Isolation of patients in single rooms or cohorts to reduce spread of MRSA in intensive-care units: prospective two-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired infection due to meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is common within intensive-care units. Single room or cohort isolation of infected or colonised patients is used to reduce spread, but its benefit over and above other contact precautions is not known. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of moving versus not moving infected or colonised patients in intensive-care units to prevent transmission of MRSA. METHODS: We undertook a prospective 1-year study in the intensive-care units of two teaching hospitals. Admission and weekly screens were used to ascertain the incidence of MRSA colonisation. In the middle 6 months, MRSA-positive patients were not moved to a single room or cohort nursed unless they were carrying other multiresistant or notifiable pathogens. Standard precautions were practised throughout. Hand hygiene was encouraged and compliance audited. FINDINGS: Patients' characteristics and MRSA acquisition rates were similar in the periods when patients were moved and not moved. The crude (unadjusted) Cox proportional-hazards model showed no evidence of increased transmission during the non-move phase (0.73 [95% CI 0.49-1.10], p=0.94 one-sided). There were no changes in transmission of any particular strain of MRSA nor in handwashing frequency between management phases. INTERPRETATION: Moving MRSA-positive patients into single rooms or cohorted bays does not reduce crossinfection. Because transfer and isolation of critically ill patients in single rooms carries potential risks, our findings suggest that re-evaluation of isolation policies is required in intensive-care units where MRSA is endemic, and that more effective means of preventing spread of MRSA in such settings need to be found.

Large variation in MRSA policies, procedures and prevalence in English intensive care units: a questionnaire analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major problem in intensive care units in most countries. Despite recommendations for screening and isolation of patients with MRSA our perception has been that there is little uniformity in approach in ICUs besides adherence to basic infection control procedures. We thus sought to identify MRSA prevalence and the variation of infection control policy across intensive care units in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up in English intensive care units. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 217 (96%) ICUs. Marked variation in practice was noted in terms of patient screening, staff screening, infection control procedures, isolation or cohorting of colonised/infected patients, and ward discharge policy. Point prevalence data showed that 16.2% of ICU patients were known to be colonised or infected with MRSA. There was a regional bias, but no difference was noted between high and low prevalence regions in terms of unit demographics or infection control policies. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the lack of consistent policy across English ICUs regarding isolation, screening and discharge practices for MRSA. Prospective studies are urgently needed to determine best practice.

Linezolid versus teicoplanin in the treatment of Gram-positive infections in the critically ill: a randomized, double-blind, multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: Linezolid, the only commercially available oxazolidinone, is indicated for the treatment of Gram-positive infections, although little has been published specifically on its use in the critically ill. A randomized, prospective study was therefore performed to compare linezolid with the glycopeptide antibiotic, teicoplanin, for the treatment of suspected or proven Gram-positive infections in an intensive care population. METHODS: Using a double-blind, double-dummy, prospective design, patients were randomized to (i) intravenous linezolid (600 mg/12 h) plus teicoplanin dummy [one dose/12 h for three doses then every 24 h intravenously (iv)] or (ii) teicoplanin (400 mg/12 h for three doses then 400 mg/24 h iv) plus linezolid dummy (one dose/12 h iv). Other antibiotics were used in combination with the trial agents in empirical treatment. Clinical and microbiological assessments were made daily in the first week, and at 8 and 21 days after treatment. RESULTS: One hundred patients received linezolid plus placebo-teicoplanin, whereas 102 received teicoplanin plus placebo-linezolid. Population baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At end of treatment, clinical success [71 (78.9%) linezolid versus 67 (72.8%) teicoplanin] and microbiological success [49 (70.0%) versus 45 (66.2%)] rates were similar, as were adverse effects, intensive care unit mortality, and success rates at short- and long-term follow-up. Linezolid was superior at initial clearance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization (end of treatment, 51.1% versus 18.6%, P = 0.002). Two MRSA isolates showed reduced susceptibility to teicoplanin. CONCLUSIONS: Linezolid has similar safety and efficacy to teicoplanin in treating Gram-positive infections in the critically ill. Short-term MRSA clearance achieved with linezolid suggests better skin and mucosal penetration.