Quantitative antibiogram as a typing method for the prospective epidemiological surveillance and control of MRSA: comparison with molecular typing.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the quantitative antibiogram as an epidemiological tool for the prospective typing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and comparison with ribotyping. METHODS: The method is based on the multivariate analysis of inhibition zone diameters of antibiotics in disk diffusion tests. Five antibiotics were used (erythromycin, clindamycin, cotrimoxazole, gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin). Ribotyping was performed using seven restriction enzymes (EcoRV, HindIII, KpnI, PstI, EcoRI, SfuI, and BamHI). SETTING: 1,000-bed tertiary university medical center. RESULTS: During a 1-year period, 31 patients were found to be infected or colonized with MRSA. Cluster analysis of antibiogram data showed nine distinct antibiotypes. Four antibiotypes were isolated from multiple patients (2, 4, 7, and 13, respectively). Five additional antibiotypes were isolated from the remaining five patients. When analyzed with respect to the epidemiological data, the method was found to be equivalent to ribotyping. Among 206 staff members who were screened, six were carriers of MRSA. Both typing methods identified concordant of MRSA types in staff members and in the patients under their care. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative antibiogram was found to be equivalent to ribotyping as an epidemiological tool for typing of MRSA in our setting. Thus, this simple, rapid, and readily available method appears to be suitable for the prospective surveillance and control of MRSA for hospitals that do not have molecular typing facilities and in which MRSA isolates are not uniformly resistant or susceptible to the antibiotics tested.

Comparison of hospital-wide and unit-specific cumulative antibiograms in hospital- and community-acquired infection.

BACKGROUND: Empirical antibacterial therapy in hospitals is usually guided by local epidemiologic features reflected by institutional cumulative antibiograms. We investigated additional information inferred by aggregating cumulative antibiograms by type of unit or according to the place of acquisition (i.e. community vs. hospital) of the bacteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Antimicrobial susceptibility rates of selected pathogens were collected over a 4-year period in an university-affiliated hospital. Hospital-wide antibiograms were compared with those selected by type of unit and sampling time (<48 or >48 h after hospital admission). RESULTS: Strains isolated >48 h after admission were less susceptible than those presumably arising from the community (<48 h). The comparison of units revealed significant differences among strains isolated >48 h after admission. When compared to hospital-wide antibiograms, susceptibility rates were lower in the ICU and surgical units for Escherichia coli to amoxicillin-clavulanate, enterococci to penicillin, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams, and in medical units for Staphylococcus aureus to oxacillin. In contrast, few differences were observed among strains isolated within 48 h of admission. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-wide antibiograms reflect the susceptibility pattern for a specific unit with respect to community-acquired, but not to hospital-acquired strains. Antibiograms adjusted to these parameters may be useful in guiding the choice of empirical antibacterial therapy.