Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—how well does it perform? a cross-sectional study

Ann Matheson, Peter Christie, Traiani Stari, Kimberley Kavanagh, Ian M. Gould, Robert Masterton, Jacqui S. Reilly

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture. Design. Cross-sectional study. Patients. Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland. Methods. Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence. Results. This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66% of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9%. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82%). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80%–90%, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group. Conclusions. Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.
LanguageEnglish
Pages803-808
Number of pages6
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume33
Issue number8
Early online date21 Jun 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012

Fingerprint

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
Nose
Cross-Sectional Studies
Agar
Pharynx
Food
Equipment and Supplies
Patients' Rooms
Wounds and Injuries
Scotland
Gold

Keywords

  • staphylococcus aureus
  • cross sectional survey
  • swab screening

Cite this

Matheson, Ann ; Christie, Peter ; Stari, Traiani ; Kavanagh, Kimberley ; Gould, Ian M. ; Masterton, Robert ; Reilly, Jacqui S. / Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—how well does it perform? a cross-sectional study. In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2012 ; Vol. 33, No. 8. pp. 803-808.
@article{1b88cf3ed4df4e249e6708b5da456e2e,
title = "Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—how well does it perform? a cross-sectional study",
abstract = "Objective. To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture. Design. Cross-sectional study. Patients. Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland. Methods. Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence. Results. This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66{\%} of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9{\%}. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82{\%}). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80{\%}–90{\%}, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group. Conclusions. Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.",
keywords = "staphylococcus aureus, cross sectional survey, swab screening",
author = "Ann Matheson and Peter Christie and Traiani Stari and Kimberley Kavanagh and Gould, {Ian M.} and Robert Masterton and Reilly, {Jacqui S.}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1086/666639",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "803--808",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
number = "8",

}

Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—how well does it perform? a cross-sectional study. / Matheson, Ann ; Christie, Peter; Stari, Traiani; Kavanagh, Kimberley; Gould, Ian M.; Masterton, Robert; Reilly, Jacqui S.

In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 33, No. 8, 08.2012, p. 803-808.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nasal swab screening for methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus—how well does it perform? a cross-sectional study

AU - Matheson, Ann

AU - Christie, Peter

AU - Stari, Traiani

AU - Kavanagh, Kimberley

AU - Gould, Ian M.

AU - Masterton, Robert

AU - Reilly, Jacqui S.

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - Objective. To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture. Design. Cross-sectional study. Patients. Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland. Methods. Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence. Results. This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66% of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9%. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82%). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80%–90%, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group. Conclusions. Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.

AB - Objective. To determine the proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) detections identified by nasal swabbing using agar culture in comparison with multiple body site testing using agar and nutrient broth culture. Design. Cross-sectional study. Patients. Adult patients admitted to 36 general specialty wards of 2 large hospitals in Scotland. Methods. Patients were screened for MRSA via multiple body site swabs (nasal, throat, axillary, perineal, and wound/invasive device sites) cultured individually on chromogenic agar and pooled in nutrient broth. Combined results from all sites and cultures provided a gold-standard estimate of true MRSA prevalence. Results. This study found that nasal screening performed better than throat, axillary, or perineal screening but at best identified only 66% of true MRSA carriers against the gold standard at an overall prevalence of 2.9%. Axillary screening performed least well. Combining nasal and perineal swabs gave the best 2-site combination (82%). When combined with realistic screening compliance rates of 80%–90%, nasal swabbing alone probably detects just over half of true colonization in practice. Swabbing of clinically relevant sites (wounds, indwelling devices, etc) is important for a small but high-prevalence group. Conclusions. Nasal swabbing is the standard method in many locations for MRSA screening. Its diagnostic efficiency in practice appears to be limited, however, and the resource implications of multiple body site screening have to be balanced against a potential clinical benefit whose magnitude and nature remains unclear.

KW - staphylococcus aureus

KW - cross sectional survey

KW - swab screening

U2 - 10.1086/666639

DO - 10.1086/666639

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 803

EP - 808

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

T2 - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 8

ER -