Niforatos Joshua D, Hinson Jeremiah S, Rothman Richard E, Cosgrove Sara E, Dzintars Kate, Klein Eili Y
Department of Emergency Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2025 Jan 13;6(1):100021. doi: 10.1016/j.acepjo.2024.100021. eCollection 2025 Feb.
Given the support for methicillin-resistant (MRSA) antimicrobial stewardship in the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, we sought to measure the use of vancomycin in the emergency department (ED) in the years preceding these recommendations.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting to 5 emergency departments within a university-based health system who were given intravenous (IV) vancomycin during their ED index visit. The primary outcome assessed the proportion of patients with MRSA-positive blood cultures who received IV vancomycin in the ED. We also measured associations between clinical attributes associated with any MRSA infection.
Of the 20,212 unique ED visits for patients who received IV vancomycin, 63% (n = 12,755) had at least 1 MRSA risk factor. Only 2.4% (n = 494) and 14.1% (n = 2850) of patients receiving IV vancomycin in the ED were found to have MRSA bacteremia or any MRSA-positive culture, respectively. A total of 3160 patients met Sepsis-3 criteria and received IV vancomycin, though 65% (n = 2064) had no MRSA risk factors. For any patient with culture-proven MRSA, 63.8% (n = 315) and 43.4% (n = 1236) received an MRSA antimicrobial in the ED. MRSA risk factors were not associated with MRSA bacteremia (≥1 MRSA risk factor: odds ratio, 1.3, 95% CI, 0.9-1.8) or an MRSA-positive culture of any type (odds ratio, 0.9, 95% CI, 0.7-1.1).
Within our hospital system, MRSA was an infrequent cause of bacteremia for patients presenting to the ED with sepsis or septic shock. Although vancomycin is frequently used in the ED, many patients with culture-proven MRSA did not receive MRSA antimicrobials. Notably, one-third of patients with culture-proven MRSA had no MRSA risk factors. MRSA risk factors were not predictive of culture-proven MRSA, thus highlighting the complexity of antimicrobial stewardship in the ED without validated clinical decision rules.
鉴于2021年《拯救脓毒症运动指南》对耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)抗菌药物管理的支持,我们试图衡量在这些建议发布前几年急诊科(ED)中万古霉素的使用情况。
对一家大学健康系统内5个急诊科中所有年龄≥18岁、在急诊首次就诊时接受静脉注射(IV)万古霉素的患者进行回顾性队列研究。主要结局评估了血培养MRSA阳性且在急诊科接受IV万古霉素治疗的患者比例。我们还测量了与任何MRSA感染相关的临床特征之间的关联。
在接受IV万古霉素治疗的20212例独特的急诊就诊患者中,63%(n = 12755)至少有1个MRSA风险因素。在急诊科接受IV万古霉素治疗的患者中,分别只有2.4%(n = 494)和14.1%(n = 2850)被发现患有MRSA菌血症或任何MRSA阳性培养结果。共有3160例患者符合脓毒症-3标准并接受了IV万古霉素治疗,尽管65%(n = 2064)没有MRSA风险因素。对于任何经培养证实为MRSA的患者,63.8%(n = 315)和43.4%(n = 1236)在急诊科接受了MRSA抗菌药物治疗。MRSA风险因素与MRSA菌血症(≥1个MRSA风险因素:比值比,1.3,95%置信区间,0.9 - 1.8)或任何类型的MRSA阳性培养结果(比值比,0.9,95%置信区间,0.7 - 1.1)均无关联。
在我们的医院系统中,对于因脓毒症或脓毒性休克就诊于急诊科的患者,MRSA是菌血症的罕见病因。尽管万古霉素在急诊科经常使用,但许多经培养证实为MRSA的患者并未接受MRSA抗菌药物治疗。值得注意的是,三分之一经培养证实为MRSA的患者没有MRSA风险因素。MRSA风险因素不能预测经培养证实的MRSA,这凸显了在没有经过验证的临床决策规则的情况下急诊科抗菌药物管理的复杂性。