Is systematic fecal carriage screening of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae still useful in intensive care unit: a systematic review.
Adult
Carrier State
/ diagnosis
Cross Infection
/ prevention & control
Enterobacteriaceae
/ metabolism
Enterobacteriaceae Infections
/ diagnosis
Feces
/ microbiology
Female
Humans
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
Male
Mass Screening
/ methods
Microbial Sensitivity Tests
/ methods
beta-Lactamases
/ adverse effects
Carriage
Cross-transmission
Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase
Intensive care
Nosocomial infections
Screening
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 May 2019
14 May 2019
Historique:
received:
16
01
2019
accepted:
26
04
2019
entrez:
16
5
2019
pubmed:
16
5
2019
medline:
20
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) are disseminating worldwide leading to increased hospital length of stay and mortality in intensive care units (ICU). ESBL-E dissemination was first due to outbreaks in hospital settings which led to the implementation of systematic fecal carriage screening to improve hygiene procedures by contact precautions. ESBLs have since spread in the community, and the relevance of contact precautions is questioned. ESBL-E dissemination led to an overuse of carbapenems triggering the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Empirical antimicrobial therapy based on ESBL-E fecal carriage has been proposed but is debated as it could increase the consumption of carbapenems among ESBL-E carriers without any clinical benefit. Finally, selective decontamination among ESBL-E fecal carriers is evoked to decrease the risk for subsequent ESBL-E infection, but its efficacy remains debated. We propose to systematically review the evidence to recommend or not such systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening in adult ICU. Every article focusing on ESBL-E and ICU available on the MEDLINE database was assessed. Articles were included if focusing on cross-transmission, efficacy of hygiene procedures, link between ESBL-E colonization and infection or guidance of empirical therapy or selective decontamination efficacy. Among 330 articles referenced on PubMed, 39 abstracts were selected for full-text assessment and 25 studies were included. Systematic screening of ESBL-E fecal carriage to guide contact precautions do not seem to decrease the rate of ESBL-E cross-transmission. It has a very good negative predictive value for subsequent ESBL-E infections but a positive predictive value between 40 and 50% and so does not help to spare carbapenems. Cessation of ESBL-E carriage systematic screening could decrease the use of carbapenems in ICU without any clinical harm. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to validate these results from monocentric before-after study. Selective decontamination strategy applied to ESBL-E fecal carriers could be helpful, but available data are conflicting. Current knowledge lacks of high-quality evidence to strongly recommend in favor of or against a systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening policy for ICU patients in a non-outbreak situation. Further evaluation of selective decontamination or fecal microbiota transplantation among ESBL-E fecal carriers is needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E) are disseminating worldwide leading to increased hospital length of stay and mortality in intensive care units (ICU). ESBL-E dissemination was first due to outbreaks in hospital settings which led to the implementation of systematic fecal carriage screening to improve hygiene procedures by contact precautions. ESBLs have since spread in the community, and the relevance of contact precautions is questioned. ESBL-E dissemination led to an overuse of carbapenems triggering the emergence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Empirical antimicrobial therapy based on ESBL-E fecal carriage has been proposed but is debated as it could increase the consumption of carbapenems among ESBL-E carriers without any clinical benefit. Finally, selective decontamination among ESBL-E fecal carriers is evoked to decrease the risk for subsequent ESBL-E infection, but its efficacy remains debated. We propose to systematically review the evidence to recommend or not such systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening in adult ICU.
METHODS
METHODS
Every article focusing on ESBL-E and ICU available on the MEDLINE database was assessed. Articles were included if focusing on cross-transmission, efficacy of hygiene procedures, link between ESBL-E colonization and infection or guidance of empirical therapy or selective decontamination efficacy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 330 articles referenced on PubMed, 39 abstracts were selected for full-text assessment and 25 studies were included. Systematic screening of ESBL-E fecal carriage to guide contact precautions do not seem to decrease the rate of ESBL-E cross-transmission. It has a very good negative predictive value for subsequent ESBL-E infections but a positive predictive value between 40 and 50% and so does not help to spare carbapenems. Cessation of ESBL-E carriage systematic screening could decrease the use of carbapenems in ICU without any clinical harm. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to validate these results from monocentric before-after study. Selective decontamination strategy applied to ESBL-E fecal carriers could be helpful, but available data are conflicting.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Current knowledge lacks of high-quality evidence to strongly recommend in favor of or against a systematic ESBL-E fecal carriage screening policy for ICU patients in a non-outbreak situation. Further evaluation of selective decontamination or fecal microbiota transplantation among ESBL-E fecal carriers is needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31088542
doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2460-3
pii: 10.1186/s13054-019-2460-3
pmc: PMC6518813
doi:
Substances chimiques
beta-Lactamases
EC 3.5.2.6
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
170Références
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;25(10):838-41
pubmed: 15518025
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;26(2):161-5
pubmed: 15756887
Microb Drug Resist. 2006 Spring;12(1):50-8
pubmed: 16584309
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2006 Oct;58(4):853-6
pubmed: 16891326
J Hosp Infect. 2007 Apr;65(4):354-60
pubmed: 17289215
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Mar;35(2):97-101
pubmed: 17327188
Am J Infect Control. 2007 Dec;35(10 Suppl 2):S65-164
pubmed: 18068815
Am J Infect Control. 2009 Mar;37(2):85-93
pubmed: 19249637
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010 Jul;16(7):934-44
pubmed: 19686277
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2010 Apr;35(4):375-81
pubmed: 20122817
Infection. 1990 Sep-Oct;18(5):294-8
pubmed: 2276823
Intensive Care Med. 2012 Nov;38(11):1769-78
pubmed: 22893223
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;55(11):1505-11
pubmed: 22955436
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013 Mar;68(3):562-8
pubmed: 23143897
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2012 Nov 27;1(1):39
pubmed: 23181506
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Mar;57(3):1488-95
pubmed: 23318796
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2013 Mar;11(3):321-31
pubmed: 23458771
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Jul;57(7):3224-9
pubmed: 23629703
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 26;8(4):e62678
pubmed: 23638132
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013 Oct;68(10):2375-82
pubmed: 23719234
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013 Oct;57(10):5131-3
pubmed: 23836188
J Hosp Infect. 2013 Aug;84(4):294-9
pubmed: 23846237
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Dec;39(12):2153-60
pubmed: 23995982
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013 Oct;26(4):744-58
pubmed: 24092853
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2013 Nov;34(11):1160-6
pubmed: 24113599
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;14(1):31-39
pubmed: 24161233
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Jan;20 Suppl 1:1-55
pubmed: 24329732
MBio. 2013 Dec 17;4(6):e00377-13
pubmed: 24345742
Ann Lab Med. 2014 Jan;34(1):20-5
pubmed: 24422191
Infection. 2014 Aug;42(4):743-8
pubmed: 24728816
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Nov;20(11):O977-8
pubmed: 24845223
Ann Ig. 2014 Jul-Aug;26(4):293-304
pubmed: 25001119
Infection. 2014 Dec;42(6):991-7
pubmed: 25100555
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2014 Sep 01;3:27
pubmed: 25237477
J Hosp Infect. 2015 Jun;90(2):102-7
pubmed: 25799484
Clin Infect Dis. 2015 Jun 15;60(12):1837-41
pubmed: 25847976
Crit Care. 2015 Feb 10;19:38
pubmed: 25879192
Lancet. 2015 May 16;385(9981):1949-56
pubmed: 25931244
Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jul;41(7):1181-96
pubmed: 26077053
J Infect. 2015 Dec;71(6):667-74
pubmed: 26380898
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015 Nov 09;60(1):507-14
pubmed: 26552974
Ann Intern Med. 1989 Jun 1;110(11):873-81
pubmed: 2655521
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Nov 12;15:512
pubmed: 26563141
Crit Care Med. 2016 Apr;44(4):699-706
pubmed: 26571186
J Hosp Infect. 2016 Jan;92(1):33-41
pubmed: 26597637
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016 Apr;71(4):1088-97
pubmed: 26755492
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Apr 13;16:147
pubmed: 27075040
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Aug 1;63(3):310-8
pubmed: 27143671
J Infect. 2016 Sep;73(3):293-6
pubmed: 27343563
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 1;63(7):937-943
pubmed: 27358350
J Infect. 2016 Sep;73(3):200-9
pubmed: 27373765
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 21;11(7):e0158039
pubmed: 27442425
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):13
pubmed: 28155050
Am J Infect Control. 2017 Jul 1;45(7):728-734
pubmed: 28285725
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 15;65(2):208-215
pubmed: 28369261
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Aug 1;65(3):364-370
pubmed: 28369341
Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 15;65(2):342-347
pubmed: 28379311
Cell Host Microbe. 2017 May 10;21(5):592-602.e4
pubmed: 28494240
Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Jun;38(3):287-300
pubmed: 28578553
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):61
pubmed: 28608133
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2017 Nov;36(11):2093-2100
pubmed: 28643188
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2017 Jun 26;6:69
pubmed: 28670449
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):73
pubmed: 28674848
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 11;17(1):490
pubmed: 28697755
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Nov;50(5):649-656
pubmed: 28782707
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017 Nov;38(11):1342-1350
pubmed: 28927475
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Apr;24(4):429.e7-429.e12
pubmed: 28962997
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 1;66(4):489-493
pubmed: 29020273
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 3;7(11):e017402
pubmed: 29102989
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Mar;18(3):285-295
pubmed: 29254862
BMC Res Notes. 2018 Mar 22;11(1):190
pubmed: 29566738
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;39(6):660-667
pubmed: 29618394
Intensive Care Med. 2018 May;44(5):616-626
pubmed: 29663045
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2018 May 22;7:67
pubmed: 29796252
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2018 Aug;24(8):803-805
pubmed: 29870851
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 8;13(8):e0201688
pubmed: 30089150
JAMA. 2018 Sep 11;320(10):984-994
pubmed: 30208454
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(38):e12445
pubmed: 30235729
JAMA. 2018 Nov 27;320(20):2087-2098
pubmed: 30347072
Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019 Apr;53(4):435-441
pubmed: 30578963
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jan 4;:null
pubmed: 30616014
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Jan 29;:null
pubmed: 30708122
JAMA. 2019 Feb 12;321(6):613
pubmed: 30747961
J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Oct;34(10):2448-53
pubmed: 8880498
Clin Infect Dis. 1998 Oct;27(4):834-44
pubmed: 9798042