Open Access

Is first-line antimicrobial therapy still adequate to treat MRSA in the ICU? A report from a highly endemic country

  • Matteo Bassetti1, 4Email author,
  • Elda Righi1,
  • Maddalena Peghin1,
  • Alessia Carnelutti1,
  • Filippo Ansaldi2,
  • Cecilia Trucchi2,
  • Cristiano Alicino2,
  • Enrico Maria Tricarichi3,
  • Paola Del Giacomo3 and
  • Mario Tumbarello3
Critical Care201620:246

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1430-2

Published: 27 August 2016

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections cause great concern in intensive care units (ICUs) [1]. Although strict infection control protocols have reduced staphylococcal colonization, the ICU still represents a reservoir for MRSA infections, playing a role in their circulation to multiple wards and hospitals [24]. In critically ill patients, lack of adequate treatment may lead to increased mortality [1]. For this reason, broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy is often justified among critically ill patients.

We retrospectively analyzed the characteristics of S. aureus bloodstream infections (SA-BSI) from two Italian University hospitals during 2010–2014. A total of 17/337 (5 %) were ICU patients; of these, 16 (94 %) had MRSA-BSI compared with 36 % (116/320) from other wards (P < 0.001). Lower adequate first-line therapy (defined as therapy administered within 48 h of the positive blood culture and effective against a susceptible pathogen) and infectious diseases (ID) specialist consultation were documented in ICU versus non-ICU patients (18 versus 60 % and 53 versus 24 %, P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). When only MRSA infections were considered, adequate therapy and ID consultation remained more common in non-ICU patients (Table 1; difference not significant). Inadequate therapy for non-ICU and ICU patients was mainly associated with beta-lactam use (62/104 versus 10/12, respectively, P = 0.19). Patients with MRSA infections in the ICU displayed a lower Charlson score, longer hospitalizations, higher rates of nosocomial infections, endocarditis, and central venous catheter (CVC) and urinary catheter placement. Source control, including CVC removal, was significantly higher in ICU versus non-ICU patients (Table 1). A stepwise logistic regression analysis identified ICU stay (odds ratio (OR) 19.5, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.4–384.2, P < 0.001), presence of intravascular devices other than CVCs for over 72 h (OR 3.5, 95 % CI 1–13.2, P = 0.04), and pulmonary source of infection (OR 3.2, 95 % CI 1.2–9.4, P = 0.02) as factors associated with MRSA-BSI. Overall crude 7- and 30-day mortality was similar for MRSA- (Table 1) and SA-BSI (13 versus 18 % in non-ICU and 25 versus 29 % in ICU patients, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified as independent factors for 7-day mortality among patients with MRSA an inadequate targeted treatment (OR 0.19, 95 % CI 0.04–0.86, P = 0.03), absence of ID consultation (OR 0.17, 95 % CI 0.04–0.6, P = 0.004), and occurrence of endocarditis (OR 4.8, 95 % CI 1.4–17.5, P = 0.01) or septic shock (OR 15.9, 95 % CI 4.6– 66.7, P < 0.001). High Charlson score (OR 1.25, 95 % CI 1.1–1.5, P = 0.004) and septic shock (OR 2.8, 95 % CI 1.0–7.9, P = 0.04) were significantly associated with 30-day mortality.
Table 1

Characteristics of MRSA bloodstream infections in patients hospitalized in the ICU compared with other wards

Characteristic

Non-ICU (n = 116)

ICU (n = 16)

P value

Age, years (median, IQR)

70.5 (56–77)

59 (56–68)

0.07

Males (%)

82/116 (70.7)

10/16 (62.5)

0.50

Charlson score (median, IQR)

6 (3–7)

2 (1–4)

<0.001

CVC (>72 h) (%)

58/116 (50)

12/16 (75)

0.05

Other intravascular devices (>72 h) (%)

8/116 (6.9)

2/16 (12.5)

0.35

Urinary catheter (>72 h) (%)

40/116 (34.5)

14/16 (87.5)

<0.001

Antimicrobial therapy (<30 days) (%)

50/116 (43.1)

10/16 (62.5)

0.14

Source of infection

   

 Unknown

46/116 (39.6)

0/16 (0)

0.002

 CVC

12/116 (10.3)

3/16 (18.8)

0.53

 Pulmonary

12/116 (10.3)

1/16 (6.3)

1.00

 Endocarditis

15/116 (12.9)

8/16 (50)

0.001

 Skin and soft tissue

12/116 (10.3)

3/16 (18.7)

0.53

 Other

19/116 (4.3)

1/16 (6.3)

1.00

CVC removal (%)

42/58 (72.4)

12/12 (100)

0.06

Source control (%)

22/70 (31.4)

12/16 (75)

0.003

Hospitalization, days (median, IQR)

30 (18–44)

56 (25–116)

0.01

Acquisition (%)

   

 Community acquired

2/116 (1.7)

0/16 (0)

1.00

 Health-care associated

40/116 (34.5)

0/16 (0)

<0.001

 Hospital-acquired

74/116 (63.8)

16/16 (100)

0.003

Septic shock

22/116 (19)

1/16 (6.3)

0.37

Infectious disease consultation (%)

53/116 (45.7)

4/16 (25)

0.11

Empirical antimicrobial therapy (%)

110/116 (94.8)

16/16 (100)

1.00

 Daptomycin

7/104 (6.7)

0/12 (0)

0.35

 Glycopeptides

24/104 (23.1)

1/12 (8.3)

0.46

Therapy duration, days (median, IQR)

16 (7-22)

18 (14-27)

0.31

Adequate initial therapy (%)

30/116 (25.9)

2/16 (12.5)

0.39

7-day mortality (%)

27/116 (23.3)

3/16 (18.8)

0.69

30-day mortality

42/116 (36.2)

5/16 (31.3)

0.7

Values are expressed as percentage and median (25th and 75th percentile)

CVC central venous catheter, IQR interquartile range

The prevalence of MRSA varies widely by geographic region [5]. In our report, overall MRSA rates were comparable to those reported in Italy (33.6 %) by the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (EARS) in 2014 [5].

Our data highlight that inadequate MRSA first-line therapy can occur in clinical settings known to be at high risk for multi-drug resistant (MDR) infections. Low ID involvement and a priority towards multidrug-resistant Gram-negatives are possible reasons for a reduced first-line use of anti-MRSA compounds in the ICU. Although ICU patients displayed higher rates of inadequate first-line therapy and risk factors associated with increased mortality (e.g., reduced ID consultation and endocarditis) [6], overall mortality was comparable between groups. This may be related to a limited number of patients with septic shock in the ICU group; furthermore, low Charlson scores and higher source control in the ICU group compared with the non-ICU group may have contributed to achieve positive outcomes.

In conclusion, our study draws attention to an alarming proportion of first-line inadequate therapy among patients with SA-BSI in the ICU. In this setting, the use of protocols including anti-MRSA agents in patients at risk for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) should be recommended, and clinicians must retain a high level of suspicion for MRSA infections in order to select an appropriate early antimicrobial treatment and ultimately reduce mortality.

Declarations

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Infectious Diseases Division, Santa Maria Misericordia University Hospital
(2)
IRCCS AOU San Martino IST, Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa
(3)
Institute of Infectious Diseases, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
(4)
Clinica Malattie Infettive, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Santa Maria della Misericordia”

References

  1. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, et al. Invasive methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States. JAMA. 2007;298:1763–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mitchell BG, Collignon PJ, McCann R, et al. A major reduction in hospital-onset Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in Australia-12 years of progress: an observational study. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59(7):969–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Stenehjem E, Stafford C, Rimland D. Reduction of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection among veterans in Atlanta. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013;34(1):62–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Hoefnagels-Schuermans A, Borremans A, Peetermans W, et al. Origin and transmission of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in an endemic situation: differences between geriatric and intensive care patients. J Hosp Infect. 1997;36:209–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Antimicrobial resistance surveillance in Europe. 2014. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/antimicrobial-resistance-europe-2014.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2016.
  6. Vogel M, Schmitz RP, Hagel S, et al. Infectious disease consultation for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia--a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2016;72(1):19–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement