Enterococci are a major cause of nosocomial bacteraemia. The impacts of vanB vancomycin resistance and antibiotic therapy on outcomes in enterococcal bacteraemia are unclear. Factors that affect length of stay (LOS) and costs of managing patients with enterococcal bacteraemia are also unknown. This study aimed to identify factors associated with mortality, LOS and hospitalization costs in patients with enterococcal bacteraemia and the impact of vancomycin resistance and antibiotic therapy on these outcomes. Data from 116 patients with vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE), matched 1:1 with patients with vancomycin-susceptible Enterococcus (VSE), from two Australian hospitals were reviewed for clinical and economic outcomes. Univariable and multivariable logistic and quantile regression analyses identified factors associated with mortality, LOS and costs. Intensive care unit admission (OR, 8.57; 95% CI, 3.99-18.38), a higher burden of co-morbidities (OR, 4.55; 95% CI, 1.83-11.33) and longer time to appropriate antibiotics (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03) were significantly associated with mortality in enterococcal bacteraemia. VanB vancomycin resistance increased LOS (4.89 days; 95% CI, 0.56-11.52) and hospitalization costs (AU$ 28 872; 95% CI, 734-70 667), after adjustment for confounders. Notably, linezolid definitive therapy was associated with lower mortality (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.58) in vanB VRE bacteraemia patients. In patients with VSE bacteraemia, time to appropriate antibiotics independently influenced mortality, LOS and hospitalization costs, and underlying co-morbidities were associated with mortality. The study findings highlight the importance of preventing VRE bacteraemia and the significance of time to appropriate antibiotics in the management of enterococcal bacteraemia.

BackgroundEnterococci are a major cause of healthcare-associated infection. In Australia, vanB vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is the predominant genotype. There are limited data on the factors linked to vanB VRE bacteraemia. This study aimed to identify factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia, and compare them with those for vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE) bacteraemia.MethodsA case-case-control study was performed in two tertiary public hospitals in Victoria, Australia. VRE and VSE bacteraemia cases were compared with controls without evidence of enterococcal bacteraemia, but may have had infections due to other pathogens.ResultsAll VRE isolates had vanB genotype. Factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia were urinary catheter use within the last 30 days (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.09-7.53), an increase in duration of metronidazole therapy (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.33), and a higher Chronic Disease Score specific for VRE (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.05-2.77). Factors linked to VSE bacteraemia were a history of gastrointestinal disease (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05-4.99) and an increase in duration of metronidazole therapy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.48). Admission into the haematology/oncology unit was associated with lower odds of VSE bacteraemia (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.74).ConclusionsThis is the largest case-case-control study involving vanB VRE bacteraemia. Factors associated with the development of vanB VRE bacteraemia were different to those of VSE bacteraemia.

BackgroundClinical studies and mathematical simulation suggest that active surveillance with contact isolation is associated with reduced vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) prevalence compared to passive surveillance. Models using pre- and post-intervention data that account for the imperfect observation and serial dependence of VRE transmission events can better estimate the effectiveness of active surveillance and subsequent contact isolation; however, such analyses have not been performed.MethodsA mathematical model was fitted to surveillance data collected pre- and post-implementation of active surveillance with contact isolation in the haematology-oncology ward. We developed a Hidden Markov Model to describe undetected and observed VRE colonisation/infection status based on the detection activities in the ward. Bayesian inference was used to estimate transmission rates. The effectiveness of active surveillance was assumed to be via increased detection and subsequent contact isolation of VRE positive patients.ResultsWe estimated that 31% (95% credible interval: 0.33–85%) of the VRE transmissions were due to cross-transmission between patients. The ratio of transmission rates from patients with contact isolation versus those without contact isolation was 0.33 (95% credible interval: 0.050–1.22).ConclusionsThe majority of the VRE acquisitions in the haematology-oncology ward was estimated to be due to background rates of VRE, rather than within ward patient to patient acquisition. The credible interval for cross-transmission was wide which results in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates. Factors that could account for background VRE acquisition include endogenous acquisition from antibiotic selection pressure and VRE in the environment. Contact isolation was not significantly associated with reduced VRE transmission in settings where the majority of VRE acquisition was due to background acquisition, emphasising the need to identify and address the source of acquisition. As the credible interval for the ratio of VRE transmission in contact isolated versus non-contact isolated patients crossed 1, there is a probability that the transmission rate in contact isolation was not lower. Our finding highlights the need to optimise infection control measures other than active surveillance for VRE and subsequent contact isolation to reduce VRE transmission. Such measures could include antimicrobial stewardship, environmental cleaning, and hand hygiene.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-018-3388-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.