The Comparison of Risk Factors of CRE Colonization Between Hospitals

Abstract Background Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) represents an increasing public health threat. Asymptomatic carriers among patients are important because they may serve as a potential reservoir for transmission. Our team was aware of the factors associated with CRE carriers, but we...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inOpen forum infectious diseases Vol. 4; no. suppl_1; p. S173
Main Authors Yamamoto, Norihisa, Yukawa, Satomi, Hagiya, Hideharu, Yoshida, HIsao, Kani, Rathina Kumar Shanmuga, Kawahara, Ryuji, Akeda, Yukihiro, Tomono, Kazunori
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published US Oxford University Press 01.10.2017
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Background Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) represents an increasing public health threat. Asymptomatic carriers among patients are important because they may serve as a potential reservoir for transmission. Our team was aware of the factors associated with CRE carriers, but we were not sure if these factors were identical between hospitals. Methods We carried out a regional surveillance of CRE colonization in 46 hospitals in December 2015 and January 2016. Among 1,507 convalescent patients, 184 (12.2%) carried CRE. We chose three hospitals (Hospital A, B, and C) where the CRE carrier was highly prevalent, and risk factors were analyzed, respectively, using shrinkage and logistic regression and compared them between those hospitals. Results Overall, longer hospital stays (odds ratio [OR] = 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.87–3.60), enteral feeding (OR = 3.03; CI = 2.08–4.42), and antibiotic exposure (OR = 2.00; CI = 1.40–2.87) were associated with CRE carriage. Meanwhile the factors significantly associated with CRE carriage differed between hospitals; enteral feeding (OR = 4.68; CI = 1.87–11.7) and urinary catheterization (OR = 2.37; CI = 1.22–4.59) in Hospital A, longer hospital stays (OR = 3.01; CI = 1.20–7.53) in hospital B, and no factors in Hospital C. Conclusion The results obtained from overall analysis were consistent with previous reports. However, the factors recognized in each hospital was not identical. It will be important to analyze risk factors individually and take proper measures that are suitable for each hospital. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.
ISSN:2328-8957
2328-8957
DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofx163.310