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

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.