Implications of deduplication on the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) in various specimens: insights from the hospital infection surveillance program.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Zhanjie Li, Dan Zhu, Xiaoju Ma, Feng Zang, Weihong Zhang, Can Luo, Chuanlong Zhu, Wensen Chen, Ping Zhu
{"title":"Implications of deduplication on the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) in various specimens: insights from the hospital infection surveillance program.","authors":"Zhanjie Li, Dan Zhu, Xiaoju Ma, Feng Zang, Weihong Zhang, Can Luo, Chuanlong Zhu, Wensen Chen, Ping Zhu","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01408-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, different guidelines recommend using different methods to determine whether deduplication is necessary when determining the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, few studies have investigated the effect of deduplication on MDRO monitoring data. In this study, we aimed to investigate the influence of deduplication on the detection rates of MDROs in different specimens to assess its impact on infection surveillance outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Samples were collected from hospitalized patients admitted between January 2022 and December 2022; four types of specimens were collected from key monitored MDROs, including sputum samples, urine samples, blood samples, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples. In this study, we compared and analysed the detection rates of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CRECO), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) under two conditions: with and without deduplication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>When all specimens were included, the detection rates of CRKP, CRAB, CRPA, and MRSA without deduplication (33.52%, 77.24%, 44.56%, and 56.58%, respectively) were significantly greater than those with deduplication (24.78%, 66.25%, 36.24%, and 50.83%, respectively) (all P < 0.05). The detection rates in sputum samples were significantly different between samples without duplication (28.39%, 76.19%, 46.95%, and 70.43%) and those with deduplication (19.99%, 63.00%, 38.05%, and 64.50%) (all P < 0.05). When deduplication was not performed, the rate of detection of CRKP in urine samples reached 30.05%, surpassing the rate observed with deduplication (21.56%) (P < 0.05). In BALF specimens, the detection rates of CRKP and CRPA without deduplication (39.78% and 53.23%, respectively) were greater than those with deduplication (31.62% and 42.20%, respectively) (P < 0.05). In blood samples, deduplication did not have a significant impact on the detection rates of MDROs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Deduplication had a significant effect on the detection rates of MDROs in sputum, urine, and BALF samples. Based on these data, we call for the Infection Prevention and Control Organization to align its analysis rules with those of the Bacterial Resistance Surveillance Organization when monitoring MDRO detection rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":7950,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","volume":"13 1","pages":"54"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11107067/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01408-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Currently, different guidelines recommend using different methods to determine whether deduplication is necessary when determining the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, few studies have investigated the effect of deduplication on MDRO monitoring data. In this study, we aimed to investigate the influence of deduplication on the detection rates of MDROs in different specimens to assess its impact on infection surveillance outcomes.

Methods: Samples were collected from hospitalized patients admitted between January 2022 and December 2022; four types of specimens were collected from key monitored MDROs, including sputum samples, urine samples, blood samples, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples. In this study, we compared and analysed the detection rates of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CRECO), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) under two conditions: with and without deduplication.

Results: When all specimens were included, the detection rates of CRKP, CRAB, CRPA, and MRSA without deduplication (33.52%, 77.24%, 44.56%, and 56.58%, respectively) were significantly greater than those with deduplication (24.78%, 66.25%, 36.24%, and 50.83%, respectively) (all P < 0.05). The detection rates in sputum samples were significantly different between samples without duplication (28.39%, 76.19%, 46.95%, and 70.43%) and those with deduplication (19.99%, 63.00%, 38.05%, and 64.50%) (all P < 0.05). When deduplication was not performed, the rate of detection of CRKP in urine samples reached 30.05%, surpassing the rate observed with deduplication (21.56%) (P < 0.05). In BALF specimens, the detection rates of CRKP and CRPA without deduplication (39.78% and 53.23%, respectively) were greater than those with deduplication (31.62% and 42.20%, respectively) (P < 0.05). In blood samples, deduplication did not have a significant impact on the detection rates of MDROs.

Conclusion: Deduplication had a significant effect on the detection rates of MDROs in sputum, urine, and BALF samples. Based on these data, we call for the Infection Prevention and Control Organization to align its analysis rules with those of the Bacterial Resistance Surveillance Organization when monitoring MDRO detection rates.

重复数据删除对各种标本中多重耐药菌 (MDRO) 检测率的影响:医院感染监控项目的启示。
背景:目前,在确定耐多药微生物(MDRO)的检出率时,不同的指南建议使用不同的方法来确定是否有必要进行重复数据删除。然而,很少有研究调查重复数据删除对 MDRO 监测数据的影响。在本研究中,我们旨在调查重复数据删除对不同样本中 MDROs 检出率的影响,以评估其对感染监测结果的影响:方法:样本采集自2022年1月至2022年12月期间入院的住院患者;采集了重点监测的MDROs的四种样本,包括痰液、尿液、血液和支气管肺泡灌洗液(BALF)样本。在这项研究中,我们比较并分析了在两种条件下(重复和不重复)耐碳青霉烯类肺炎克雷伯菌(CRKP)、耐碳青霉烯类大肠埃希菌(CRECO)、耐碳青霉烯类鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)、耐碳青霉烯类铜绿假单胞菌(CRPA)和耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的检出率:结果:当包括所有标本时,未进行重复数据删除的 CRKP、CRAB、CRPA 和 MRSA 的检出率(分别为 33.52%、77.24%、44.56% 和 56.58%)明显高于进行重复数据删除的检出率(分别为 24.78%、66.25%、36.24% 和 50.83%)(均为 P 结论:重复数据删除对 CRKP、CRAB、CRPA 和 MRSA 的检出率有显著影响:重复数据删除对痰、尿和肺泡样本中 MDRO 的检出率有明显影响。基于这些数据,我们呼吁感染预防与控制组织在监测 MDRO 检出率时,将其分析规则与细菌耐药性监测组织的规则保持一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
140
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control is a global forum for all those working on the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of health-care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance development in all health-care settings. The journal covers a broad spectrum of preeminent practices and best available data to the top interventional and translational research, and innovative developments in the field of infection control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信