Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Citation
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173920
By
Hong Kong in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Medical Sciences
August 2012
SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
Submitted by
in August 2012
Background
healthcare settings in many countries of the world. Patients who have acquired
Objectives
Methodology
and the ward environments were sampled from June 2011 to September 2011. The
I
swabs were enriched and cultured for the presence of MRSA. The MRSA isolates
obtained from environmental samples and from the clinical samples of the
Results
surfaces was 97% (29/30) and 40% (12/30) respectively. Environmental surfaces
that were highly contaminated by MRSA positive patients were bed sheets (70%),
followed by pillows (55%), patient bed frames (52%) and patient lockers (52%).
On the environmental surfaces other than the near-patient areas, ambulatory chair
armrests had the highest amount of MRSA (21%), followed by fax machines
which accounted for 14%. Among the 216 MRSA isolates (30 clinical isolates and
151 environmental isolates), eight spa types were found and the most predominant
spa type was t1081 (63.3%) followed by t032 (17.6%) and t037 (7.4%). 27
patients were found to have the MRSA isolates with same spa type in the clinical
samples and their surrounding environments. The agreement between the MRSA
isolated from the clinical sample of patients and their surrounding environment
was 93.1%.
Conclusion
Identical isolates were recovered from the patient and their environment
II
Declaration
I, Chan Chi Fun, declare that this dissertation represents my own work and
that it has not been submitted to this or any other institution in application for a
I, Chan Chi Fun, also declare that I have read and understand the guideline
http://www.hku.hk/plagiarismf) and that all parts of this work complies with the
guideline.
Signature _______________
III
Acknowledgements
Pak Leung, who has guided me throughout my project with his professionalism,
my Master’s degree to his professionalism and support. Without him, this thesis
I would like to thank Mr. Frankie Chow, for his skilful technical assistance
and guidance. With his great support, I could perform the laboratory work in my
hospital smoothly.
I would like to thank Dr. T.K. Ng, Mr. W.T. Hui and the infection control
I would like to thank all my colleagues from Princess Margret Hospital for
patience and encouragement which have driven me to pass through the toughest
period during these two years. They spent most of the time caring for my beloved
daughter and son so that I could concentrate on my work. Without them, this
Finally, I would like to thank my Heavenly Father, for loving me and hearing
IV
Abbreviations
μg Microgram
μl Microlitre
μm Micromolar
bp Base pairs
HA Hospital Authority
Log logarithm
mg Milligram
ml Millilitre
mm Millimeter
ng Nanogram
UV Ultra violet
Table 10. The drugs used in performing susceptibility test according to CLSI….39
Table 12. Spa types found in clinical samples and environmental surfaces……..47
Table 14. The antimicrobial profiles of the 5 spa types isolated from patients….51
VII
List of Figures
Figure 3. The “ Five moments for hand hygiene” concept from WHO…………15
Figure 9. Correlation of the spa types between the patients and their
surrounding environment……………………………………………...50
VIII
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………I
Declaration……………………….…………………………………...………….III
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………........IV
Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………..V
List of Tables………………………………………………………………..….VII
List of Figures……………………………………………………………….…VIII
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Epidemiology of MRSA in healthcare setting………………………….2
1.2 The transmission cycle of MRSA………………………………………4
1.2.1 People carry MRSA……………………………………………….5
1.2.2. People shed MRSA into the general environment………………...5
1.2.3. People transmit MRSA to other people……………………………6
1.2.4 MRSA spread between people and the environment……………...7
1.3 The role of HCWs in transmission of MRSA…………………………12
1.4 Hygienic cleaning in healthcare setting……………………………….17
1.4.1 Chemical disinfectants…………………………………………...17
1.4.2 Airborne hydrogen peroxide……………………………………..18
1.4.3 Portable Pulsed Ultra Violet (UV) Radiation Device…………….18
1.4.4 Photocatalytic coatings…………………………………………...19
1.5 Analysis of hygiene practice monitoring tools……………………….19
1.6 Infection control measures of MRS...………………………………..21
1.6.1 Cohorting and contact precaution………………………………..22
1.6.2. Methods of Active Surveillance Testing for MRSA carriers……..22
1.6.3 Decolonization therapy…………………………….…………….25
1.7 Molecular typing methods of MRSA………………………………….25
1.7.1 SCCmec Typing…………………………..………………………25
1.7.2 Plused-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)……………..…………..31
1.7.3 Multilocus sequence typing (MLST)…………...……..………...31
1.7.4 Spa typing………………………………………………..……….32
2. Objectives of the study……………………………………………..34
3. Methods and Materials…………………………………………….35
3.1 Study design and participants………………………………………….35
3.2. Microbiological methods……………………………………………...37
3.2.1. Determining the lowest limit of detection (LLD) of the laboratory
culture method…………………………………………………....37
3.2.2. Laboratory culture methods and antimicrobial susceptibility
testing of MRSA…………………………………………………39
3.3 Molecular analysis…………………………………………………….40
3.3.1. DNA extraction…………………………………………………..40
3.3.2. Amplification and Gel electrophoresis…………………….…….40
3.3.3. Purification of the PCR product.………………………………....41
3.3.4. Spa typing………………………………………………………...41
4. Results………………………………………………………………….42
4.1 Patients………………………………………………………………...42
4.2 Environments………………………………………………………….42
4.3 Spa types of the MRSA isolates……………………………………….47
4.4 Relationship of the spa types between patients and environment……..48
4.5 Antimicrobial resistance profiles of different spa types………………48
IX
5. Discussion……………………………………………………………..52
5.1 Environmental contamination by patients……………………………..52
5.2 Contamination of environmental surfaces…………………………….55
5.3 Molecular characteristics of the MRSA isolates……………………....57
5.3.1 Molecular characteristics of the MRSA isolates between
patients and their environment…………………………………...58
6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….59
7. Limitations of the study…………………………………………....61
8. References…………………………………………………………….62
9. Appendix I The result of the method to determine the limit of
detection……………………………………………….80
10. Appendix II The photo of gel electrophoresis of MRSA…………...82
11. Appendix III Photo guidelines for environmental samplings………..83
X
1. Introduction
spherical cells of 0.5 to 1.5 um in diameter and form grape-like (Greek staphyle)
range of human diseases from minor skin infections to severe diseases such as
facilities, S. aureus strains are transmitted from patient to patient primarily via
In 1961, two years after the introduction of methicillin into clinical practice,
developed resistance to methicillin due to the acquisition of the mecA gene in the
confers resistance to all currently available β-lactam agents (Fuda et al., 2004).
Since then, MRSA has spread and caused significant mortality and morbidity in
In the past decades, MRSA has been one of the most common pathogens to
the improper use or reuse of equipment. Hands may become contaminated with
1
At the end of the 1990s, virulent community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA)
outpatient clinics and caused skin and soft-tissue infections. It affected healthcare
facilities later and became another impact on the public health burden because it
(Lowy, 2003). The prevention and control of infection due to MRSA has become
a national public health priority. In addition, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention of the USA (CDC) has guidelines for healthcare workers and the
infections (Engemann et al.; 2003; Cosgrove et al., 2005; Robicsek et al., 2008).
Patients with MRSA bacteraemia have a mortality of 1.78%, three times higher
than with MSSA bacteraemia (Wang et al., 2008). Likewise, another study found
and increased hospital charges of $14,000 per infection in patients with S. aureus
surgical site infection (in 2000) (Engemann et al., 2003). It has become the most
infections in the United States showed that the percentage of MRSA isolates
increased from 22% in 1995 to 57% in 2001 (Wisplinghoff et al., 2004). Among
Invasive MRSA infections that began in hospitals declined 28% from 2005
through 2008 (Kallen et al., 2010). However, the increase in the incidence of
CA-MRSA has become another challenge for the center. In Hong Kong, a
of Resistant Pathogens (ANSORP) from 2004 to 2006 showed that the prevalence
MRSA has the ability to survive for days to weeks on environmental surfaces
properties make it able to contaminate a large variety of hospital items, e.g. chairs,
mattresses, bed frames and computer keyboards (Bures et al., 2000; Bhalla et al.;
2004, Sexton et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2009; Rohr et al., 2009). Environmental
(Dancer, 2008a). It also explains why MRSA outbreaks occur easily (Dietze et al.,
2001; Hardy et al., 2006a ; Huang et al., 2006). When mixed with hospital dust,
MRSA can still be alive more than one year after inoculation (Wagenvoort et al.,
2000). This increases the chance that someone else will acquire viable MRSA
from the environment as a new host. Even deep cleaning of a ward with detergent
and a steam cleaner, followed by use of 1,000 ppm chlorine disinfectant for all
hard surfaces, does not completely eradicate MRSA from the clinical environment
(French et al., 2004; Jeanes et al., 2005). Such persistence is likely to create a
3
addition, the hospital setting nowadays provides more hand-touch sites that
cleaning agents damage many items of medical and nursing equipment. All of
in modern hospitals.
cycle between human beings and their environment (Figure 1). MRSA transfers
from an affected patient to a susceptible host most commonly via the hands of
healthcare workers (HCWs), but contaminated objects, surfaces and air can be
4
1.2.1 People carry MRSA
MRSA is found to colonize on many sites of the human body and anterior
nares are the most common carriage site. One retrospective, observational study in
the USA showed that the MRSA positive carrier rate was 10.8%. Among them,
85.3% were asymptomatic MRSA nasal carriers (Parvez et al., 2010). A review of
the MRSA prevalence in HCWs in 104 studies with denominator data showed that
the nasal carriage rate of MRSA in HCWs was 4.1% (Albrich and Harbarth,
2008). MRSA colonization has been shown to result in 10 times the number of
2010). It is not surprising that MRSA carriers will transfer their own strain of
MRSA to any site of the body via their hands and contaminate the environment.
MRSA carriers shed their strain into the environment in various ways. People
individuals shed after antibiotic treatment, some shed depending on which sites
are colonized, and some individuals seem never to shed at all (Sherertz et al.,
2001). Therefore, MRSA can contaminate areas frequently and the frequency of
(Rohr et al., 2009). Infected patients usually shed more MRSA than those who are
nosocomial pathogens appears to be low. For S. aureus, less than 15 cells were
Contamination of air has also been reported, one study conducting sequential
5
air sampling before and after bed making showed that MRSA counts remained
elevated for up to 15 minutes after the bed was made (Shiomori et al., 2002). It
has enough time to let MRSA particles to be transported to nearby areas and
adhere to them. However, the debate over the importance of airborne MRSA
continues because most microbiologists argue that patients are more likely to
acquire MRSA from the hands of healthcare workers rather than directly from the
was cultured from 43% of beds used by patients not known to be MRSA positive.
It was most likely to be due to the continued viability of MRSA shed by previous
hospitals and people at home. These cases may relate to outbreak situations
al., 2002; Herwaldt et al., 2003; Teare et al., 2010). These person to person
6
1.2.4 MRSA spread between people and the environment
Patients and carriers are the prime source of contamination; surfaces in the
vicinity of patients that are touched by patients and HCWs frequently are termed
contamination than other sites. A recent study defined high-touch surfaces as the
bed rails, the bed surface, and the supply cart by observation of their contact
frequency (Huslage et al., 2010). People can acquire MRSA from these
hand-touch sites or from the air and transmit it to other environmental sites
1). Also, evidence of MRSA contamination has been found in environments other
contaminated surfaces. A study showed that MRSA can be acquired on the hands
direct patient contact (Bhalla et al., 2004). Another study reported that about 12
the transmission of MRSA from the patient to the gloves of the health-care worker
7
Table 1. Studies investigating the environmental contamination by MRSA patients in healthcare settings from 2005-2012
References Settings, location Study design Culture method Main findings
used
Wang et al., -1,600 bed -Screening for MRSA carriage in the -No broth -A relatively lower environmental
2011 teaching hospital emergency ward and intensive care enrichment step contamination rate of 34.1% (860/2520).
unit -The sites near to the perineum and
-Beijing -Sampling 30 environmental swabs for -Blood agar nasopharynx had the highest contamination
each MRSA carriage rate
Eibicht et al., -A university -Examined ambulances’contamination -Brain-heart -MRSA contamination rate was 9% (9/89
2011 hospital and 3 aid rate after transporting MRSA patients infusion (BHI) transportations)
organizations or carriers broth enrichment -5 cases only of the headrest area and 2
-Two sites at the stretcher, three sites cases only of the handles of the stretcher
-Germany at the bin were swabbed -Baird Parker were contaminated
-Transport time <20 minutes agar - 1 case was found of having MRSA in both
areas
Rohr et al., -248-bed surgery -25 MRSA carriages were placed in -Trypticase soy -Only 10.5% (105/1000) of the surface and
2009 department decontaminated private rooms broth (TSB) 4.0% (4/100) of the airborne samples were
-10 environmental samples and 1 enrichment MRSA positive
-Germany airborne sample were collected on -Bed linen had the highest contaminated
each visit (5 times) -Sheep blood rate of 25%
agar
Oie et al., 2007 -756-bed hospital -Environmental surfaces of 106 -No broth -50.9% (54/106) of the inpatients and 19.0%
patients with MRSA positive body enrichment step (4/21) of the control patients were detected
- Japan sites and 21 control patients that were to have MRSA in their surrounding
nasal negative were examined -Salt egg yolk environment
agar -In inpatients, the highest contaminated rate
was bed linen (40.2%) while it was over bed
tables (15%) in control
8
Table 1. Continued
Boyce et al., -500-bed teaching -10 environmental swabs of 8 patients -Non selective -58.8% (47/80) of the surfaces in the case
2007 hospital submitted for Clostridium difficile enrichment patients and 23.3% (14/60) in the control
toxin with MRSA colonization in the patients were found to have MRSA
- USA gastrointestinal tract and 5 control -Blood agar plate -Bedside rails were found to have the
patients with MRSA colonization were hightest MRSA contamination in both case
examined and control patients
Hardy et al., -Intensive care -Environmental swabs from 9 beds for -BHI broth -MRSA was present in 21.8% (188/864) of
2006 units 14 months were collected enrichment the environmental sites.
-During admission and then 3 times -The highest MRSA contamination was
-UK weekly -Oxacillin found underneath the beds with 37.5%
-In total, the environment of 53 MRSA resistant agar (81/216)
colonized patients were sampled
Sexton et al., -720-bed hospital -6 horizontal surfaces and 1 airborne -No broth -53.6% (269/502) of the surface samples,
2005 sample were collected in the isolation enrichment 28% (70/250) of the air samples were found
-Ireland rooms of 25 MRSA positive patients to be MRSA positive.
up to 4 weeks -Mannitol salt -Both bed and mattress had >50%
agar contamination rate
Lemmen et al., -9 intensive care -20 environmental samples of 136 -TSB enrichment -25.5% (165/648) of the environmental
2005 units of a patients with multi-drug resistant swabs were found to have MRSA
1500-bed tertiary organisms isolated including MRSA -Rodac plate -Bed corners had an MRSA contamination
teaching hospital (50 patients) (Becton rate greater than 35%
Dickinson) -Environmental contamination rate by
-Germany multidrug resistant organisms in the ICU
was showed no difference with regard to
general wards
9
Table 2. Studies investigating the environmental contamination of MRSA in the community in 2007-2012
Study (year) Settings, location Study design Culture methods Main findings
Murphy -10 nursing homes -The centres were categorized -7% sodium chloride -16% (78/500) of the items were MRSA
et al., 2012 into high and low groups based broth enrichment positive
-USA upon the MRSA point -A high proportion of MRSA-positive
prevalence and delta prevalence -MRSA chromagar objects were found in the high than the
-10 high-touch items were low delta prevalence nursing home (19%
sampled on 6 visits vs. 10%)
Simoes et al., 2011 -85 public urban -A single gauze was used to -BHI broth with -26% (22/85) of the buses were found to
buses sample a large surface area of enrichment be MRSA positive
different handrails
-Portugal -MRSA chromagar
Iwao et al., 2011 -349trains -The surfaces of the straps and -Did not mention -2.3% (8/349) of the trains were found to
handrails of 349 trains of 16 be MRSA positive
-Japan train lines were swabbed
Montgomery et al., -10 high school -9 surface categories were -No broth -46.7% (42/90) of the surfaces were
2010 athletic training sampled at each centre enrichment found to be MRSA positive
centres -Water coolers had the highest MRSA
-MRSA chromagar contamination rate of 19% (8/42)
-USA
Stanforth et al., -9 high school -10 surface categories were -No broth -All the 10 surfaces had at least positive
2010 wrestling sampled with multi-swabs enrichment samples of MRSA
environments -The inner and outer circles of the
-MRSA chromagar wrestling mats showed the greatest
-USA prevalence of MRSA (89%)
10
Table 2. Continued
Scott et al., 2009 -35 homes in the -Environmental sampling was -TSB enrichment -MRSA was found in 9 of the 35 homes
metro-Boston area had performed on 32 commonly -2 of the 9 MRSA positive homes had
children in diapers and a touched household surfaces in -Mannitol salt agar HCWs living which showed an
dog or cat in the each home insignificant difference in MRSA
household contamination rate among homes with or
without HCWs
-USA
Scott et al., 2008 -35 homes had children -Environmental samples of 32 -TSB enrichment -26% (9/35) of the homes were
in diapers and a dog or household surfaces were contaminated with a total of 15 isolates
cat in the household collected in each home -Mannitol salt agar of MRSA
-44% (4/9) of the MRSA positive homes
-USA had child care attendance but was not
statistically significant
-78% (7/9) of the MRSA positive homes
had a cat with a positive correlation
11
1.3 The role of HCWs in the transmission of MRSA
Studies had shown contamination of HCWs’ hands with MRSA after contact
with MRSA patients and after contact with environmental surfaces (Bhalla et al.,
associated pathogens from one patient to another via HCWs’ hands is the major
categories and accounted for the frequency of the HCWs touching the surfaces
through monitoring strategy (Table 3). The near-patient surfaces (in room) had a
far-patient surfaces (outside room) and the clinical equipment (in room). This
environmental site to another (Smith et al., 2012). HCWs can carry MRSA from
HCWs is another risk factor for the transmission of MRSA. A review of the
the average MRSA prevalence of HCWs being 4.6%. The HCWs can shed the
MRSA from their body or carry the MRSA through their hands after nasal contact
many other pathogens (Pittet et al., 2000). However, the problem with hand
appropriate time. One study has already contrasted the success and relative ease of
12
a hand hygiene initiative (Hayden et al., 2006).
(Boyce and Pittet, 2002; WHO guidelines, 2009). WHO guidelines for hand
hygiene in healthcare settings suggest easily applicable concepts such as the “five
moments for hand hygiene” (Figure 3). Methods for measuring hand hygiene
measuring hand hygiene compliance (Haas et al., 2007; Boyce, 2008b; Gould et
al., 2011). Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages and are
1. MRSA is present on the patient's skin or have been shed onto inanimate
objects immediately surrounding the patient
5. The contaminated hand(s) of the caregiver must come into direct contact
with another patient or with an inanimate object that will come into direct
contact with the patient
Locker 4 2%
Curtains 6 4%
BP stand 10 6%
Stethoscope 3 2%
IV drip 23 14%
Telephone 16 169%
14
(Navarro et al., 2008)
Fig 3. The “ Five moments for hand hygiene” concept from WHO
15
Table 4. The advantages and disadvantages of different hand hygiene
compliance methods
Method Description Advantages Disadvantages
16
1.4 Hygienic cleaning in healthcare settings
and disinfect “high-touch surfaces” (Sehulster and Chinn, 2003). The guideline
important intervention in the control of MRSA (Datta et al., 2009; Dancer, 2009a).
inefficient in the eradication of organisms and require long contact times for
disinfection (French et al., 2004; Jeanes et al., 2005). Rutala and Weber (2004)
hospitals. They concluded that the routine use of disinfectants to disinfect hospital
17
organisms were resulted in increasing the chance of cross transmission of MRSA
(Cheng et al., 2011a). So, various newly developed technologies have been under
environment.
(Falagas et al., 2011). The commercial systems for airborne hydrogen peroxide
personnel (Rutala and Weber, 2004). The time required for a cycle of airborne
disinfected. Most importantly, the gas can reach sites that are inaccessible for
cleaners such as clinical equipment (Anderson et al., 2006). It appears to have low
toxicity and has good compatibility with most of the inanimate materials as it
degrades into oxygen and water. However, patients should be moved to other
18
of radiation to attain bactericidal activity with more than 2Log growth inhibition
of all bacterial species. It was proven to have a bactericidal activity against critical
and phospholipids within the cell wall and cell membrane. It causes leakage of
cellular components and direct ROS attack of organelles and genetic material
(Kiwi and Nadtochenko, 2005). In one study, MRSA inactivation required the
There are five systems that are currently used in enhanced programmatic
application of this method in a study from 48% to 87% (Hayden et al., 2006).
19
related to specific organisms (Carling and Bartley, 2010). Although swab cultures
are easy to use, the cost of processing, including isolate identification, the delay in
analyzing results, and the need to develop baseline values for comparisons limit
its use.
square centimetre (Griffith et al., 2007; Dancer et al., 2009b). It can provide an
easy method for quantifying viable microbial surface contamination. The same as
the swab cultures, both systems need to develop baseline values for accurate
The fluorescent gel system is a method using invisible transparent gel that
dries on surfaces following application and resists abrasion and was developed
77% by applying this system in a study (Carling et al., 2008b). However, the
units (RLU). Very low readings are typically associated with low ACCs while
very high RLU readings may represent either viable organisms or organic debris
20
including dead bacteria. It is impossible to use the system when a bleach-based
disinfectant is being used for cleaning (Boyce et al., 2010). Table 5 shows a
also a guideline of the CDC to prevent the spread of MRSA from healthcare
21
1.6.1 Cohorting and contact precaution
unit is a guideline to prevent the spread of MRSA. The physical barrier between
the psychological message that this barrier gives to HCWs by highlighting the
cohorted MRSA patients are usually the major infection control guidelines. The
with MRSA, including hand hygiene and use of gloves and gowns before
Today, studies evaluating AST have had mixed results, the incidence of MRSA
infections not decreasing in the intervention group of the study by Harbarth et al.
rates when AST was initiated before patients were admitted to hospitals (Harbarth
22
et al., 2006; Robicsek et al., 2008).
control programs and had been well reviewed (Dancer, 2008b). Screening for
superficial sites, including nares, throat, and perineum (Brown et al., 2005).
superior selectivity, specificity and faster time to detection for MRSA screening
et al., 2008). MRSA is detected in 20–48 h with most of these media, and
(Struelens MJ, 2009). By adding an indicator of bacterial growth, these broths can
confirmed by further tests and cultures (Gurran et al., 2002). The addition of an
enrichment broth culture has been reported to increase sensitivity, ranging from
2% to 23% (Paule et al., 2007). However, it increases the cost and delays the
method and pre-enrichment take longer time (up to 48-72h) to identify MRSA
MRSA prior to recognizing MRSA carriers. However, these two methods can
culture the MRSA isolates for antimicrobial epidemiological study and further the
23
investigation for the presence of vancomycin intermediate or vancomycin
resistant S. aureus.
recently been developed (Jeyaratnam et al., 2008). PCR primers can be used to
amplify the extremity of the SCCmec genetic element, which contains mecA, and
orfX, an open reading frame that is specific to S aureus. High sensitivity and
specificity have been reported in several studies that have analysed nasal samples,
with results available in 2 h (Jeyaratnam et al., 2008). However, PCR systems that
use unlinked primers targeting an S. aureus species-specific gene and mecA, such
as the LightCycler Staphylococcus and MRSA detection kit (LC Assay; Roche
to types I, II, III, IVa, IVb, and IVc, and one primer and three molecular beacons
are specific for orfX (Huletsky et al., 2004). The test is performed in real time
with fluorescence detection. Similar assays are the GeneXpert MRSA (Cepheid,
Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and the GenoType MRSA Direct (Hain Lifescience,
cellulose strip for detection and identification. (Rossney et al., 2008). In contrast,
qMRSA 2003 is an in-house triplex quantitative PCR assay that amplifies mecA
and femA from S. aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis to identify the origin of
24
the mecA signal (Francois et al., 2003). Although the molecular methods can
identify MRSA carriers within a day and is benefit to infection control, the cost is
needed to take into consideration and some PCR methods have high false positive
rate.
MRSA infection (Robicsek et al., 2008; Bode et al., 2010). Although the
required and various molecular typing methods have been developed. The most
(Berger et al., 2002). These two genes are sometimes truncated and deleted by the
regarded as mecA gene complexes and there are six classes of mec gene
IGW-SCC was set up in 2009 to define consensus rules for a nomenclature system
and integration of SCCmec elements at specific sites. Today, two distinct ccr gene
complexes have been reported; one carries ccrA and ccrB and the second carries
ccrC. The ccrA and ccrB genes have been classified into four and five allotypes
respectively. Currently, there are eight types of ccr gene complexes which have
The regions that are not part of the mec complexes and ccr genes are called J
(junkyard) regions. The junkyard regions comprise three parts: J1, J2 and J3.
However, they are epidemiologically significant since they may serve as targets
resistance determinants (Turlej et al., 2011). Variations in the J regions within the
same mec-ccr gene complex are used for defining SCCmec subtypes. (Shore et al.,
complex and J region. The most commonly used method is multiplex PCR assays
(Oliveira and de Lencastre 2002; Milheirico et al., 2007; Stephens et al., 2007).
Different SCCmec types are identified according to the combination of (1) the
type of ccr gene complex, which is represented by the ccr gene allotype, and (2)
the class of the mec gene complex. “Subtypes” are based on the variations in the J
there are more than 10 SCCmec types identified along with various subtypes
27
which have been distinguished among MRSA strains (Table 8). Variations in these
SCCmec types have provided the basis for differentiation among MRSA strains. A
combination of two typing methods like SCCmec typing along with MLST is
suggested for reliable typing for inter-hospital, multicentre surveillance, and the
Class A IS431-mecA-mecR1-mecI
Class B IS431-mecA-ΔmecR1-IS1272
Class C1 IS431-mecA-ΔmecR1-IS431
(both insertion sequence IS431 are in the same direction)
Class C2 IS431-mecA-ΔmecR1-IS431
(both insertion sequence IS431 are in reverse direction)
Class D IS431-mecA-ΔmecR1 *
(* no IS element downstream)
Class E blaZ-mecALGA251-mecR1LGA251-mecILGA251
28
Table 7. Classification of ccr gene complexes
Type 1 A1B1
Type 2 A2B2
Type 3 A3B3
Type 4 A4B4
Type 5 C1
Type 6 A5B3
Type 7 A1B6
Type 8 A1B3
29
Table 8. SCCmec types of MRSA
30
1.7.2 Pulsed- Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE)
the digestion of the chromosomal DNA by the restriction enzyme Smal, followed
(Rementeria et al., 2001). Some attempts have been made to standardize PFGE
protocols and to set up a common nomenclature, but they had only limited success
when assessed for cost of analysis, reproducibility and speed. Since strict
have only been realized at national level in some countries, e.g. the USA. On an
MLST is a useful tool for studying the clonal evolution of MRSA. This is a
gene are assigned as distinct alleles, and each MRSA strain lineage is defined by
the alleles of the seven genes resulting in an allelic profile called Sequence Type
(ST). MLST is usually used in conjunction with PCR analysis of the SCCmec
typing method to define the clonal type of MRSA strain. The Microbiological
nomenclature for these clonal types, e.g. the EMRSA-16 clone is referred to as
various genes. A good degree of concordance has been reported between results
obtained by MLST, PFGE and Spa typing (Hallin et al., 2007; Melles et al., 2007;
(Narukawa et al., 2009). The gene for protein A having tandem repeats, 24bp in
length, have been studied extensively and it is reported that MRSA strains can be
the spa gene through its point mutations, deletions and duplications (Figure 5)
(Kahl et al., 2005; Deurenbery and Stobberingh, 2008). Its discriminating ability
lies between PFGE and MLST and is useful for studying both the molecular
evolution and hospital outbreaks of MRSA (Koreen et al., 2004, Malachowa et al.,
2005). It has been increasingly used in epidemiology studies (Ho et al., 2008b, Ho
et al., 2009, Soliman et al., 2009, Cheng et al., 2011). The advantage of spa
typing over MLST is its simplicity because it only involves a single locus.
Another advantage is that laboratories all over the world can use various
the Spaserver database is one of the largest typing databases worldwide and is
32
Fig 5. S. aureus Protein A gene map
(a)Primers are numbered from the 5′ end of the primer on the forward strand of S.
aureus (GenBank Accession no. J01786). Region S indicates for gene coding for
signal sequence, A-D are immunoglobulin G binding region, E is a region
homologous to region A-D. The region X includes SSRs (Xr) and the cell wall
attachment sequence (Xc) (Shopsin et al., 1999). (b) The repeat structure of the
Xr region. The spa type illustrated is t008 (Ridom-Harmsen et al. nomenclature)
or YHGFMBQBLO (Kreiswirth nomenclature). (c) The DNA sequence of the spa
repeat 21 (Ridom) or -F 1 (Kreiswrirth) repeat (Hallin et al., 2009).
33
2. Objectives of the study
that the environment plays an important role in the spread of MRSA in hospital
and non-hospital areas. The reason of higher contamination rate of MRSA may be
due to its ability to survive a long period of time and withstand well in hospital
fomites. Besides, the transmission mode of MRSA is another reason. Patients with
(Chang et al., 2009). In hospitals, the hands of the healthcare workers are
considered one of the major vectors to spread MRSA from patients with MRSA
(Boyce et al., 1997). In our hospital setting, patients diagnosed with either MRSA
infection or carriage will follow the guideline for infection control published by
nares three times per day for five days and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate for skin
and hair decolonization for 5 days. All these measures are to avoid MRSA
surfaces and its relationship with patents’ acquisition of MRSA by studying their
molecular characteristics.
34
3. Methods and materials
This study was conducted from June 2011 to September 2011, at an acute
hospital in Hong Kong. During the study period, 30 MRSA positive patients were
selected randomly, regardless of age, sex, length of hospital stay, site of infection
report of a MRSA positive patient, the staff who collect the environmental
samples would be informed and swabs would be taken within the day. A total of
15 and nine environmental swabs surrounding the patient and the ward were taken
without MRSA infection were collected as a control. Then the swabs were sent to
the laboratory for culturing MRSA within 2 hours. The swabs were enriched and
MRSA. All the MRSA isolates were undergone susceptibility testing according to
the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) guideline 2011 and
polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify the X-region of the spa gene for
sequencing.
35
Table 9. Environmental surfaces sampled from MRSA positive, control
patients and Nurse workstations
bedside table monkey pull bed sheet pillow bed sheet that
top covering the patient sleeps
patient on
curtain by the patient bed patient locker cubicle oxygen pump
patient frame partition ledge knobs
bed tilt patient folder locker handle patient table infusion pump
adjustment bars height adjustment
panel adjustment panel
knob
Ward’s environmental surfaces
36
3.2 Microbiological methods
(ATCC 43300) and named Suspension A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6. A bacterial
(ATCC11490) with various dilutions were prepared and named B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6. They were added to simulate the environment commensals. Figure 6
shows a flow diagram to explain the methodology. The LLD of this culture
method was 5 x 103 CFU mL-1 and the optimum incubation time of the enrichment
broth was 48 hours. In summary, these findings confirm that the swabbing method
Appendix I.
37
Fig. 6 Flow diagram describing the methodology of determination of the
lowest limit of detection of MRSA.
(CFU-colony forming unit, OX-MSA- Mannitol salt agar with 4μl oxacillin,
r.t-room temperature)
38
3.2.2 Laboratory culture method and antimicrobial susceptibility testing of
MRSA
The environmental samples were collected with sterile rayon swabs (Copan
Diagnostic Inc., USA). The swabs were broken into 4ml Mannitol-salt broth
(Oxoid, Oxoid Ltd., UK) and vortexed slightly. They were incubated aerobically
at 35℃ for 48 hours. All the broths were subcultured on Mannitol-salt agar
(Oxoid, Oxoid Ltd., UK) with 4 μg oxacillin and ChromID MRSA agar
latex agglutination test (Slidex Staph Plus, bioMérieux, France), tube coagulase
testing of the drugs in Table 10 was performed using the disc diffusion method in
Table 10. The drugs used in performing susceptibility test according to CLSI
The D-test was used to detect inducible resistance to clindamycin. A control strain
S. aureus ATCC25923 was included on each day of testing. All the MRSA isolates
molecular analysis.
39
3.3 Molecular analysis
Bacterial isolates were grown on 5% horse blood agar at 35℃ for 24 hours.
One microliter bacterial isolate was suspended in 100 μl RNase and DNase free
water and incubated at 100℃ for 15 minutes. The tubes were then centrifuged at
13,200 rpm for 1 minute. Eighty microliter of the supernatant was kept at -20oC
The primers SpaF1 and SpaR1 were used to amplify the polymorphic X
which contained 1x-PCR buffer, 2.2 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTP, 0.4 μM SpaF1,
0.4 μM Spa R1 and 0.02 U/μl of AmpliTaq Gold polymerase. The amplification
USA). The AmpliTaq Gold polymerase was first activated at 94℃ for 10 minutes
followed by 30 cycles under the following profile: 94℃ for 30 seconds, 61℃ for
w/v agarose gel with Tris/Borate/EDTA buffer at 120 voltages for 30 minutes. A
Scientific Inc., UK) was incorporated parallel during each run. The gel was
stained with SBYR gold for 30 minutes and illuminated under UV light
40
(Appendix II).
Before performing sequencing, the PCR product was purified by the PCR
binding buffer. Subsequently, washing buffer was added into the column and
centrifuged. After centrifugation, the spin column was centrifuged to dry the spin
membrane. Finally, the column was put into a clean and sterile centrifuge tube.
The purified PCR product was eluted by adding 50 μl PCR grade H2O into the
upper reservoir of the column and centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 60 seconds, the
purified PCR product was added to 18 μl of master mix solution with BigDye
Terminator Tv3.1, 5X sequencing buffer, 3.2 μM SpaF1 primer. The mixture was
first activated at 96℃ for 1 minute followed by 25 cycles at 96℃ for 10 seconds,
50℃ for 5 seconds and 60℃ for 4 minutes. Afterwards, sequencing reaction
California, USA). Finally, DNA sequencing was performed in the 3130xl Genetic
Analyzer (Applied BioSystem, California, USA) and the Spa types were assigned
41
4. Results
4.1 Patients
positive and 386 control environmental swabs from 30 MRSA negative patients
were collected for this study. The control patients were found MRSA negative in
their clinical samples during collecting the environmental samples, however, they
did not screen for MRSA carriage. The thirty MRSA positive patients were all
handled with contact precautions. Only one of the patients in medical ward was
isolated in single room while the other 29 patients were cohorted in ward cubicles.
swabs. Only one patient was found to have no MRSA contamination in his
patients were found to have MRSA in their environmental samples. The case
4.2 Environments
environment as well as nurse station were 34.3% (137/400), 9.1% (35/386) and
5.9% (15/255) respectively. Figure 7 shows the numbers of MRSA cultured from
the both case and control environmental surfaces as well as the location of
different surfaces. In the case environment, bed sheets (70%, 21/30) on which
patients sleep were the most frequent site to isolate MRSA, followed by pillows
(55%, 16/29), patient bed frames (52%, 15/29) and patient lockers (52%, 15/29).
Patient folders, oxygen pump knobs and infusion pump adjustment panels also
42
had presence of MRSA by 7% (2/30), 7% (1/15) and 8% (1/12) respectively.
Bathroom outside handles and water tap handles had an absence of MRSA. In the
environment of control patients, cubicle partition ledge was the most frequent area
found to harbour MRSA and accounted for 20% (6/30), followed by bed sheets,
curtains and patient lockers accounting for 17% (5/30). Monkey pulls, patient bed
frames, oxygen pump knobs, patient folders, patient table height adjustment knobs
and infusion pump adjustment panels were found to be MRSA culture negative in
this study.
In the nurse workstation, the ambulatory chair armrests had the highest
MRSA positive rate of 21% (4/19), followed by fax machines which accounted
43
Table 11. The demographics of MRSA positive patients
Sexs
Female 19
Male 11
Mean age ± SD 76.6 ± 14.9
Age group (years)
18-50 1
51-64 3
65-74 5
≧ 75 21
Mean length of bed occupancy ± SD 9.3 days ± 21.8
Specialty (Unit)
Medical 12 (40%)
Geriatrics 6 (20%)
Orthopeadics 4 (13%)
Medical Nephrology 3 (10%)
General Surgical 2 (7%)
Surgical Urology 2 (7%)
Medical Neurology 1 (3%)
Specimen Sources
Respiratory 13 (43%)
Wound 6 (20%)
Nasal Swab 5 (17%)
Urinary 3 (10%)
Blood culture 1 (3%)
Pleural fluid 1 (3%)
Eye swab 1 (3%)
44
Fig. 7 MRSA found on the environmental surfaces of case and control patients
(A) Numbers of MRSA isolates found in near patients environments. A, bed sheet; B, pillows; C, patient bed frame; D, patient locker; E, blanket;
F, cubicle partition ledge; G, bedside table top; H, curtain; I, patient table height adjustment knot; J, bed tilt adjustment panel; K, monkey pull, L,
locker handle bars; M, patient folder; O, oxygen Pump knobs; infusion pump adjustment panel. (B) A picture shows the settings of the
environmental surfaces surrounding the case and control patients; P, case and control patients.
45
MRSA POSITIVE
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
0
1
2
3
4
Fax machine
Ambulatory chair
armrest
Barcode Reader
Nurse workstation
Door handle inside and
outside ward
Telephone
Toilet/ Bathroom
outside handle
MRSA Positive
In total, 216 MRSA isolates (30 clinical isolates, 151 case environments and
35 control environments) were performed spa typing and eight spa types were
found. The most predominant spa type in this study was t1081 and accounted for
63.3% (135/216) of the total isolates. Then t032 accounted for 17.6% (38/216)
and was the second predominant spa type. The third prevalent spa type was t037
and accounted for 7.4% (16/216). Table 12 shows the distribution of various spa
types in the clinical samples and environment. t091 and t1378 were found in the
control environment and accounted for 20% (7/35) and 2.9% (1/35) of the total
workstation only and accounted for 6.7% (1/15) of the total isolates from this area.
The Spa repeats of each of the Spa types were shown on Table 13.
Table 12. Spa types found in clinical samples and environmental surfaces
47
Table 13. The Spa repeats succession of isolated Spa types
t1081 08-16-02-43-34-17-34
t032 26-23-23-13-23-31-29-17-31-29-17-25-17-25-16-28
t037 15-12-16-02-25-17-24
t002 26-23-17-34-17-20-17-12-17-16
t6508 08-17-34
t091 07-23-21-17-34-12-23-02-12-23
t1378 26-23-23-13-23-31-29-17-31-29-17-25-17-25-16-16-28
t4677 08-16-02-25-02-24-25
4.4 Relationship of the spa types between patients and the environment
For 29 case patients, five spa types were discovered; 27 patients were found
to have the MRSA isolates with same spa type in the clinical samples and their
For the two out of 29 patients (6.9%), the spa type found in the case environment
was different from that in patients. The length of bed occupancy of these two
patients was less than 48 hours. In addition, nine out of the 27 patients (33.3%)
were found to have more than one spa types in the case environment.
clindamycin, respectively (Table 14). Among the three predominant spa types,
48
t1081, t032 and t037, >70% of the isolates were shown to have resistance to
ciprofloxacin. Only t1081 showed 9.6% (13/135) resistance to mupirocin and t032
showed 7.9% (3/38) resistance to rifampicin; all others isolates were shown to be
49
Spa type different from the patient
Spa type same as patient
12
No. of sites MRSA positive in case environment
t1081 t032
10
t1081 t002
8
t1081t1081 t032
t1081
t1081 t037
6
t1081 6508 t1081 t1081
t1081 t002
4
t1081 t1081 t1081
t1081
t1081 t002 t037
2 t1081
t1081 t032 t1081 t032 t032 t037 t6508
t1081
t1081 t1081 t1081 t032 t032 t037
0
M035 (t032)
M026 (t032)
M030 (t032)
M028 (t032)
M015 (t032)
M021 (t037)
M019 (t037)
M018 (t037)
M014 (t002)
M005 (t1081)
M013 (t1081)
M002 (t1081)
M025 (t1081)
M017 (t1081)
M020 (t1081)
M022 (t1081)
M031 (t1081)
M023 (t1081)
M034 (t1081)
M011 (t1081)
M023 (t1081)
M012 (t1081)
M003 (t1081)
M016 (t1081)
M027 (t1081)
M033 (t1081)
M029 (t1081)
M024 (t1081)
M004 (t6508)
M001 (t032)
MRSA patients
(M024 was the only patient found no MRSA contamination in the environment and isolated in single room. Other patients were placed in
cohorted cubicles.)
Fig 9. Correlation of the spa types between the patients and their surrounding environment
50
Table 14. The antimicrobial profiles of the 5 spa types isolated from patients
Erythromycin(%)
Chloramphenical
Co-trimoxazole
SPA
Ciprofloxacin
D zone + (%)
Clindamycin
Tetracycline
Minocycline
Gentamycin
TYPE
Mupirocin
Rifampcin
Acid (%)
(total
Fusidic
no)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
t1081 97 12 99 42 1 105 135 13
- - -
(135) (72.6) (8.8) (73.3) (31.6) (0.7) (77.8) (100) (9.6)
t032 30 30 1 3 1 37
- - - - -
(38) (78.9) (78.9) (2.6) (7.9) (2.6) (97.4)
t037 12 5 16 10 5 1 15 16
- - -
(16) (75) (31.2) (100) (62.5) (31.3) (6.3) (93.8) (100)
t002 11 11 7 11 11
- - - - - -
(11) (100) (100) (63.6) (100) (100)
t6508 3 3 1 7
- - - - - - -
(7) (42.9) (42.9) (14.3) (100)
Total
71.9% 7.8% 73.7% 29% 2.8% 0.5% - 1.4% 61.3% 95.9% 6%
(216)
51
5. Discussion
found in patients with MRSA infection or colonization and the contamination rate
is higher than some previous studies (Eibicht and Vogel, 2011; Wang et al., 2011).
This may be due to the crowded cubicle with the same kind of infectious organism.
In our hospital setting, the patients diagnosed with the same infectious disease
organisms, e.g. MRSA will be cohorted in the same cubicle. If isolation is not
possible, placing patients close to other patients at high risk of being infected will
long bed occupancy. Designated medical devices, e.g. blood pressure cuff and
stethoscope are provided to them. Our hospital will consider patients with known
MRSA carriage to be “colonized for life” and place them under contact
precautions whenever they are readmitted. For cubicles cohorted with MRSA
patients, the floor and walls are cleaned as routine practice by using neutral
detergent to remove organisms and dust; however, designated mops and buckets
should be used. After cleaning, items should be disinfected by 1,000 ppm sodium
properly, it is inevitable that the cubicle will have a large amount of MRSA
contamination.
cubicles should be revised by the ICT, twice daily as usual practice may not be
enough to eliminate the MRSA which has survived in a cubicle. Study shows a
52
reduction in levels of microbial contamination when wards received enhanced
cleaning (Dancer et al., 2009b). Besides, the cleaning tools can be one of the
cloths to clean the environmental surfaces and found that their decontamination
The enrichment step before culturing the swabs can recover more MRSA and
may be another reason for the higher isolation rate of MRSA in this study (Van
Heirstraeten et al., 2009). The only one case patient showing MRSA negative in
his surrounding environment was located in the infectious disease block with
single room isolation and special ventilation. HCWs should wear masks, gloves
and personal protective equipment (PPE) before entering the room and then take
off the PPE, gloves and masks after leaving the room and wash hands thoroughly.
A good practice in contact precautions can be one of the factors behind reducing
terminal cleaning after discharge of MRSA patients. So, the contamination can be
was not performed thoroughly (French et al., 2004; Hardy et al., 2006). In general,
the cleaning practice in our hospital is cleaning the wards twice daily with 1,000
responsibility for cleaning usually rests with the healthcare assistants, who are
53
often very busy and are almost permanently understaffed in our hospital. So, the
practice cannot be followed sometimes or the ward supervisor cannot monitor the
Sometimes, the HCWs may pay less attention to the cubicles without cohorting
infectious disease patients as they think that such areas are much cleaner when
compared with cubicles cohorting patients with infectious diseases. Our hospital
does not have an active surveillance program, so the negative control patients
cannot be excluded as MRSA carriages. Also, the hands of HCWs can be one of
the routes to carry MRSA from positive patients to control patients’ surrounding
environment if hand hygiene is not performed well. In addition, the HCWs do not
screen for MRSA carriages so they can be the carrier to shed MRSA to the
controls’ environment.
comparatively lower than the near patients’ environment (34.3%). The hygiene
level is better in the working area of the HCWs because these areas are seldom
touched by patients. Besides, these data indicate that the HCWs have good
compliance with hand hygiene regimens after caring for patients. In one study, the
MRSA contamination rate on the surfaces of working tables in ward staff centres
was 30.4% which was relatively higher than in the present study. This suggests
practices. However, it could not be evaluated in our study design because we did
not audit the cleaning practice of wards. The length of the bed occupancy was
54
greater than 48 hours in 16 of the 29 patients while 13 of the 29 patients it was
less than 48 hours. These data cannot show the apparent influence of the length of
Bed sheets, pillows and patient bed frames are the surfaces highly
contaminated by MRSA patients. These are the high-touch sites by the patients. In
our hospital, the high-touch surfaces, e.g. bedside tables and bedrails of MRSA
patients are recommended to be cleaned at least twice daily with 1,000 ppm
sodium hypochlorite and 70% alcohol is used to disinfect metal surfaces, e.g.
patient lockers. The high contamination rate in the high-touch surfaces shows that
the current cleaning practice and barrier strategies in our hospital may be
insufficient and ineffective to control the spread of MRSA. Studies show that
these environmental surfaces are not cleaned well after patient-discharge (terminal)
cleaning (Carling et al., 2008a, Carling et al., 2008b). The environmental surfaces,
including bed rails, bedside tables and patient furniture fall into Spaulding’s
Sterilization of healthcare facilities (2008) (Kohn et al., 2003; Rutala et al., 2008).
The guidelines note that these objects could potentially contribute to secondary
near patient surfaces are easily contaminated by patients and a study show that
55
(Sharpe and Schmidt, 2011). A range of alloys containing more than 60% copper
have been registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to
their ability to kill disease-causing bacteria which include MRSA and demonstrate
antimicrobial efficacy as a sanitizer. Study show that copper alloys have a lower
material in healthcare settings, e.g. bedside tables or patients’ lockers can be one
Patients’ folders, oxygen pump knobs and infusion pump adjustment panels
are found to have MRSA contamination in case patients only. These areas are
usually touched by HCWs than patients. If the HCWs do not have good
contaminate those surfaces after patient care. Moreover, these areas are not
Cubicle partition ledge is the most frequent area in which to find MRSA in
the control environment. It is a surface that easily accumulates dust particles and
and survive for a long time. During bed making, MRSA air contamination can
MRSA is found on bed sheets, curtains and the patient lockers of the negative
cleansing and changing of curtains are the usual practice in our hospital when a
cleaners may not completely follow the procedure in the absence of supervision,
56
especially with regard to changing curtains, as it is labour intensive to renew
be due to the incompliance with hand hygiene of HCWs. In our hospital, the
HCWs are recommended to perform the five moments of hand hygiene published
by the WHO. After patient care of MRSA patients, if HCWs do not use hand rub
to clean their hands will result in contamination of the nurse station when they
Most of the time, the healthcare assistants in ward only clean the high-touch
surfaces, but non near-patient hand-touch sites, e.g. infusion pumps, door handles
approach. They have a high penetrating ability to the areas that the cleaners are
rarely aware of and are difficult to reach, e.g. cubicle partition ledge. In our
hospital, hydrogen peroxide vapour is used in the cubicles with highly contagious
Although these devices may have merit, they can be conducted only when the
The most predominant spa type isolated in this study was t1081, which
accounted for 62.5% of the total MRSA isolates. It was correlated with a previous
study that spa type t1081 (CC45/agr IV-MRSA-IV and –V) have been commonly
found in many residential care homes for the elderly in Hong Kong (Ho et al.,
57
2008b). There was no significant correlation with the specimen type, length of bed
CC45/agr IV and ST45 clone, it has higher transmissibility than the other less
common spa types which can explain the high prevalence of it in healthcare
found to account for 47% isolates from 100 hospitals in 2001, suggesting the
ability of this clone to disseminate rapidly and widely (Denis et al., 2004). The
second and third prevalent spa types were t032 and t037 which accounted for
17.6% and 7.4% of the total isolates respectively. t032 is the main cause of
(Murchan et al., 2004) and was the second most common spa type deposited on
the Spa Server, accounting for 9.83 % of all the isolates. It is widely spread
clone of the Brazilian/Hungarian strain (Oliveira, et al., 2001; Chung, et al., 2004).
Recently, it has been reported in Malaysia and several other cities in China (Sun
et al., 2009; Neela et al., 2010). One study found that it is the most frequent spa
type found in the HA-MRSA isolates, SCCmec type III, in Taiwan, Hong Kong,
Thailand, Vietnam and India (Song et al., 2011). In addition, t1081 and t032 are
predominant spa types found in the control environment which could act as a
isolates of the patients and their environment. Our finding is consistent with some
studies shown in Table 1 that reports similarly high correlations between patients
58
and environmental MRSA sources. This shows that the environment is likely
found to have the spa type of MRSA strain distinguishable between the clinical
isolates and the environmental isolates. We found that the length of bed
occupancy in these two patients was less than 48 hours when environmental
could be one of the reasons. Besides, the distinguishable strains can be shed by
previous bed occupants with unrecognized MRSA colonization and become the
source if terminal cleaning was not performed thoroughly. HCWs or visitors can
be the source to import MRSA strains that were not eradicated by daily cleaning
practices. Nevertheless, this does not dispute the possibility that the different
strains came from the patients themselves, since patients can be colonized or
infected by several distinct strains (Cespedes et al., 2005; Lim et al., 2006). This
can also explain in some cases the patients found to have two spa types in their
surrounding environments.
6. Conclusion
dollars spent on healthcare. Patients colonized or infected with MRSA have a high
in spreading MRSA. The findings in this study should be considered with the
hand washing. The failure to control the spread of MRSA in our hospital is likely
59
HCWs, poor adherence of HCWs to barrier contact precaution guidelines, lack of
active surveillance to find out the MRSA carriage and screening the carriage state
of HCWs.
the present infection control practice. These include the promotion of better
frequent cleaning, the addition or better placement of sinks and alcohol dispensers
with appropriate educational and monitoring programs can also help to increase
offers a new paradigm for healthcare design that will lead to better outcomes.
wards, e.g. burns unit, surgical ward or intensive care unit. A study shows success
in this “Search and Destroy” policy (Vos et al., 2009). After identifying the MRSA
patients who are infected and colonized with MRSA is often positive for MRSA,
but consecutive prospective studies are needed to assess the correlation between
60
7. Limitations of the study
There are several limitations in this study which include the relatively small
identified in our study design because we did not audit the cleaning practices to
In addition, we did not screen the HCWs and control patients before
reaction was not performed in this study which may show more diversity in the
2011b).
61
8. References
2. Andersen BM, Rasch M, Hochlin K, Jensen FH, Wismar P and Fredriksen JE.
2006. Decontamination of rooms, medical equipment and ambulances using
an aerosol of hydrogen peroxide disinfectant. The Journal of Hospital
Infection 62(2):149-155.
5. Bhalla A, Pultz NJ, Gries DM, Ray AJ, Eckstein EC, Aron DC and Donskey
CJ. 2004. Acquisition of nosocomial pathogens on hands after contact with
environmental surfaces near hospitalized patients. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology 25(2):164-167.
10. Boyce JM and Pittet D. 2002. Guideline for Hand Hygiene in Health-Care
Settings. Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene
62
Task Force. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Association for
Professionals in Infection Control/Infectious Diseases Society of America.
MMWR Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control
51(RR-16):1-45, quiz CE41-44.
12. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Otter JA and Adams NM. 2007. Widespread
environmental contamination associated with patients with diarrhea and
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization of the
gastrointestinal tract. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
28(10):1142-1147.
15. Boyce JM, Havill NL, Lipka A, Havill H and Rizvani R. 2010. Variations
in hospital daily cleaning practices. Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology 31(1):99-101.
16. Boyce JM. 2011. Measuring healthcare worker hand hygiene activity: current
practices and emerging technologies. Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology 32(10):1016-1028.
18. Brown DF, Edwards DI, Hawkey PM, Morrison D, Ridgway GL, Towner KJ
and Wren MW. 2005. Guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis and
susceptibility testing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 56: 1000–1018.
19. Bures S, Fishbain JT, Uyehara CF, Parker JM and Berg BW. 2000. Computer
keyboards and faucet handles as reservoirs of nosocomial pathogens in the
intensive care unit. American Journal of Infection Control 28(6):465-471.
22. Carling PC, Parry MF and Von Beheren SM. 2008a. Identifying opportunities
to enhance environmental cleaning in 23 acute care hospitals. Infection
Control and Hospital Epidemiology 29(1):1-7.
23. Carling PC, Parry MM, Rupp ME, Po JL, Dick B and Von Beheren S. 2008b.
Improving cleaning of the environment surrounding patients in 36 acute care
hospitals. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 29(11):1035-1041.
25. Chang S, Sethi AK, Eckstein BC, Stiefel U, Cadnum JL and Donskey CJ.
2009. Skin and environmental contamination with methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus among carriers identified clinically versus through
active surveillance. Clinical Infectious Disease 48(10):1423-1428.
26. Chang S, Sethi AK, Stiefel U, Cadnum JL and Donskey CJ. 2010.
Occurrence of skin and environmental contamination with
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus before results of polymerase
chain reaction at hospital admission become available. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology 31(6):607-612.
27. Cheng KL, Boost MV and Chung JW. 2011a. Study on the effectiveness of
disinfection with wipes against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
and implications for hospital hygiene. American Journal of Infection Control
39(7):577-580.
28. Cheng VC, Chan JF, Lau EH, Yam WC, Ho SK, Yau MC, Tse EY, Wong AC,
Tai JW, Fan ST, Ho PL and Yuen KY. 2011b. Studying the transmission
dynamics of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Hong Kong using
spa typing. The Journal of Hospital Infection 79(3):206-210.
32. Cookson BD, Robinson DA, Monk AB, Murchan S, Deplano A, de Ryck R,
Struelens MJ, Scheel C, Fussing V, Salmenlinna S, Vuopio-Varkila J, Cuny C,
Witte W, Tassios T, Legakis NJ, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Vindel A,
Garaizar J, Haeggman S, Olsson-Liljequist B, Ransjo U, Muller-Premru M,
Hrynieqicz W, Rossney A, O’Connell B, Short BD, Thomas J, O’Hanlon S
and Enright MC. 2007. Evaluation of molecular typing methods in
characterizing a European collection of epidemic methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus strains: the HARMONY collection. Journal of
Clinical Microbiology 45(6):1830-1837.
33. Cosgrove SE, Qi Y, Kaye KS, Harbarth S, Karchmer AW, Carmeli Y. 2005.
The impact of methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia on
patient outcomes: mortality, length of stay, and hospital charges. Infection
control and hospital epidemiology 26(2):166-174.
38. Dancer SJ. 2009a. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of
hospital-acquired infection. The Journal of Hospital Infection 73(4):378-385.
39. Dancer SJ, White LF, Lamb J, Girvan EK and Robertson C. 2009b.
Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective
cross-over study. BioMed Central Medicine 7:28.
44. Dunlop PSM, Sheeran CP, Byrne JA, McMahon MAS, Boyle MA and
McGuigan KG. 2010. Inactivation of clinically relevant pathogens by
photocatalytic coatings. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A:
Chemistry 216: 303-310
45. Eames I, Tang JW, Li Y and Wilson P. 2009. Airborne transmission of disease
in hospitals. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society 6
Suppl 6:S697-702.
47. Engemann JJ, Carmeli Y, Cosgrove SE, Fowler VG, Bronstein MZ, Trivette
SL, Briggs JP, Sexton DJ, Kaye KS. 2003. Adverse clinical and economic
outcomes attributable to methicillin resistance among patients with
Staphylococcus aureus surgical site infection. Clinical Infectious Disease
36(5):592-598.
48. Enright MC, Day NP, Davies CE, Peacock SJ and Spratt BG. 2000.
Multilocus sequence typing for characterization of methicillin-resistant and
methicillin-susceptible clones of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology 38(3):1008-1015.
49. Falagas ME, Thomaidis PC, Kotsantis IK, Sgouros K, Samonis G and
Karageorgopoulos DE. 2011. Airborne hydrogen peroxide for disinfection of
the hospital environment and infection control: a systematic review. The
Journal of Hospital Infection 78(3):171-177.
51. French GL, Otter JA, Shannon KP, Adams NM, Watling D and Parks MJ.
2004. Tackling contamination of the hospital environment by
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a comparison between
conventional terminal cleaning and hydrogen peroxide vapour
decontamination. The Journal of Hospital Infection 57(1):31-37.
66
52. Friedrich AW, Witte W, Harmsen D, de Lencastre H, Hryniewicz W, Scheres
J and Westh H. 2006. SeqNet.org: a European laboratory network for
sequence-based typing of microbial pathogens. European Communicable
Disease Bulletin 11(1):E060112 060114.
53. Fuda C, Suvorov M, Vakulenko SB and Mobashery S. 2004. The basis for
resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics by penicillin-binding protein 2a of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. The Journal of Biological
Chemistry 279(39):40802-40806.
57. Goering RV. 2010. Pulsed field gel electrophoresis: a review of application
and interpretation in the molecular epidemiology of infectious disease.
Infection, genetics and evolution : Journal of Molecular Epidemiology and
Evolutionary Genetics in Infectious Diseases10(7):866-875.
58. Gould DJ, Drey NS and Creedon S. 2011. Routine hand hygiene audit by
direct observation: has nemesis arrived? The Journal of Hospital Infection
77(4):290-293.
59. Griffith CJ, Obee P, Cooper RA, Burton NF and Lewis M. 2007. The
effectiveness of existing and modified cleaning regimens in a Welsh hospital.
The Journal of Hospital Infection 66(4):352-359.
60. Gurran C, Holliday MG, Perry JD, Ford M, Morgan S and Orr KE. 2002. A
novel selective medium for the detection of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus enabling result reporting in under 24 h. The Journal
of Hospital Infection 52: 148–151.
61. Haas JP and Larson EL. 2007. Measurement of compliance with hand
hygiene. The Journal of Hospital Infection 66(1):6-14.
63. Hallin M, Friedrich AW and Struelens MJ. 2009. Spa typing for
epidemiological surveillance of Staphylococcus aureus. Methods in
Molecular Biology 551:189-202.
66. Hardy KJ, Oppenheim BA, Gossain S, Gao F and Hawkey PM. 2006. A
study of the relationship between environmental contamination with
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and patients' acquisition
of MRSA. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 27(2):127-132.
67. Hayden MK, Blom DW, Lyle EA, Moore CG and Weinstein RA. 2008. Risk
of hand or glove contamination after contact with patients colonized with
vancomycin-resistant enterococcus or the colonized patients' environment.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 29(2):149-154.
68. Hayden MK, Bonten MJ, Blom DW, Lyle EA, van de Vijver DA and
Weinstein RA. 2006. Reduction in acquisition of vancomycin-resistant
Enterococcus after enforcement of routine environmental cleaning measures.
Clinical Infectious Disease 42(11):1552-1560.
71. Herwaldt LA, Boyken LD, Coffman S, Hochstetler L and Flanigan MJ. 2003.
Sources of Staphylococcus aureus for patients on continuous ambulatory
peritoneal dialysis. Peritoneal dialysis international : Journal of the
International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis 23(3):237-241.
68
72. Ho PL, Cheung C, Mak GC, Tse CW, Ng TK, Cheung CH, Que TL, Lam R,
Lai RW, Yung RW and Yuen KY. 2007. Molecular epidemiology and
household transmission of community-associated methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus in Hong Kong. Diagnostic Microbiology and
Infectious Disease 57(2):145-151.
73. Ho PL, Chuang SK, Choi YF, Lee RA, Lit AC, Ng TK, Que TL, Shek KC,
Tong HK, Tse CW, Tung WK and Yung RW. 2008a. Community-associated
methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus: skin
and soft tissue infections in Hong Kong. Diagnostic Microbiology and
Infectious Disease 61(3):245-250.
74. Ho PL, Lai EL, Chow KH, Chow LS, Yuen KY and Yung RW. 2008b.
Molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in
residential care homes for the elderly in Hong Kong. Diagnostic
Microbiology and Infectious Disease 61(2):135-142.
75. Ho PL, Chow KH, Lo PY, Lee KF and Lai EL. 2009. Changes in the
epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus associated with
spread of the ST45 lineage in Hong Kong. Diagnostic Microbiology and
Infectious Disease 64(2):131-137.
76. Ho PL, Chiu SS, Chan MY, Gan Y, Chow KH, Lai EL and Lau YL. 2012.
Molecular epidemiology and nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus and
methicillin-resistant S. aureus among young children attending day care
centers and kindergartens in Hong Kong. The Journal of Infection
64(5):500-506.
87. Jeyaratnam D, Gottlieb A, Ajoku U and French GL. 2008. Validation of the
IDI-MRSA system for use on pooled nose, axilla, and groin swabs and single
swabs from other screening sites. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious
Disease 61(1):1-5.
89. Kahl BC, Mellmann A, Deiwick S, Peters G and Harmsen D. 2005. Variation
of the polymorphic region X of the protein A gene during persistent airway
infection of cystic fibrosis patients reflects two independent mechanisms of
genetic change in Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Clinical Microbiology
43(1):502-505.
91. Katayama Y, Ito T and Hiramatsu K. 2000. A new class of genetic element,
staphylococcus cassette chromosome mec, encodes methicillin resistance in
Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
44(6):1549-1555.
94. Klevens RM, Edwards JR, Tenover FC, McDonald LC, Horan T and Gaynes
R. 2006. Changes in the epidemiology of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units in US hospitals, 1992-2003.
Clinical Infectious Disease 42(3):389-391.
95. Klevens RM, Morrison MA, Nadle J, Petit S, Gershman K, Ray S, Harrison
LH, Lynfield R, Dumyati G, Townes JM, Craig AS, Zell ER, Fosheim GE,
McDougal LK, Carey RB and Fridkin SK. 2007. Invasive
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections in the United States.
JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association
298(15):1763-1771.
96. Kohn WG, Collins AS, Cleveland JL, Harte JA, Eklund KJ and Malvitz DM.
2003. Guidelines for infection control in dental health-care settings--2003.
MMWR Recommendations and reports: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control
52(RR-17):1-61.
99. Lim MS, Marshall CL and Spelman D. 2006. Carriage of multiple subtypes
of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus by intensive care unit patients.
Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 27(10):1063-1067.
100. Loveday HP, Pellowe CM, Jones SR and Pratt RJ. 2006. A systematic review
of the evidence for interventions for the prevention and control of
meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (1996-2004): report to the Joint
MRSA Working Party (Subgroup A). The Journal of Hospital Infection 63
Suppl 1:S45-70.
102. Lu PL, Tsai JC, Chiu YW, Chang FY, Chen YW, Hsiao CF and Siu LK. 2008.
71
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage, infection and
transmission in dialysis patients, healthcare workers and their family
members. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 23(5):1659-1665.
103. Lu PL, Siu LK, Chen TC, Ma L, Chiang WG, Chen YH, Lin SF and Chen TP.
2009. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter
baumannii on computer interface surfaces of hospital wards and association
with clinical isolates. BioMed Central Infectious Diseases 9:164.
107. McBryde ES, Bradley LC, Whitby M and McElwain DL. 2004. An
investigation of contact transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus. The Journal of Hospital Infection 58(2):104-108.
108. Melles DC, van Leeuwen WB, Snijders SV, Horst-Kreft D, Peeters JK,
Verbrugh HA and van Belkum A. 2007. Comparison of multilocus sequence
typing (MLST), pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and amplified
fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) for genetic typing of Staphylococcus
aureus. Journal of Microbiological Methods 69(2):371-375.
111. Mueller MR, Hayden MK, Fridkin SK, Warren DK, Phillips L, Lolans K and
Quinn JP. 2008. Nosocomial acquisition of Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant
to both ciprofloxacin and imipenem: a risk factor and laboratory analysis.
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
27(7):565-570.
113. Murchan S, Aucken HM, O'Neill G L, Ganner M and Cookson BD. 2004.
Emergence, spread, and characterization of phage variants of epidemic
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 16 in England and Wales. Journal
of Clinical Microbiology 42(11):5154-5160.
114. Murphy CR, Eells SJ, Quan V, Kim D, Peterson E, Miller LG and Huang SS.
2012. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Burden in Nursing
Homes Associated with Environmental Contamination of Common Areas.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 60(6):1012-1018.
121. Oliveira DC and de Lencastre H. 2002. Multiplex PCR strategy for rapid
identification of structural types and variants of the mec element in
73
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy 46(7):2155-2161.
124. Otter JA, French GL, Adams NM, Watling D and Parks MJ. 2006. Hydrogen
peroxide vapour decontamination in an overcrowded tertiary care referral
centre: some practical answers. The Journal of Hospital Infection
62(3):384-385.
125. Otter JA, Yezli S and French GL. 2011. The role played by contaminated
surfaces in the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology 32(7):687-699.
127. Paule SM, Hacek DM, Kufner B, Truchon K, Thomson RB, Kaul KL,
Robicsek A, and Peterson LR. 2007. Performance of the BD GeneOhm
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus test before and during
high-volume clinical use. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 45:2992–2998.
130. Rai S, Hirsch BE, Attaway HH, Nadan R, Fairey S, Hardy J, Miller G,
Armellino D, Moran WR, Sharpe P, Estelle A, Michel JH, Michels HT and
Schmidt MG. 2012. Evaluation of the antimicrobial properties of copper
surfaces in an outpatient infectious disease practice. Infection Control and
Hospital Epidemiology 33(2):200-201.
134. Rosenthal VD, Maki DG, Jamulitrat S, Medeiros EA, Todi SK, Gomez DY,
Leblebicioglu H, Abu Khader I, Novales MGM, Berba R, Wong FMR,
Barkat A, Pino OR, Duenas L, Mitrev Z, Bijie H, Gurskis V, Kanj SS, Mapp
T, Hidalgo RF, Jaballah NB, Raka L, Gikas A, Ahmed A, Thu le TA, and
Siritt MEG. 2010. International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium
(INICC) report, data summary for 2003-2008, issued June 2009. American
Journal of Infection Control 38(2):95-104 e102.
136. Rossney AS, Herra CM, Brennan GI, Morgan PM, O'Connell B. 2008.
Evaluation of the Xpert methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
assay using the GeneXpert real-time PCR platform for rapid detection of
MRSA from screening specimens. Journal of Clinical Microbiology
46(10):3285-3290.
137. Rutala WA and Weber DJ. 2004. Disinfection and sterilization in health care
facilities: what clinicians need to know. Clinical Infectious Disease
39(5):702-709.
138. Rutala, W. A., Weber DJ & the Healthcare Infection Control Practices
Advirory Committee (HICPAC). 2008. Guideline for disinfection and
Sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/hicpac/pdf/Disinfection_Sterilization/Pages
1_2Disinfection_Nov_2008.pdf
139. Schmidt MG, Anderson T, Attaway HH, Fairey S, Kennedy C and Salgado
CD. 2012. Patient environment microbial burden reduction: A pilot study
comparison of 2 terminal cleaning methods. American Journal of Infection
Control 40(6):559-561.
75
140. Schultsz C, Meester HH, Kranenburg AM, Savelkoul PH, Boeijen-Donkers
LE, Kaiser AM, de Bree R, Snow GB and Vandenbroucke-Grauls CJ. 2003.
Ultra-sonic nebulizers as a potential source of methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus causing an outbreak in a university tertiary care
hospital. The Journal of Hospital Infection 55(4):269-275.
143. Sehulster L and Chinn RY. 2003. Guidelines for environmental infection
control in health-care facilities. Recommendations of CDC and the
Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC).
MMWR Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report Recommendations and Reports / Centers for Disease Control
52(RR-10):1-42.
146. Shelly MJ, Scanlon TG, Ruddy R, Hannan MM and Murray JG. 2011.
Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) environmental
contamination in a radiology department. Clinical Radiology 66(9):861-864.
150. Shore A, Rossney AS, Keane CT, Enright MC and Coleman DC. 2005. Seven
76
novel variants of the staphylococcal chromosomal cassette mec in
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from Ireland.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 49(5):2070-2083.
151. Siegel JD, Rhinehart E, Jackson M and Chiarello L. 2007 Guideline for
Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in
Health Care Settings. American Journal of Infection Control 35(10 Suppl
2):S65-164.
153. Smith SJ, Young V, Robertson C and Dancer SJ. 2012. Where do hands go?
An audit of sequential hand-touch events on a hospital ward. The Journal of
Hospital Infection 80(3):206-211.
154. Soliman RS, Phillips G, Whitty P and Edwards DH. 2009. Distribution of
meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus spa types isolated from
health-care workers and patients in a Scottish university teaching hospital.
Journal of Medical Microbiology 58(Pt 9):1190-1195.
155. Song JH, Hsueh PR, Chung DR, Ko KS, Kang CI, Peck KR, Yeom JS, Kim
SW, Chang HH, Kim YS, Jung SI, Son JS, So TM, Lalitha MK, Yang Y,
Huang SG, Wang H Lu Q, Carlos CC, Perera JA, Chiu Ch, Liu JW,
Chongthaleong A, Thamlikitkul V and Van PH. 2011. Spread of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus between the community and the
hospitals in Asian countries: an ANSORP study. The Journal of
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 66(5):1061-1069.
157. Stephens AJ, Huygens F and Giffard PM. 2007. Systematic derivation of
marker sets for staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec typing.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 51(8):2954-2964.
158. Stiefel U, Cadnum JL, Eckstein BC, Guerrero DM, Tima MA and Donskey
CJ. 2011. Contamination of hands with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus after contact with environmental surfaces and after contact with the
skin of colonized patients. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
32(2):185-187.
159. Struelens MJ, Hawkey PM, French GL, Witte W and Tacconelli E. 2009.
Laboratory tools and strategies for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus screening, surveillance and typing: state of the art and unmet needs.
Clinical Microbiology and Infection 15(2):112-119.
77
160. Sturenburg E. 2009. Rapid detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus directly from clinical samples: methods, effectiveness and cost
considerations. German medical science 7:Doc06.
161. Sun W, Chen H, Liu Y, Zhao C, Nichols WW, Chen M, Zhang J, Ma Y and
Wang H. 2009. Prevalence and characterization of heterogeneous
vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus isolates from 14 cities in
China. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 53: 3642-3649.
162. Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, Fosheim GE, Limbago B, Albrecht
V, and Moran GJ. 2011. Comparison of Staphylococcus aureus from skin and
soft-tissue infections in US emergency department patients, 2004 and 2008.
Clinical Infectious Disease 53(2):144-149.
166. Thomas RJ, Goodbourne C and Goldie B. 2004. The transmission of MRSA
via orthopaedic marking pens--fact or fiction. Annals of the Royal College of
Surgeons of England 86(1):51-52.
167. Top J, Banga NM, Hayes R, Willems RJ, Bonten MJ and Hayden MK. 2008.
Comparison of multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis and
pulsed-field gel electrophoresis in a setting of polyclonal endemicity of
vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium. Clinical Microbiology and
Infection 14(4):363-369.
172. von Eiff C, Becker K, Machka K, Stammer H and Peters G. 2001. Nasal
carriage as a source of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Study Group. The
New England Journal of Medicine 344(1):11-16.
173. Vos MC, Behrendt MD, Melles DC, Mollema FP, de Groot W, Parlevliet G,
Ott A, Horst-Kreft D, van Belkum A and Verbrugh HA. 2009. 5 years of
experience implementing a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
search and destroy policy at the largest university medical center in the
Netherlands. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 30(10):977-984.
174. Wagenvoort JH, Sluijsmans W and Penders RJ. 2000. Better environmental
survival of outbreak vs. sporadic MRSA isolates. The Journal of Hospital
Infection 45(3):231-234.
176. Weber SG, Huang SS, Oriola S, Huskins WC, Noskin GA, Harriman K,
Olmsted RN, Bonten M, Lundstrom T, Climo MW, Roghmann MC, Murphy
CL and Karchmer TB. 2007. Legislative mandates for use of active
surveillance cultures to screen for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus
aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococci: position statement from the
Joint SHEA and APIC Task Force. Infection Control and Hospital
Epidemiology 28(3):249-260. Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van
Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA and Nouwen JL. 2005. The role of
nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. The Lancet Infectious
Diseases 5(12):751-762.
177. Wertheim HF, Vos MC, Ott A, van Belkum A, Voss A, Kluytmans JA, van
Keulen PH, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Meester MH and Verbrugh HA.
2004. Risk and outcome of nosocomial Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia
in nasal carriers versus non-carriers. Lancet 364(9435):703-705.
179. Wilson AP, Hayman S, Folan P, Ostro PT, Birkett A, Batson S, Singer M and
79
Bellingan G. 2006. Computer keyboards and the spread of MRSA. The
Journal of Hospital Infection 62(3):390-392.
181. Wren MW, Rollins MS, Jeanes A, Hall TJ, Coen PG and Gant VA. 2008.
Removing bacteria from hospital surfaces: a laboratory comparison of
ultramicrofibre and standard cloths. The Journal of Hospital Infection
70(3):265-271.
182. Zhang K, McClure JA, Elsayed S and Conly JM. 2009. Novel staphylococcal
cassette chromosome mec type, tentatively designated type VIII, harboring
class A mec and type 4 ccr gene complexes in a Canadian epidemic strain of
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrobial Agents and
Chemotherapy 53(2):531-540.
183. Zheng S, Cai Y and O'Shea KE. 2010. TiO(2) Photocatalytic Degradation of
Phenylarsonic Acid. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A,
Chemistry 210(1):61-68.
80
9. Appendix I
Actual
inoculums 198cfu 97cfu 55cfu 24cfu 3cfu 1cfu
(By back
titration)
OX-MSA 8cfu 5cfu 2cfu Neg Neg Neg
Direct
plating
Actual
inoculums 202cfu 105cfu 56cfu 28cfu 8cfu 2cfu
(by back
titration)
OX-MSA 4cfu 3cfu 1cfu Neg Neg Neg
Direct
plating
81
3rd trial 2 x 104 1 x 104 5 x 103 2 x103 1 x 103 1 x 102
CFUmL-1 CFUmL-1 CFUmL-1 CFUmL-1 CFUmL-1 CFUmL-1
Actual
inoculums 210cfu 112cfu 61cfu 24cfu 4cfu 1cfu
(by back
titration)
OX-MSA 5cfu 4cfu 1cfu Neg Neg Neg
Direct
plating
OX-MSA Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg Neg
24h
enrichmen
OX-MSA Pos Pos Pos Pos Pos Neg
48h
enrichment
82
10. Appendix II.
DNA markers (lane 1, 19), MRSA isolates (lane 2-16), Positive control,
MRSA strain with spa type t1083 (lane 17), Negative control, SCON ATCC
11490 (lane 18)
83
11. Appendix III
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
(Non-near patient surfaces)
92
93
94
95