgery compared with only 20% in the PRE group (p = 0.011). Center for Trauma Survivorship patients had more than 20% more outpatient visits (1,280 vs. 1,006 visits). CONCLUSION: Despite the follow-up period for the CTS cohort occurring during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, limiting availability of outpatient services, our CTS significantly improved follow-up with trauma providers, as well as with other specialties. The CTS patients also underwent significantly more secondary operations. These data demonstrate that creation of a CTS can improve the postdischarge care of severely injured trauma survivors, allowing for care coordination within the health care system, retaining patients, generating revenue, and providing needed follow-up care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.