Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

The trusted source for

healthcare information and

CONTINUING EDUCATION.

  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • MyAHC
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    Home » Infectious Disease Update: Are You Looking for ESBLs?

    Infectious Disease Update: Are You Looking for ESBLs?

    February 1, 2020
    No Comments
    Reprints
    Facebook Twitter Linkedin Share Share

    Related Articles

    Are You Ready for Next Infectious Disease Event?

    JCAHO Update for Infection Control: JCAHO looking at timing of surgical drug prophylaxis

    Accreditation surveyors are looking at conscious sedation — Are you ready?

    Related Products

    Ebola, chronic PPE woes give OSHA momentum for infectious disease rule

    If they’re so difficult to reprocess, why are duodenoscopes approved for surgery?

    Keywords

    colonization

    surveillance

    screening

    mdro

    esbl

    By Carol A. Kemper, MD, FACP

    Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Stanford University, Division of Infectious Diseases,
    Santa Clara Valley Medical Center

    Prevention strategies are necessary to limit transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in the hospital, especially in high-risk settings. Identification of carriers of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing organisms via active surveillance, and contact isolation of positives, has been recommended for certain high-risk groups (e.g., those in the intensive care unit [ICU]).

    To thwart transmission of MDRO/extensively drug-resistant organisms (XDRO), our facility implemented routine ESBL surveillance in high-risk individuals in 2015, using perirectal swab specimens and the chromogenic agar culture technique. High-risk groups were considered to be admissions from long-term care facilities or an outside facility and patients on hemodialysis.

    From 2015 to 2017, the prevalence of ESBL carriage steadily increased, up to 14% in patients admitted from skilled nursing facilities (SNF). This meant that many otherwise asymptomatic older SNF patients, who were simply ESBL carriers, now required contact isolation. However, in those who were critically ill or septic, identification of ESBL carriage provided the advantage of preemptively employing the use of a carbapenem as clinically appropriate. One other important advantage to the active surveillance program was that during the three years of surveillance, only one patient was found to have “hospital-onset” ESBL not previously identified on admission. Thus, the program successfully kept the “transmission rates” of this MDRO remarkably low.

    Ironically, as the prevalence of ESBL colonization in our screening population increased, so did the cost of the program. By 2017, the estimated the annual cost of ESBL surveillance was approximately $250,000 (based on laboratory costs and not the cost of isolation supplies). This was in addition to active surveillance of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; required by California regulation), Clostridioides difficile, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) (recommended by the CDC) in select patients and travelers. The burden to the micro lab was just too much. Thus, in 2017, the infection control team made the difficult decision to abandon ESBL screening. Our disappointment was mollified only by the knowledge that approximately half of such patients required isolation for other reasons (MRSA/C. difficile), since double and triple colonization was not uncommon.

    The debate about active ESBL surveillance continues. Zahar et al argued that enforcement of universal precautions and improved hand hygiene makes more sense and ultimately is likely to be a more effective strategy than “search-and isolate,” for the following reasons:1

    • The cost of routine active surveillance is not insignificant (as mentioned earlier) and poses a considerable burden to the microbiology lab; such surveillance costs are not reimbursable by insurance or Medicare.
    • The lag in retrieving results (which may be up to 48-72 hours) means that either individuals being screened must be isolated pending results — or those with ESBL colonization are not isolated initially.
    • The frequency of false-negative surveillance samples may be as high as 25%, depending on technique and detectable levels of fecal colonization.
    • Surveillance focused only on ESBL does not detect other MDRO, such as carbapenem-resistant pseudomonas or Acinetobacter baumanii — two important hospital pathogens.
    • Defining high-risk groups for screening may overlook those without recognized risk factors (e.g., prior SNF stay or prior travel or residence in Asia or a developing country).
    • Limited studies suggest negligible transmission from asymptomatic carriers of ESBL-containing organisms in the acute care setting.
    • The “human” cost of isolation is not insignificant, from the donning and doffing of gowns and gloves, to the occasional distress of patients being screened with rectal swabs, and then the challenging explanation of why “Granny is in isolation.” We have had some families so overreact that they have prevented contact with the grandchildren.
    • The authors argued that rather than being a useful clinical result, the detection of ESBL in perirectal swabs may contribute to the overuse of carbapenems.
    • The authors argued that ESBL transmission in the critical care setting occurs “rarely” when hand hygiene compliance is maximized. With improved hand hygiene compliance, the authors of one study found little added value to the implementation of contact isolation on acquisition rates of Enterobacteriaceae in the ICU. Further, the use of single rooms and daily chlorhexidine body bathing also may reduce the risk of acquisition of potential pathogens.

    The balance in favor of active surveillance for MDRO could shift if more rapid and reliable (and cheaper, less labor-intensive) diagnostic tests were available. But, I wondered, if the risk of transmission of ESBL and other MDRO from asymptomatic individuals with stool carriage is ostensibly so low, as these authors argued, why is such a remarkable increase in ESBL colonization being observed in our local SNF population?

    REFERENCE

    1. Zahar JR, Blot S, Nordmann P, et al. Screening for intestinal carriage of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in critically ill patients: Expected benefits and evidence-based controversies. Clin Infect Dis 2019;68:2125-2130.

    Post a comment to this article

    Report Abusive Comment

    www.reliasmedia.com

    Hospital Infection Control & Prevention

    View PDF
    Hospital Infection Control & Prevention (Vol. 47, No. 2) - February 2020
    February 1, 2020

    Table Of Contents

    Parents Can Pose Staph Risk to Babies in NICUs

    Is It Safe to Speak Up? Infection Prevention and ‘Psychological Safety’

    C. diff: Colonization and Consequences

    Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in Pediatrics

    Infectious Disease Update: Are You Looking for ESBLs?

    Healthcare Worker Attitudes About Respiratory Protection: It’s Complicated

    Begin Test

    Buy this Issue/Course

    Financial Disclosure: Peer Reviewer Patrick Joseph, MD, reports that he is a consultant for Genomic Health, Siemens, and CareDx. Senior Writer Gary Evans, Editor Jason Schneider, Editor Journey Roberts, Nurse Planner Patti Grant, RN, BSN, MS, CIC, and Editorial Group Manager Leslie Coplin report no consultant, stockholder, speaker’s bureau, research, or other financial relationships with companies having ties to this field of study.

    Shop Now: Search Products

    • Subscription Publications
    • Books & Study Guides
    • Webinars
    • Group & Site
      Licenses
    • State CME/CE
      Requirements

    Webinars And Events

    View All Events
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    • Help
    • Search
    • About Us
    • Sign In
    • Register
    Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

    The trusted source for

    healthcare information and

    CONTINUING EDUCATION.

    Customer Service

    customerservice@reliasmedia.com

    U.S. and Canada: 1-800-688-2421

    International +1-404-262-5476

    Accounts Receivable

    1-800-370-9210
    ReliasMedia_AR@reliasmedia.com

    Mailing Address

    • 1010 Sync St., Suite 100
      Morrisville, NC 27560-5468
      USA

    © 2020 Relias. All rights reserved.

    Do Not Sell My Personal Information  Privacy Policy  Terms of Use  Contact Us  Reprints  Group Sales

    For DSR inquiries or complaints, please reach out to Wes Vaux, Data Privacy Officer, DPO@relias.com

    Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing