Max L Silverstein, Yvonne Karanas, Clifford C Sheckter
{"title":"耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)鼻拭子筛查预测MRSA烧伤感染的可靠性。","authors":"Max L Silverstein, Yvonne Karanas, Clifford C Sheckter","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/iraf117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Infection is the primary cause of death among burn-injured patients, with soft tissue infection trailing only pneumonia as the most common source of sepsis. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become endemic in burn units, resulting in the frequent initiation of empiric vancomycin therapy. MRSA nasal swab screening rapidly identifies patients who are MRSA-colonized, informing contact precaution and decontamination protocols. We hypothesized that MRSA nasal swab results could also be used to reliably predict results of wound cultures obtained from infected burns. We performed a retrospective review of all 250 patients who underwent weekly nasal swab screening and developed a burn infection in our unit over a 36-month period. By comparing nasal screening results to bacterial cultures, we determined test performance metrics for MRSA nasal swabs: sensitivity 64.1%, specificity 96.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 75.8%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 93.5%. Nasal swabs were slightly more sensitive for predicting community-acquired MRSA infections versus those that were likely hospital-acquired. 30 patients (76.9%) presented with community-acquired MRSA infections; of those, 20 (66.7%) had tested positive for MRSA colonization on nasal screen. 9 patients (23.1%) developed hospital-acquired MRSA infections; 5 (55.6%) had tested positive for MRSA on a preceding nasal swab. The NPV calculated here indicates that patients who test negative for MRSA colonization by recent nasal swab are highly unlikely to have a burn infection caused by MRSA. Burn centers should employ universal MRSA nasal screening and de-escalate MRSA antibiotic coverage when treating burn infections in patients with a negative nasal swab result.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Swab Screening for Predicting MRSA Burn Infections.\",\"authors\":\"Max L Silverstein, Yvonne Karanas, Clifford C Sheckter\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jbcr/iraf117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Infection is the primary cause of death among burn-injured patients, with soft tissue infection trailing only pneumonia as the most common source of sepsis. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become endemic in burn units, resulting in the frequent initiation of empiric vancomycin therapy. MRSA nasal swab screening rapidly identifies patients who are MRSA-colonized, informing contact precaution and decontamination protocols. We hypothesized that MRSA nasal swab results could also be used to reliably predict results of wound cultures obtained from infected burns. We performed a retrospective review of all 250 patients who underwent weekly nasal swab screening and developed a burn infection in our unit over a 36-month period. By comparing nasal screening results to bacterial cultures, we determined test performance metrics for MRSA nasal swabs: sensitivity 64.1%, specificity 96.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 75.8%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 93.5%. Nasal swabs were slightly more sensitive for predicting community-acquired MRSA infections versus those that were likely hospital-acquired. 30 patients (76.9%) presented with community-acquired MRSA infections; of those, 20 (66.7%) had tested positive for MRSA colonization on nasal screen. 9 patients (23.1%) developed hospital-acquired MRSA infections; 5 (55.6%) had tested positive for MRSA on a preceding nasal swab. The NPV calculated here indicates that patients who test negative for MRSA colonization by recent nasal swab are highly unlikely to have a burn infection caused by MRSA. Burn centers should employ universal MRSA nasal screening and de-escalate MRSA antibiotic coverage when treating burn infections in patients with a negative nasal swab result.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Burn Care & Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Burn Care & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/iraf117\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/iraf117","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reliability of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Swab Screening for Predicting MRSA Burn Infections.
Infection is the primary cause of death among burn-injured patients, with soft tissue infection trailing only pneumonia as the most common source of sepsis. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become endemic in burn units, resulting in the frequent initiation of empiric vancomycin therapy. MRSA nasal swab screening rapidly identifies patients who are MRSA-colonized, informing contact precaution and decontamination protocols. We hypothesized that MRSA nasal swab results could also be used to reliably predict results of wound cultures obtained from infected burns. We performed a retrospective review of all 250 patients who underwent weekly nasal swab screening and developed a burn infection in our unit over a 36-month period. By comparing nasal screening results to bacterial cultures, we determined test performance metrics for MRSA nasal swabs: sensitivity 64.1%, specificity 96.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 75.8%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 93.5%. Nasal swabs were slightly more sensitive for predicting community-acquired MRSA infections versus those that were likely hospital-acquired. 30 patients (76.9%) presented with community-acquired MRSA infections; of those, 20 (66.7%) had tested positive for MRSA colonization on nasal screen. 9 patients (23.1%) developed hospital-acquired MRSA infections; 5 (55.6%) had tested positive for MRSA on a preceding nasal swab. The NPV calculated here indicates that patients who test negative for MRSA colonization by recent nasal swab are highly unlikely to have a burn infection caused by MRSA. Burn centers should employ universal MRSA nasal screening and de-escalate MRSA antibiotic coverage when treating burn infections in patients with a negative nasal swab result.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.