Search

From July 1983 through June 1990, 319 patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) were identified at the University of California, Davis Medical Center. Initially, our goal was eradication of MRSA from the hospital flora. Our approach was: (a) immediate notification of all MRSA isolates by the microbiology laboratory; (b) strict isolation; (c) cohorting; (d) bathing patients with an iodophor; (e) surveillance cultures of patients and staff; (f) treatment of all colonized persons; and (g) strict isolation on readmission. Control of spread was achieved but eradication was not. In 1987 our strategy was modified in order to establish the least restrictive methods to maintain control of the spread of MRSA. After notification by the microbiology laboratory, we now require: (a) contact isolation; (b) surveillance cultures of patients associated with each new case; and (c) contact isolation for all MRSA patients on readmission. Strict isolation and employee culturing are used only during major outbreaks. We have averaged four new cases of MRSA per month over the 7-year period, including four major outbreaks. Since 1987, we have averaged only three new cases per month with one major MRSA outbreak. Annual cost savings of greater than $50,000 have been realized through the policy modifications. We conclude that the use of contact isolation with some modifications has saved time and money and has successfully controlled the spread of MRSA in our university hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has long been a common pathogen in healthcare facilities, but in the past decade, it has emerged as a problematic pathogen in the community setting as well. A retrospective case series study of patients from whom MRSA was isolated from December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004, was conducted at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center. Patient data were collected from electronic medical records and traditional chart reviews to determine whether MRSA acquisition was likely to have been in the community or in the hospital. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) were performed for all confirmed isolates. Skin and soft tissue were the most common infection sites for all MRSA patients. Among the 283 MRSA infections, 127 (44.9%) were defined as community-associated (CA)-MRSA. Ninety-six percent of the CA-MRSA isolates were susceptible to clindamycin. Double-disk diffusion tests were performed to examine inducible clindamycin resistance by erythromycin induction on both CA and hospital-associated (HA) clindamycin-susceptible and erythromycin-resistant isolates. Ten percent (17 of 183) were positive. Most CA-MRSA isolates were identified by PFGE as a unique strain, genotype USA300, which was not genetically related to the predominant genotype, USA100, in the HA-MRSA isolates. Injecting drug users accounted for 49% of CA-MRSA infections but only 19% of the HA-MRSA infections (odds ratio, 4.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 7.4). Our study shows that a single clone of CA-MRSA accounts for the majority of infections. This strain originated in the community and is not related to MRSA strains from healthcare settings. Injecting drug users could be a major reservoir for CA-MRSA transmission.