Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 104 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (452 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  Abstract
 ~ Introduction
 ~ Rationale
 ~  Settings Outbrea...
 ~  Types of Surveil...
 ~  Targeted Versus ...
 ~  Is Targeted Scre...
 ~  Frequency of Act...
 ~  Methods for Scre...
 ~ Cost
 ~  Ethical Consider...
 ~  Cons of Active S...
 ~ Conclusion
 ~  References
 ~  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed293    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded60    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 38  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 277-283
 

Role of surveillance cultures in infection control


Department of Medical Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India

Date of Submission27-Mar-2020
Date of Decision20-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance16-Jul-2020
Date of Web Publication4-Nov-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Manisha Biswal
Department of Medical Microbiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh - 160 012
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijmm.IJMM_20_129

Rights and Permissions

 ~ Abstract 


Hospital-acquired infections are a known menace to the primary disease, for which a patient is admitted. These infections are twenty times more common in developing countries than in the developed ones. Surveillance for colonised patients can be passive or active process. In many hospitals, active surveillance culture for certain sentinel organisms followed by contact precautions for the same is an important part of infection control policy. Specific measures can be taken on early detection of multidrug-resistant organism, allowing prevention of widespread transmission in hospitals. Cultures are the most conventional and economical microbiological method of detection. The cost of active surveillance is a major challenge, especially for developing nations. These nations lack basic infrastructure and have logistic issues. The guidelines regarding this are not very clearly delineated for developing countries. Each hospital has its own challenges and the process is to be tailor-made accordingly. The following review delineates the various aspects of active surveillance for the colonisation of various organisms and the advantages and disadvantages of the same.


Keywords: Active surveillance cultures, hospital-acquired infections, multidrug-resistant organisms


How to cite this article:
Biswal M, Angrup A, Kanaujia R. Role of surveillance cultures in infection control. Indian J Med Microbiol 2020;38:277-83

How to cite this URL:
Biswal M, Angrup A, Kanaujia R. Role of surveillance cultures in infection control. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 28];38:277-83. Available from: https://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2020/38/3/277/299813





 ~ Introduction Top


Hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) are defined as the infections occurring in a patient during the process of care in the hospital and which was not present or incubating at the time of admission to the healthcare facility. These infections are twenty times more common and pose a huge burden, especially in the low- and middle-income countries.[1] The role of active surveillance cultures (ASCs) for certain sentinel organisms followed by contact precautions (CPs) for the same is an important part of infection control policy in many healthcare facilities. Adequate measures can be taken on early detection of multidrug-resistant organism (MDROs), thus preventing their widespread transmission in hospital. There are many studies published on the scope, focus, usefulness and finally, cost-effectiveness of microbiological surveillance cultures.[2] It has been used as the only intervention or in combination with other measures to reduce HAIs.[3]

The guidelines regarding this are not very clearly delineated for developing countries. Each hospital has its own challenges and the process is to be tailor-made accordingly. The following review delineates the various aspects of active surveillance for colonisation of various organisms and the advantages and disadvantages of the same.


 ~ Rationale Top


According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ASCs are defined as universal or targeted microbiological screening cultures for patients with the purpose to control the infections due to certain bacteria, mostly MDROs.[4],[5] Patients are prospectively identified to be either infected or colonised with MDROs. ASCs have been performed universally on all the patients or individualised by targeting a special group of patients.[6] The premise for ASCs is based on the fact that the colonised patient gets the invasive infection by the colonising strain. This has been seen in both Gram-positive organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)[7] and Gram-negative organisms such as Acinetobacter baumannii and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in hospitalised patients.[8],[9],[10]

The colonised patients are also more likely to transmit it to other patients in the same unit.[11] The rationale is that establishing infection control measures such as CP and cohorting for a colonised patient will reduce the chances of cross-transmission of strains. ASC has also been used to guide clinicians for appropriate antimicrobial therapy as it provides a preliminary snapshot of the antibiotic susceptibility of colonising strain.[6],[12]


 ~ Settings Outbreak Versus Endemic Top


ASC has often been used in outbreak situations along with other interventions for outbreak control.[13] After a patient is detected to be colonised, CPs such as hand hygiene and other standard precautions, patient-dedicated equipment, utilisation of single-bed rooms, single-use gowns and gloves for healthcare workers during contacts with carriers or contaminated environment of carriage to ensure compliance can be applied.[14] However, there is also evidence that ASC is useful in endemic scenarios.[15],[16] For instance, in Europe, the incidence of MRSA bacteraemia decreased by 40% and 70% in non-intensive care units (ICUs) (P < 0.008) and ICUs, respectively, after performing routine surveillance cultures followed by contact isolation precautions.


 ~ Types of Surveillance Passive, Active and Virtual Top


Surveillance for colonised patients can be passive or active process. In the passive surveillance method, only those patients who are known to be positive for MDROs on the basis of previously obtained clinical cultures are targeted for infection control practices according to individual hospital guidelines.[10],[12] Problems with passive surveillance include underreporting, lack of classification and timeliness of data. A study by Ostrowsky et al. on the detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) concluded that passive surveillance if done alone had a low sensitivity for the detection of VRE colonisation at the time of ICU admission.[17] Hence, very few cases of VRE infections could be prevented. Similarly, Heipel et al. observed that passive surveillance had a poor sensitivity for detecting surgical site infections (SSIs).[18] This method of surveillance is detection by fortunate chance observation which offers little benefit and can give a falsely low rate of colonisation. It is the least desirable method for tracking nosocomial infections because it is inherently unreliable. Even after above-mentioned disadvantages, majority of the hospitals still practice passive surveillance to constrain MDRO transmission in high-risk populations.[19]

Active surveillance, on the other hand, requires an active search of patients with risk of colonisation and performing surveillance cultures. It necessitates the involvement of trained infection control and laboratory professionals with information from all sources, including from the wards, ICUs and the microbiology laboratory. Surveillance cultures (usually nasal, pharyngeal, skin or rectal) are taken from patients in this approach. By this approach, silent reservoirs of MDROs can be identified, and thus, patient-to-patient transmission can be curtailed.[17],[20] Perencevich et al. created a mathematical model to estimate the benefits of active surveillance of VRE transmission in the ICU. This model predicted that in comparison to no surveillance, active surveillance reduced the annual incidence of VRE colonisation by 39%.[19] Decolonisation regimen and ASCs can also be effective in decreasing S. aureus infections. Following a similar approach, Popoola et al. noticed more than 60% reduction in the mean quarterly incidence rate of methicillin-sensitive S. aureus cultures in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).[21] Another study by Li et al. revealed 72.3% of the patients in ICUs to be at high risk of CRE infection after assessing their individual clinical characteristics. Therefore, this approach led to an overall decrease in monthly infection rate.[22]

Guidelines laid down by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America for the control of nosocomial VRE transmission active surveillance is recommended for high-risk patients at the time of admission.[23] In case of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) also, both American and European guidelines recommend that an ASC program and the implementation of CPs be followed in carriers of MDR-GNB, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) producing Enterobacteriaceae, for ICUs with an on-going outbreak or high endemicity.[6] However, only a minority of institutions implement these guidelines. This can be attributed to the substantial cost incurred by ASCs.[24]

Virtual surveillance offers another method of performing surveillance. This type of surveillance involves the application of mathematical models to predict and detect outbreaks of infection. In this method, existing laboratory information system (LIS) is used to keep a track of the healthcare-associated infections.

Hacek et al. were able to identify three nosocomial infection outbreaks using the available data from the LIS as well as from the clinical microbiology laboratory (D. M. Hacek, R. Cordel, G. A. Noskin and L. R. Peterson, Abstr. 4thDecen. Int. Conf. Nosocom. Healthcare-Associated Infect., abstr. P-T1-29, 2000). Surprisingly, these infections were not picked up by the hospital infection control and prevention department. Even though there are few studies showing promising results using these methods, they lack proper standardisation and sensitivity to be considered as a primary surveillance tools.[25] Further, more studies are required in future to validate this method of surveillance and utilise its efficacy in preventing healthcare-associated infections.


 ~ Targeted Versus Universal Screening Top


Critical organism-based target surveillance

There are various organisms targeted for ASC [Table 1]. Conventionally, it was started for MRSA and then VRE. Now, with the increasing menace of MDR Gram-negatives, ASC is also being carried out for carbapenem-resistant A. baumannii, carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and ESBL-producing or CRE and colistin-resistant organisms. Recently, the multidrug-resistant (MDR) yeast Candida auris has also been included in this ambit due its peculiar characteristics and transmission dynamics.[21] Mostly, these organisms have a high competence to colonise readily and getting transmitted from one patient to another by health caregivers. They are usually MDR and are often difficult to treat infections.
Table 1: List of organism and site for taking active surveillance cultures

Click here to view


Obtaining ASC from the site possibly colonised by the organism is important since every organism has its own typical niche and colonises a particular site in the body [Table 1]. The sampling of more than one site results in a better yield.[31]

High-risk population-based surveillance

Performing surveillance for all patients in a hospital is a tedious and cost-ineffective procedure. Therefore, targeted surveillance in critical care areas is a valid possibility as the patients admitted here, in particular, often become colonised with MDROs and can serve as the focus for hospital-wide transmission of bacterial resistance.[32] Certain high-risk–category patients (transplant recipients, patients on chemotherapy, ICUs, etc.) can be screened routinely for colonisation.[33] For instance, in Japanese hospitals, active surveillance is routinely implemented in all NICUs.[34] Thus, ASC plays a pivotal role in outbreak setting to understand the origin of infection,[35] helps to trace the colonised patient and gives an early identification of new resistance pattern developing in an area (e.g., vancomycin-resistant S. aureus).[36]

Other high-risk groups are those with a previous history of treatment at some healthcare facility. These transferred patients have a high probability of being colonised with MDROs and should be considered for active surveillance. Recent publications suggest that the risk factors for MRSA colonisation at the time of hospital admission may be identified within a population and may reduce the number of required screening cultures at admission by half.[37],[38] However, whether to perform ASCs for MRSA routinely for all patients at the time of admission to a healthcare facility or to a high-risk–patient care unit remains controversial.

Skin is the most common route for MDRO transmission among patients. Hence, CPs should be followed if patients are suspected to be colonised or infected with MDROs. The culture specimens are obtained from these patients and isolation and CPs are continued until culture results are negative for the target organism.[39]

Tormo et al. gathered information on the current microbiological practices for active surveillance of carriage of MDR bacteria in Spanish hospitals in the form of a questionnaire. The survey included information on various aspects such as targeted population, targeted sites and microbiological methods used for detection. Their study revealed striking differences across centres, likely attributable to the lack of consensus on optimal protocols for sampling, body sites for screening and microbiological testing, thus underscoring the need for consensus guidelines on these issues.[40] A bundle-based approach in Cairo, for reducing SSI caused by MDR A. baumannii using ASC, leads to a significant reduction of colonisation from 24% to 15% (P < 0.001) and a subsequently reduction of SSI from 27% to 15% (P = 0.02).[3]


 ~ Is Targeted Screening Better? Top


Targeted screening of patients with pre-specified risk factors, such as recent antimicrobial exposure and transfer from long-term care facilities, can miss the patients who directly come from home and have predisposing factor for MDR carriage.[41] Thus, there is an increasing need to implement an active surveillance system to detect and monitor the HAI rates which would be vital to implement infection control measures in a proactive manner rather than reactive.[42]


 ~ Frequency of Active Surveillance Culture Top


Different hospital settings follow different protocols. The ASC can be performed only once at admission or transfer to another unit or hospital. The duration of performing ASC in a particular patient is not well defined. Carriage of MDR-GNB can last up to several weeks to months. Serial weekly cultures until patient discharge or death from the healthcare facility have also been taken in some studies. For instance, for early detection and prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia, serial monitoring and quantitative assessment of endotracheal aspirate (Q-ETA) were performed by Michael et al.[43] This was done to identify MDR pathogens before the development of clinical disease. Depuydt et al. reported that taking weekly Q-ETA specimens led to the appropriate antibiotic therapy in 96% of patients.[44] In an Indian study by Ray et al., daily surveillance cultures were taken for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (VAT) till the patient was extubated, discharged or died. They could identify VAT cases earlier and in higher frequency.[45] Different hospitals follow different protocols based on their colonisation and infection rates. Thus, one needs to tailor the frequency of surveillance cultures based on the surveillance data of their hospital and setting.


 ~ Methods for Screening Active Surveillance Culture Top


Cultures are the most conventional and economical microbiological method of detection. Chromogenic assays that rapidly detect 3GC-hydrolysing enzymes (including ESBL) on clinical specimens or early cultures are available. For detection of CRE in the rectal swab, various chromogenic media (ChromID carba, ChromID OXA-48, HardyChrom and SuperCarba) and MacConkey agar with carbapenem disk (meropenem and imipenem) can be used. The turnaround time ranges from 2 to 24 h for various assays. The sensitivity for the detection of MDR organisms is higher (90%–98%) and specificity is variable (45%–100%). An enrichment step is also recommended for CRE.[46] Molecular assays allowing the detection of ESBL-encoding genes on clinical samples provide an edge over the conventional techniques. Real-time polymerase chain reaction has been used to detect A. baumannii within 3 h and demonstrated a high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (91.2%) compared with conventional culture.[47] The concordance rate with culture is generally high (99.5%) with a positive concordance rate of 85.7%.[48] Automated platforms such as Verigene, Unyvero and Accelerate Pheno system are available in the market. Although they offer higher sensitivity and specificity, the cost of these assays is higher.[49] Automated systems such a Biofire offers detection of microorganism and its associated resistant genes simultaneously, thus allowing more targeted treatment.[50]


 ~ Cost Top


The cost of active surveillance is a major challenge, especially for developing nations. These nations lack basic infrastructure and have logistic issues. In a study by Sloma et al., various strategies were compared. Screening of all patients at admissions was done, and cohorts of carriers were identified; then, antibiotic was proposed. This strategy was compared to hand hygiene (HH) improvement to 80%. The former led to better outcomes but at higher expense.[51] In a dynamic model of ESBL-E dissemination in a 10-bed ICU with an assumed baseline 15%-acquisition rate, improving HH compliance before and after each contact with patients from 60% to 80% was more effective and cost-saving than routine carriage screening and CP isolation. In Netherlands the estimated cost of Search and Destroy policy for MRSA was €215,559 a year, which nearly equals to €5.54 per admission. The daily isolation costs for MRSA-suspected and -positive hospitalised patients were €95.59 and €436.62, respectively.[52]

In another cost–benefit analysis study of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) colonisation, conventional culture-based screening was the cheapest method to screen approximately 7000 rectal samples (total cost approximately $22,000) in comparison to chromogenic agar ($37,000). Molecular testing is very expensive ($224,000 to screen all samples) and cumbersome in comparison to agar-based media.[53] The cost-effectiveness of the surveillance cultures increases if done in the endemic areas where the rates of invasive infection are higher.[54]

Recent publications suggest that the risk factors for MRSA colonisation at the time of hospital admission may be identified within a population and may reduce the number of required screening cultures at admission by 50%.[55] A similar risk factor-based method has been proposed for CRE also.[56] This strategy can reduce the cost of ASC. The reasoning of which patients to screen for any organism should be determined by local epidemiological data.


 ~ Ethical Considerations of Active Surveillance Cultures Top


Consent is required from the patient before performing ASC. It is a right of a rational individual to make an informed, uncoerced decision. Decisions made for the common good. Informed consent can be waived off in conditions where procedures involve no or minimal risk to the patient without violating the rights and welfare of the individual.[57] However, in an outbreak scenario, this consent might not be mandatory in the interest of the greater good.


 ~ Cons of Active Surveillance Culture and Subsequent Ipc Precautions Taken Top


ASC has been debated for performance to positively predict patients at risk of ESBL-E infections. Incorrect method of rectal swabbing procedures leads to high-frequency of false-negative ASC samples – up to 25%.[58] The efficacy of ASC and CP to control the dissemination of ESBL-E in hospitals is still questionable. There is a continuous influx of ESBL-E into the hospital system.[59] Carriage prevalence at ICU admission varies in different countries, which is 10%–15% in Europe and up to 40% in certain Asian countries.

In a non-outbreak setting such as wards, studies conducted revealed that standard precautions can contain the spread of ESBL-producing E. coli better than CPs.[60] Further, the cross-transmission of ESBL-E cross-transmission is low or occurs rarely when standard precautions are followed.[61] In the European multi-ICU MOSAR trial, increased HH compliance and daily chlorhexidine body-washing offer more benefit than universal screening for carriage of MDROs and CP.[62],[63]

Not all studies on ASC demonstrate an efficacy. Certain organism might be more malleable to eradication compared to others. In a quasi-experimental study in a paediatric ICU for 35 months, active surveillance decreased the incidence of CR Klebsiella pneumoniae while it remained unchanged for CR A. baumannii and actually increased for CR P. aeruginosa. In another study in an ICU in Greece, the CR K. pneumoniae and CR P. aeruginosa decreased while CR A. baumannii infections increased.[15]

Even in situ ations where efficacy is previously established like MRSA transmission, there are studies showing no superiority of ASC and CP combined over standard precautions in acquisition rate of MRSA.[64]

ASC screening programs are labour and resource-intensive for microbiology. The Medicare-like incentives/disincentives in the USA does not cover nosocomial infections. Further, the broad institution of ASCs for MRSA could quadruple the number of patients placed under CPs. Consequently, the freedom of a substantial number of patients would be limited by restricting them to the confines of their rooms, to protect other patients from potential exposure to MRSA. Unintended consequences of CP such as social isolation can lead to feelings of depression, less frequent examinations with HCW and an increased number of non-infectious AEs.


 ~ Conclusion Top


There are many unresolved questions such as whom to screen, when to screen and how to screen. The frequency of ASC and when to declare 'colonisation-free' status is still unanswered. Lacunae in knowledge whether administration of empirical antibiotics should be done on the basis of ASC. Regimens for the decolonisation of Gram-negative bacteria and the role of selective oral and/or digestive decontamination are variable. Further, the responsibility of the hospital on the discharge of colonised patients back into the community is unanswered. The specific plan for the performance of ASCs and management of colonisation and/or infection of patients should be stated in an institutional infection control policy. Such a policy would require approval from a group of representative institutional administrative and clinical leaders. Ethical accountability should be ensured. Equally important, fiscal and human resources must be made available for implementation of an effective infection control program.

To conclude, an ASC program for colonised patients may be beneficial depending on the targeted population, level of endemicity, the species of pathogen and the combination of multifaceted strategies. Multimodal infection control and prevention strategies are crucial for implementation in resource-limited settings. After discovering the culprit, it is a challenge to control MDR-GNB by containment or eradication and prevent cross-transmission. An ASC program should consider both the local epidemiology and cost-effectiveness based on the available resources in endemic MDR-GNB areas in the Asia-Pacific region.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
 ~ References Top

1.
World Health Organization. Health Care-Associated Infections Fact Sheet. World Health Organization; 2015.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Damani N. Prevention of healthcare associated infections. In: Manual of Infection Prevention and Control. Oxford University Press; 2019. page 233–304.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wassef M, Mukhtar A, Nabil A, Ezzelarab M, Ghaith D. Care bundle approach to reduce surgical site infections in acute surgical intensive care unit, Cairo, Egypt. Infect Drug Resist 2020;13:229-36.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sehulster L, Chinn RY, CDC., HICPAC. Guidelines for environmental infection control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). MMWR Recomm Rep 2003;52:1-42.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
McGinigle KL, Gourlay ML, Buchanan IB. The Use of Active Surveillance Cultures in Adult Intensive Care Units to Reduce Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus– Related Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs: A Systematic Review. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46:1717–25.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Dancer SJ, De Angelis G, Falcone M, Frank U, et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20 Suppl 1:1-55.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Pierce R, Lessler J, Popoola VO, Milstone AM. Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) acquisition risk in an endemic neonatal intensive care unit with an active surveillance culture and decolonization programme. J Hosp Infect 2017;95:91-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kang JS, Yi J, Ko MK, Lee SO, Lee JE, Kim KH. Prevalence and Risk Factors of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae Acquisition in an Emergency Intensive Care Unit in a Tertiary Hospital in Korea: a Case-Control Study. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Schechner V, Kotlovsky T, Kazma M, Mishali H, Schwartz D, Navon-Venezia S, et al. Asymptomatic rectal carriage of blaKPC producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Who is prone to become clinically infected? Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:451-6.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Calfee D, Jenkins SG. Use of active surveillance cultures to detect asymptomatic colonization with carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in intensive care unit patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:966-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Schwaber MJ, Lev B, Israeli A, Solter E, Smollan G, Rubinovitch B, et al. Containment of a country-wide outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae in Israeli hospitals via a nationally implemented intervention. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:848-55.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Barbier F, Pommier C, Essaied W, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Schwebel C, Ruckly S, et al. Colonization and infection with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in ICU patients: what impact on outcomes and carbapenem exposure? J Antimicrob Chemother 2016;71:1088–97.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Zollner-Schwetz I, Zechner E, Ullrich E, Luxner J, Pux C, Pichler G, et al. Colonization of long term care facility patients with MDR-Gram-negatives during an Acinetobacter baumannii outbreak. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017;6:49.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Huang SS, Yokoe DS, Hinrichsen VL, Spurchise LS, Datta R, Miroshnik I, et al. Impact of routine intensive care unit surveillance cultures and resultant barrier precautions on hospital-wide methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis 2006;43:971–8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Karampatakis T, Tsergouli K, Iosifidis E, Antachopoulos C, Karapanagiotou A, Karyoti A, et al. Impact of active surveillance and infection control measures on carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacterial colonization and infections in intensive care. J Hosp Infect 2018;99:396-404.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Swaminathan M, Sharma S, Poliansky Blash S, Patel G, Banach DB, Phillips M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in the setting of endemicity. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:809-17.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ostrowsky BE, Venkataraman L, D'Agata EM, Gold HS, DeGirolami PC, Samore MH. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci in intensive care units: High frequency of stool carriage during a non-outbreak period. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1467-72.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Heipel D, Ober JF, Edmond MB, Bearman GM. Surgical site infection surveillance for neurosurgical procedures: A comparison of passive surveillance by surgeons to active surveillance by infection control professionals. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:200-2.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Perencevich EN, Fisman DN, Lipsitch M, Harris AD, Morris JG Jr., Smith DL. Projected benefits of active surveillance for vancomycin-resistant enterococci in intensive care units. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:11080-15.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Morris JG Jr., Shay DK, Hebden JN, McCarter RJ Jr., Perdue BE, Jarvis W, et al. Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, including vancomycin. Establishment of endemicity in a university medical center. Ann Intern Med 1995;123:250-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Popoola VO, Colantuoni E, Suwantarat N, Pierce R, Carroll KC, Aucott SW, et al. Active surveillance cultures and decolonization to reduce Staphylococcus aureus infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:381-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Li S, Guo FZ, Zhao XJ, Wang Q, Wang H, An YZ, et al. Impact of individualized active surveillance of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae on the infection rate in intensive care units: a 3-year retrospective study in a teaching hospital of People's Republic of China. Infect Drug Resist 2019;Volume 12:1407–14.   Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
LeDell K, Muto CA, Jarvis WR, Farr BM. SHEA guideline for preventing nosocomial transmission of multidrug-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:639-41.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Ostrowsky B, Steinberg JT, Farr B, Sohn AH, Sinkowitz-Cochran RL, Jarvis WR. Reality check: Should we try to detect and isolate vancomycin-resistant enterococci patients? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:116-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Peterson LR, Brossette SE. Hunting health care-associated infections from the clinical microbiology laboratory: Passive, active, and virtual surveillance. J Clin Microbiol 2002;40:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
World Health Organization. Guidelines for the Prevention and Control of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in Health Care Facilities. World Health Organization; 2017. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/259462/1/9789241550178-eng.pdf?ua=1%0Ahttp://www.who.int/infection-prevention/publications/guidelines-cre/en/. [Last accessed on 2020 Mar 14].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Magiorakos AP, Burns K, Rodríguez Baño J, Borg M, Daikos G, Dumpis U, et al. Infection prevention and control measures and tools for the prevention of entry of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae into healthcare settings: Guidance from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017;6:113.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Nutman A, Lerner A, Schwartz D, Carmeli Y. Evaluation of carriage and environmental contamination by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016;22:949.e5-00.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Edmond MB, Masroor N, Stevens MP, Ober J, Bearman G. The impact of discontinuing contact precautions for VRE and MRSA on device-associated infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:978-80.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Biswal M, Rudramurthy SM, Jain N, Shamanth AS, Sharma D, Jain K, et al. Controlling a possible outbreak of Candida auris infection: Lessons learnt from multiple interventions. J Hosp Infect 2017;97:363-70.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Apisarnthanarak A, Warren DK. Screening for carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii colonization sites: An implication for combination of horizontal and vertical approaches. Clin Infect Dis 2013;56:1057-9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Archibald L, Phillips L, Monnet D, McGowan JE Jr, Tenover F, Gaynes R. Antimicrobial resistance in isolates from inpatients and outpatients in the United States: Increasing importance of the intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis 1997;24:211-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Geladari A, Karampatakis T, Antachopoulos C, Iosifidis E, Tsiatsiou O, Politi L, et al. Epidemiological surveillance of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria in a solid organ transplantation department. Transpl Infect Dis 2017;19:e12686.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Suga S, Hoshina T, Ichikawa S, Araki S, Kusuhara K. A survey of the implementation status of selected infection control strategies in neonatal intensive care units in Japan. J Hosp Infect 2020;104:200-6.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Palmore TN, Henderson DK. Managing transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in healthcare settings: A view from the trenches. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:1593-9.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Strausbaugh LJ, Siegel JD, Weinstein RA. Preventing transmission of multidrug-resistant bacteria in health care settings: A tale of 2 guidelines. Clin Infect Dis 2006;42:828-35.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Hidron AI, Kourbatova EV, Halvosa JS, Terrell BJ, McDougal LK, Tenover FC, et al. Risk Factors for Colonization with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Patients Admitted to an Urban Hospital: Emergence of Community-Associated MRSA Nasal Carriage. Clin Infect Dis 2005;41:159–66.   Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Haley CC, Mittal D, Laviolette A, Jannapureddy S, Parvez N, Haley RW. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection or colonization present at hospital admission: Multivariable risk factor screening to increase efficiency of surveillance culturing. J Clin Microbiol 2007;45:3031-8.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M, Chiarello L, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Management of multidrug-resistant organisms in health care settings, 2006. Am J Infect Control 2007;35:S165-93.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Tormo N, Albert E, Borrajo E, Bosque M, Camarena JJ, Domínguez V, et al. A survey on practices for active surveillance of carriage of multidrug-resistant bacteria in hospitals in the Autonomous Community of Valencia, Spain. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2018;37:2069-74.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Djibré M, Fedun S, Le Guen P, Vimont S, Hafiani M, Fulgencio JP, et al. Universal versus targeted additional contact precautions for multidrug-resistant organism carriage for patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Am J Infect Control 2017;45:728-34.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Deepashree R, Raghavan R, Sastry A. Implementation of active surveillance system to track hospital-acquired infections in a tertiary care hospital in India. J Curr Res Sci Med 2017;3:21.  Back to cited text no. 42
  [Full text]  
43.
Viviani M, Van Saene HK, Pisa F, Lucangelo U, Silvestri L, Momesso E, et al. The role of admission surveillance cultures in patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. Anaesth Intensive Care 2010;38:325-35.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Depuydt P, Benoit D, Vogelaers D, Decruyenaere J, Vandijck D, Claeys G, et al. Systematic surveillance cultures as a tool to predict involvement of multidrug antibiotic resistant bacteria in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 2008;34:675-82.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Ray U, Ramasubban S, Chakravarty C, Goswami L, Dutta S. A prospective study of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis: Incidence and etiology in intensive care unit of a tertiary care hospital. Lung India 2017;34:236-40.  Back to cited text no. 45
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
46.
Contact Precautions Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae United States Modified Hodge Test in Cdc. Laboratory Protocol for Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant or Carbapenemase-Producing, Klebsiella spp. and E. coli from Rectal Swabs. Cdc; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Blanco-Lobo P, González-Galán V, García-Quintanilla M, Valencia R, Cazalla A, Martín C, et al. Clinical validation of a real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for rapid detection of Acinetobacter baumannii colonization. J Hosp Infect 2016;94:68-71.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Rabaan AA, Saunar J V., Bazzi AM, Raslan WF, Taylor DR, Al-Tawfiq JA. Epidemiology and detection of acinetobacter using conventional culture and in-house developed PCR based methods. Infect Public Health 2017;10:124-8.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Oteo J, Bou G, Chaves F, Oliver A. Microbiological methods for surveillance of carrier status of multiresistant bacteria. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2017;35:667-75.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Buss BA, Baures TJ, Yoo M, Hanson KE, Alexander DP, Benefield RJ, et al. Impact of a multiplex PCR assay for bloodstream infections with and without antimicrobial stewardship intervention at a cancer hospital. Open Forum Infect Dis 2018;5:ofy258.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Kardaś-Słoma L, Lucet JC, Perozziello A, Pelat C, Birgand G, Ruppé E, et al. Universal or targeted approach to prevent the transmission of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care units: A cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open 2017;7:e017402.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Rijen MML, Kluytmans JAJW. Costs and benefits of the MRSA Search and Destroy policy in a Dutch hospital. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2009;28:1245–52.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Mathers AJ, Poulter M, Dirks D, Carroll J, Sifri CD, Hazen KC. Clinical microbiology costs for methods of active surveillance for Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35:350-5.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Ho KW, Ng WT, Ip M, You JH. Active surveillance of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care units: Is it cost-effective in a nonendemic region? Am J Infect Control 2016;44:394-9.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Razazi K, Mekontso Dessap A, Carteaux G, Jansen C, Decousser JW, de Prost N, et al. Frequency, associated factors and outcome of multi-drug-resistant intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia among patients colonized with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Ann Intensive Care 2017;7:61.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Ramanathan Y, Venkatasubramanian R, Nambi P, Ramabathiran M, Venkataraman R, Thirunarayan M, et al. Carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae screening: A core infection control measure for critical care unit in India? Indian J Med Microbiol 2018;36:572.  Back to cited text no. 56
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
57.
Bribiesca LB. Bioethics in medical research. Arch Med Res 2001;32:365-6.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Zahar JR, Blot S, Nordmann P, Martischang R, Timsit JF, Harbarth S, et al. Screening for intestinal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in critically Ill patients: Expected benefits and evidence-based controversies. Clin Infect Dis 2019;68:2125-30.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Karanika S, Karantanos T, Arvanitis M, Grigoras C, Mylonakis E. Fecal colonization with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae and risk factors among healthy individuals: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Infect Dis 2016;63:310-8.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Birgy A, Cohen R, Levy C, Bidet P, Courroux C, Benani M, et al. Community faecal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in French children. BMC Infect Dis 2012;12:315.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Kirkland KB. Taking Off the Gloves: Toward a Less Dogmatic Approach to the Use of Contact Isolation. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48:766–71.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Kaier K, Frank U, Hagist C, Conrad A, Meyer E. The impact of antimicrobial drug consumption and alcohol-based hand rub use on the emergence and spread of extended-spectrum -lactamase-producing strains: a time-series analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009;63:609–14.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Zahar JR, Poirel L, Dupont C, Fortineau N, Nassif X, Nordmann P. About the usefulness of contact precautions for carriers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli. BMC Infect Dis 2015;15:512.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Morgan DJ, Zhan M, Goto M, Franciscus C, Alexander B, Vaughan-Sarrazin M, et al. The effectiveness of Contact Precautions on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in long-term care across the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2019.  Back to cited text no. 64
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04