Active Screening of Multi-Drug Resistant Bacteria Effectively Prevent and Control the Potential Infections

Abstract

Our objective is to determine if actively screen the multi-drug resistant bacteria (MDRB) infection in intensive care unit (ICU) to prevent, control, and decrease the infection rate and transmission of MDRB. The patients admitted in ICU of one hospital in 2013 were analyzed. The throat swab, blood, defecation, and urine of patients were actively collected for bacteria cultures to screen Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Acinetobacter baumannii in patients. All patients received screening of MDRB infection and colonization within 2 days and after 2 days of admission, the results showed that there were 418 infectious bacterial strains in total and P. aeruginosa was the main bacterium. The asymptomatic infection rates of P. aeruginosa, K. pneumonia, E. coli, S. aureus, and A. baumannii were 39.02, 24.74, 44.00, 29.17, and 33.33 %, respectively; the symptomatic infection rates were 60.98, 75.26, 56.00, 70.83, and 66.67 %. 59.70 % patients received antibiotics treatment, 27.45 % patients received trachea cannula, 32.95 % patients received mechanism ventilation, 2.27 % patients received arterial cannula or venous cannula and 4.00 % patients received indwelling urinary catheters. The main MDRB in ICU is P. aeruginosa. The active screening of MDRB infection and colonization can provide the opportunity to take the life-saving measure against MDRB and treat patients. This can decrease the infection risk and the nosocomial transmission of MDRB.

Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine Wipes for the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Colonization and Hospital-Acquired Infections in Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Randomized Trial in Thailand

“…The CLABSI rate was the highest among hospital-acquired infections at 7.7 and 9.9 per 1,000 catheter-days in the control and chlorhexidine groups, respectively. The median lengths of ESBL-producing E. coli 3 (1.5%) 6 (3.0%) 2 (1.0%) 33 (16.6%) 70 (35.2%) 6 (3.2%) 6 (3.2%) 4 stay in the ICUs and in the hospital did not differ significantly between the control and chlorhexidine groups, 10 vs 9 days and 23 vs 21 days, respectively, as shown in Table 3. The etiologic agents of hospital-acquired infections are shown in Table 5.…”

“…Patients colonized with MDR bacteria, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing gram-negative bacteria, MDR Acinetobacter baumannii, and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa, are at increased risk of subsequent infection. [2][3][4][5][6] Chlorhexidine gluconate, which has broad-spectrum activity against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, 7 has been used to bathe hospitalized patients to reduce the bacterial density on the skin, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). Chlorhexidine gluconate is a positively charged molecule that binds to the negatively charged sites on the cell wall of bacteria to destabilize the cell wall and interfere with osmosis regulation, resulting in bacterial cell death.…”

Droplet‐Microarray: Miniaturized Platform for High‐Throughput Screening of Antimicrobial Compounds

“…In this study, we used P. aeruginosa as a target strain since this opportunistic Gram-negative human facultative pathogenic bacterium is known to cause a plethora of hospital infections, including respiratory, urinary tract, and wound infections. [11,12] Moreover, this pathogen is well-known for its high intrinsic resistance against a variety of different antibiotics and disinfectants. [13] Therefore, due to the extensive use of antibiotics in hospitals, acquired multidrug-resistance among P. aeruginosa is a major concern.…”

Importance of screening in the prevention of emergence and spread of MDR bacteria

“…Awareness of colonization is important and, therefore, the identification of those colonized with MDR strains is of critical importance for intra-and inter-hospital transfer of patients. Screening and isolation of patients with MDR bacteria result in significant cost increases in institutions where they are not practiced but these costs may be significantly reduced if applied mainly due to the reduced spread of resistant bacteria and fewer cases where antimicrobial therapy is needed [6].…”