Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Articles |7 August 2001

The Effect of Vancomycin and Third-Generation Cephalosporins on Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in 126 U.S. Adult Intensive Care Units Free

Scott K. Fridkin, MD; Jonathan R. Edwards, MS; Jeanne M. Courval, PhD; Holly Hill, MD, PhD; Fred C. Tenover, PhD; Rachel Lawton, MPH; Robert P. Gaynes, MD; John E. McGowan Jr., MD; for the Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) Project and the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Hospitals

Scott K. Fridkin, MD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Jonathan R. Edwards, MS
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Jeanne M. Courval, PhD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Holly Hill, MD, PhD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Fred C. Tenover, PhD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Rachel Lawton, MPH
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

Robert P. Gaynes, MD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

John E. McGowan Jr., MD
From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

for the Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) Project and the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Hospitals

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
  • From National Center for Infectious Diseases, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.

    Acknowledgments: The authors thank the infection control, pharmacy, and microbiology personnel from the participating ICARE hospitals of NNIS for reporting the data for this study. In addition, they wish to recognize the contributions of Lennox Archibald, MD, Erica R. Pryor, RN, PhD, Carol McClay, RN, and Christine D. Steward, MPH, for coordinating submission and processing of data from the participating hospitals. They also thank Harland Austin, PhD, for expert statistical support.

    Grant Support: In part by grants to the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University for Phases 2 and 3 of Project ICARE by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Wilmington, Delaware, Pfizer, Inc. (New York, New York), and Roche Laboratories (Nutley, New Jersey) as full sponsors; and Aventis Pharma (formerly Rhône–Poulenc Rorer) (Collegeville, Pennsylvania), the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (Bethesda, Maryland), The American Society for Health Systems Pharmacists Research and Education Foundation (Bethesda, Maryland), Kimberly-Clark Corp. (Roswell, Georgia), and Bayer Corp., Pharmaceuticals Division (West Haven, Connecticut), as partial sponsors.

    Requests for Single Reprints: Scott K. Fridkin, MD, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS A-35, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333; e-mail, skf0@cdc.gov.

    Current Author Addresses: Dr. Fridkin: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS A-35, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333.

    Dr. Courvel: Division of Parasitic Diseases/Immunology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS F-12, 4770 Buford Highway, Chamblee, GA 30341.

    Mr. Edwards, Dr. Gaynes, and Ms. Lawton: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS E-55, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333.

    Drs. McGowan and Hill: Epidemiology Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322.

    Dr. Tenover: Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, MS G-08, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30333.

    Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, J.E. McGowan.

    Analysis and interpretation of the data: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, J.M. Courval, H. Hill, F.C. Tenover, J.E. McGowan.

    Drafting of the article: S.K. Fridkin, J.M. Courval, J.E. McGowan.

    Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, H. Hill, F.C. Tenover, J.E. McGowan.

    Final approval of the article: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards.

    Statistical expertise: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, J.M. Courval, H. Hill.

    Administrative, technical, or logistic support: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, F.C. Tenover, R.M. Lawton.

    Collection and assembly of data: S.K. Fridkin, J.R. Edwards, R.M. Lawton.

×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link

Abstract

Background:

Patient-specific risk factors for acquisition of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) among hospitalized patients are becoming well defined. However, few studies have reported data on the institutional risk factors, including rates of antimicrobial use, that predict rates of VRE. Identifying modifiable institutional factors can advance quality-improvement efforts to minimize hospital-acquired infections with VRE.

Objective:

To determine the independent importance of any association between antimicrobial use and risk factors for nosocomial infection on rates of VRE in intensive care units (ICUs).

Design:

Prospective ecologic study.

Setting:

126 adult ICUs from 60 U.S. hospitals from January 1996 through July 1999.

Patients:

All patients admitted to participating ICUs.

Measurements:

Monthly use of antimicrobial agents (defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days), nosocomial infection rates, and susceptibilities of all tested enterococci isolated from clinical cultures.

Results:

Prevalence of VRE (median, 10%; range, 0% to 59%) varied by type of ICU and by teaching status and size of the hospital. Prevalence of VRE was strongly associated with VRE prevalence among inpatient non-ICU areas and outpatient areas in the hospital, ventilator-days per 1000 patient-days, and rate of parenteral vancomycin use. In a weighted linear regression model controlling for type of ICU and rates of VRE among non-ICU inpatient areas, rates of vancomycin use (P < 0.001) and third-generation cephalosporin use (P = 0.02) were independently associated with VRE prevalence.

Conclusions:

Higher rates of vancomycin or third-generation cephalosporin use were associated with increased prevalence of VRE, independent of other ICU characteristics and the endemic VRE prevalence elsewhere in the hospital. Decreasing the use rates of these antimicrobial agents could reduce rates of VRE in ICUs.

Over the past decade, many, if not most, hospitals in the United States have faced the epidemic increase in vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) isolates cultured from hospitalized patients. Studies have suggested that VRE rates are highest among severely ill patients (1, 2)—specifically, those in intensive care units (ICUs) (3, 4). In case–control and cohort studies, proximity to other patients with VRE (5) and exposure to antimicrobial agents—specifically, the use of cephalosporins or vancomycin—have been found to be risk factors for VRE infection and colonization (1, 5-8). Since the 1995 publication of recommendations by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance (9), investigators have reported that 30% to 80% of vancomycin use in U.S. hospitals has been inappropriate according to the criteria in this document (10-16). However, some efforts that have resulted in reduced use of vancomycin have failed to reduce the rates of VRE (6). It has been suggested that reducing cephalosporin use and perhaps the preferential use of β-lactamase–inhibitor combination therapy rather than cephalosporin therapy are more important than reducing vancomycin use for decreasing rates of VRE (17). Thus, the importance of reducing vancomycin use in hospitalized populations as a control measure to reduce VRE has been questioned.
To evaluate the effect of using specific antimicrobial agents on the prevalence of VRE among a wide variety of ICUs in U.S. hospitals, the Hospital Infections Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in cooperation with the Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia), began the second phase of Project ICARE (Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology) in 1996. By using data from hospitals participating in Project ICARE, we studied the relationship between institutional characteristics (such as rates of nosocomial infection or antimicrobial use) and the prevalence of VRE in adult ICUs.

Methods

Setting

Hospitals that participated in the ICU surveillance component of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) system were invited to participate in the second (January 1996 through December 1997) and third (April 1998 through July 1999) phases of Project ICARE. One hundred seventy-one adult ICUs from 60 hospitals reported the required data to the ICARE component of the NNIS system during the study period of January 1996 through July 1999. The surveillance method and definitions of the NNIS system and Project ICARE have been previously described (18-20).

Data Elements

Participating hospitals reported monthly nosocomial infection data from at least one ICU. These data included information on device-associated infections (for example, central line–associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter-associated urinary tract infection), number of ICU patient admissions, days of device use by patients (device-days), and total inpatient days for the ICU. These data permitted calculation of device-associated infection rates (infections per 1000 device-days), device use rates (percentage of patient-days in which specific devices were used), and average length of stay.
Hospitals also reported monthly on the amount (in grams) of select antimicrobial agents administered to patients and the susceptibility results of isolates recovered from clinical specimens from hospitalized patients. Microbiological data were aggregated for each ICU separately, all non-ICU inpatient wards combined, and all outpatient areas combined. Pharmacy data were reported for the same hospital strata, but pharmacy data from outpatient areas were not routinely available and were often inaccurate because of the nature of U.S. retail pharmacies for outpatient prescriptions. To minimize information bias in aggregating outpatient antimicrobial use, we declined to analyze these data. The reported amounts of antimicrobial agents were standardized by conversion to defined daily doses; for parenteral vancomycin, one defined daily dose is equivalent to 2 g. Antimicrobial agents of a similar class or activity were grouped (Table 1).

Table 1. Class, Grouping, and Defined Daily Dose of Antimicrobial Agents

Table 1. Class, Grouping, and Defined Daily Dose of Antimicrobial Agents
The microbiology laboratories at participating hospitals reported antimicrobial susceptibility results for all enterococcal isolates recovered from all clinical specimens associated with hospital- or community-acquired infection or colonization. We excluded duplicate isolates, which were defined as isolates of the same organism with the same antimicrobial resistance pattern recovered from the same patient, regardless of the site of isolation (for example, blood, sputum, urine, or wound) during the same calendar month. In addition, we excluded susceptibility reports from isolates obtained for infection control surveillance. By excluding these surveillance isolates, the VRE prevalence more closely reflects data routinely aggregated as part of the laboratories' cumulative susceptibility report (cumulative antibiogram). Finally, the validity of the susceptibility data was assessed previously, and participating laboratories were determined to reliably identify enterococcus and correctly test vancomycin susceptibility. This was done through a proficiency testing program at these laboratories (21) and confirmatory testing of up to 20 vancomycin-resistant enterococci isolates from phase 2 Project ICARE hospitals (20). Enterococci were considered resistant if the minimum inhibitory concentration of vancomycin was greater than or equal to 32 µg/mL or if the zone diameter by disk diffusion was less than 14 mm.
Monthly data were pooled for the study period for each ICU, and pooled rates were calculated for device-associated infection, device use, average length of stay, prevalence (percentage) of VRE, and antimicrobial use (defined daily dose/1000 patient-days). For example, the pooled mean rate of vancomycin use was calculated for each ICU by dividing the total number of defined daily doses by the total number of patient-days reported over the study period by that ICU and multiplying that value by 1000; the rate is expressed as defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days. For this analysis, evaluation of antimicrobial use was limited to agents that have been commonly implicated as either a risk factor or a protective factor for VRE acquisition (1, 6-8, 17), such as the ampicillin drug group; first-generation, second-generation, or extended-spectrum (third-generation) cephalosporins; vancomycin; and the piperacillin and ticarcillin groups (Table 1). Antimicrobial agents were evaluated as single agents and as groups of similar agents, such as the β-lactamase inhibitor group (for example, piperacillin–tazobactam, ticarcillin–clavulanic acid, ampicillin–sulbactam, and amoxicillin–clavulanic acid) or the antipseudomonal penicillin group (for example, the piperacillin and ticarcillin groups). Rates for VRE were calculated for each ICU and for all non-ICU inpatient areas combined. For specific ICUs testing fewer than 10 enterococcal isolates for susceptibility during the study period, the prevalence of VRE was considered to be of low accuracy, and such ICUs were excluded from further analysis.
As participants in the NNIS system, hospital personnel had categorized each ICU at their hospital by the types of patients served—cardiac care, medical, general surgical, cardiothoracic, combined medical–surgical (units in which <80% of patients could be classified into a single unit type), neurosurgical, respiratory, trauma, burn, or “other.” For the current analysis, respiratory, trauma, and burn units were grouped with “other” ICUs.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by using SAS software, release 6.12 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina). We evaluated selected factors (such as ICU or hospital characteristics, device use rates, nosocomial infection rates, or rates of antimicrobial use) that were potentially associated with increased or decreased rates of VRE. The relationship between VRE rates and categorical variables was assessed by comparing the median values of VRE rates by using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Continuous variables were evaluated in two ways. First, the relationship was assessed by using the Spearman rank-correlation coefficient. Second, the relationship was assessed in univariate weighted linear regression models. The weight for each VRE prevalence was calculated as the reciprocal of the variance. The resulting model thus considered the weighted effect of the number of enterococci reported by each ICU. This model helped us identify antimicrobial exposures associated with VRE after accounting for the varied amount of data submitted by each ICU. All reported P values are two tailed.
To assess the joint influence of these antimicrobial use factors together with hospital or ICU characteristics on VRE prevalence, we used stepwise weighted linear regression techniques to identify the most important main effects. Each eligible antimicrobial agent or group of related antimicrobial agents (Table 1) was entered into the unadjusted models as continuous and ordinal (that is, according to quartile) data. This allowed us to identify exposures for which there was a better model fit when the data were evaluated as ordinal rather than continuous data. Continuous variables that were eligible for inclusion in the model-building process as potential independent predictors (significant at P < 0.05 by weighted univariate linear regression or strong biological plausibility, as with cephalosporin use) were then eligible to enter the model. We had no specific exposure variables in mind and tested all variables as potential confounders by looking at the change in the coefficient and P values for main effect variables (for example, antimicrobial use) after the inclusion of potential confounders (such as prevalence of VRE in the non-ICU setting). By evaluating both the degree of statistical significance between a potential effect variable and the impact on the coefficients of the other variables in the model, we determined whether the variable should remain in the model. Detection of potential outlier data points and their influence on main effect factors were also assessed in the modeling process.

Role of the Funding Source

The funding source had no role in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Results

Description of Sites

During the study period, 60 hospitals followed the surveillance protocol and reported a median of 12 months (interquartile range, 11 to 24 months) of data from a total of 171 adult ICUs. Hospitals were from 26 states (4 New England states, 15 Mid-Atlantic, 19 South Atlantic, 12 East Central, 6 West Central, and 4 Pacific) and had a median hospital bed size of 385 (range, 147 to 1206); 30 (50%) reported a major affiliation with a teaching institution (major teaching centers), and 6 (10%) were Veterans Affairs medical centers. Forty-five (26%) ICUs were excluded from further analysis because susceptibility results on fewer than 10 enterococcal isolates were reported. The remaining 126 ICUs included 37 medical–surgical ICUs, 20 cardiac care ICUs, 26 medical ICUs, 23 general surgical ICUs, 9 cardiothoracic ICUs, 6 neurosurgical ICUs, and 5 “other” ICUs (2 burn, 2 trauma, and 1 respiratory). These ICUs reported similar median values for the number of ICU beds and the number of days that patients received care during the study period (patient-days) (Table 2). However, the average length of stay, rates of device use, and device-associated infections (excluding rates of central line–associated bloodstream infection) varied significantly among the ICU types (Table 2).

Table 2. Selected Characteristics (Median Values) of 126 Intensive Care Units, according to Unit Type

Table 2. Selected Characteristics (Median Values) of 126 Intensive Care Units, according to Unit Type

Rates of VRE

In the 126 ICUs, the median prevalence of VRE was 10.0% (range, 0% to 59%). Median rates did not vary significantly by ICU type (Table 2). However, rates of VRE were significantly higher among ICUs at major teaching centers (median rate, 12.6% vs. 5.6% overall; median absolute difference, 7.3 percentage points [95% CI, 4.0 to 11.2 percentage points]) or larger hospitals (those with >500 beds) (12.5% vs. 6.5%; median absolute difference, 5.0 percentage points [CI, 1.1 to 9.5 percentage points]). Correlations of the rate of VRE in an ICU with the rate among all non-ICU areas combined (r = 0.63 [CI, 0.52 to 0.73]) or for all outpatient areas combined (r = 0.53 [CI, 0.39 to 0.66]) were statistically significant and strongly positive. In addition, correlation between the rate of VRE in an ICU with the ICU-specific rate of ventilator use (r = 0.20 [CI, 0.01 to 0.38]) was weakly positive and of marginal significance.
Hospital classification as a Veterans Affairs medical center was not associated with VRE rate (9.9% in Veterans Affairs hospitals vs. 12.1% in other hospitals; median absolute difference, 5.3 percentage points [CI, −2.5 to 10.7 percentage points]). In addition, rate of VRE was not associated with ICU-specific rate of central line–associated bloodstream infection (r = 0.03 [CI, −0.20 to 0.26]), ventilator-associated pneumonia (r = 0.12 [CI, − 0.12 to 0.35]), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (r = −0.01 [CI, −0.24 to 0.22]), or certain device use rates (for central venous catheter, r = 0.14 [CI, −0.10 to 0.36]; for urinary catheter, r = −0.10 [CI, −0.33 to 0.14]; for number of ICU beds, r = −0.03 [CI, −0.26 to 0.20]).

Antimicrobial Use

Rates of use for each of the antimicrobial agents and for groups of agents differed dramatically and significantly among ICU types. For most of the drug groups evaluated, the rate of use was highest in the medical, medical–surgical, and general surgical ICUs and was lowest in the coronary care, neurosurgical, and cardiothoracic ICUs (except for vancomycin use, which was high in the neurosurgical and cardiothoracic ICUs) (Table 2).
In the unweighted univariate analysis, the rate of VRE in an ICU was significantly correlated with ICU-specific use of vancomycin (r = 0.44 [CI, 0.29 to 0.57]) (Figure). However, apart from marginal significance in correlation with piperacillin–tazobactam (r = 0.20 [CI, 0.03 to 0.36]), rates of use of other antimicrobial agents were not significantly correlated with VRE rates according to the Spearman correlation. The association between antimicrobial use and prevalence of VRE was further assessed in weighted linear regression models, by which several additional agents showed statistically significant associations: β-lactamase inhibitor combination group (P = 0.04), first-generation cephalosporin group (P = 0.03), and ampicillin group (P = 0.06). Significant association of the antipseudomonal penicillin group with VRE prevalence (P = 0.008) was due to rates of association between VRE prevalence with ticarcillin use (with or without clavulanic acid; P < 0.001) rather than with piperacillin use (with or without tazobactam; P > 0.2). Among the other individual antimicrobial agents evaluated, none were significantly associated with VRE prevalence (data not shown).
Figure.

Correlation of the rate of parenteral vancomycin (defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days) and the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (percentage of enterococci that are vancomycin resistant) in 126 intensive care units.PrP

Multivariable Analysis

To assess the independent importance of factors identified in univariate analysis and the relative impact of antimicrobial use in these ICUs, we performed a stepwise weighted linear regression analysis. The final model included 123 ICUs that reported sufficient data from all factors under investigation (3 ICUs were from one hospital that did not report on all factors in the final model). The most significant factor associated with VRE prevalence in these ICUs was the rate of VRE in the non-ICU inpatient areas (Table 3). The rate of vancomycin use in the ICU was the most significant “modifiable” ICU-specific factor associated with VRE prevalence. Analysis after adjustment for ICU type showed cardiothoracic and neurosurgical ICUs to be associated with significantly lower VRE prevalence. According to this adjusted model, the only other antimicrobial use showing a significant association with VRE prevalence was especially high doses (>75th percentile of overall use) of third-generation cephalosporins (223 defined daily doses/1000 patient-days). No other antimicrobial agent or group of antimicrobial agents was significantly associated with a higher or lower VRE rate. Finally, no other ICU-specific factor among those considered modifiable (that is, nosocomial infection factors) was associated with VRE prevalence.

Table 3. Independent Predictors of Intensive Care Unit–Specific Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Table 3. Independent Predictors of Intensive Care Unit–Specific Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Discussion

Prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections associated with VRE have focused on measures to prevent cross-transmission between patients and practices to control antimicrobial use. Specifically, diminishing unnecessary use of vancomycin is proposed as a control measure by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (9). Our data support these recommendations by demonstrating that increased non-ICU VRE rates and increased rates of vancomycin use are associated with higher rates of VRE isolated from nonsurveillance cultures from adults in ICUs. In addition, higher rates of third-generation cephalosporin use were associated with higher rates of VRE. These associations between specific antimicrobial use and VRE prevalence were significant even after adjustment for the amount of VRE reported outside of the ICU setting and for case mix (using ICU type as a proxy measure for case mix).
This type of ecologic study has been performed at single institutions evaluating hospital-wide rates of VRE infection or colonization, and results have been conflicting (6, 17). In part, this may have arisen from small sample sizes. By contrast, our final analysis was based on a median of 12 months of microbiological and pharmacy data from each of 123 adult ICUs. Performing multivariate analysis in such a multicenter study makes our findings more applicable to the adult ICUs typically found in U.S. hospitals. The results support the assertion that reducing the rates of use of these specific antimicrobial agents could decrease the incidence of VRE in these ICUs. In contrast to a previous study (17), our investigation showed no association between use of piperacillin (with or without tazobactam) or the antimicrobial agents in the β-lactamase inhibitor combination group and lower rates of VRE. In our univariate analysis, higher rates of use of these agents had a modest positive correlation with VRE rate. However, when we controlled for ICU type and VRE prevalence in non-ICU areas, use of agents in the β-lactamase inhibitor combination group was not an independent predictor of VRE (as either a protective or risk factor).
The effect of third-generation cephalosporin use on VRE rate was found to be significant in the multivariate model only after adjustment for VRE prevalence in non-ICU areas by using weighted multivariable analysis; this finding suggests that the ICU-specific use of these agents has the greatest impact on VRE prevalence in ICUs in which VRE prevalence in non-ICU areas of the same hospital has poor association with ICU-specific prevalence of VRE. Furthermore, the effect of these agents on VRE prevalence proved significant only above a certain threshold (the 75th percentile for all ICUs); use above this threshold was associated with significantly increased risk. In contrast, incremental increases in vancomycin use were associated with equal corresponding increases in risk for higher VRE prevalence. These findings may indicate that incremental changes in vancomycin use can affect ICU-specific rates of VRE while major reductions in rates of third-generation cephalosporin can affect rates of VRE. The reasons for these apparently different types of associations deserve further study.
Our ICU-level analysis has several limitations. First, estimating cross-transmission frequency by molecular studies to determine the genetic relatedness of all VRE isolated from participating ICUs was beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, our model lacks a factor to account for cross-transmission of epidemic strains in any particular ICU; such transmission may explain some of the variation observed in the data, and the role of such transmission relative to antimicrobial use cannot be directly assessed from our data. However, to better address this, we did contact all ICUs that reported higher (top 90th percentile) rates of VRE, and none reported an outbreak of VRE in their ICU. Second, no standardized severity-of-illness measure was used in our comparisons (22, 23). However, we could include the type of ICU and status of major teaching center as proxy measures for case mix. Furthermore, we suspect that the average length of stay and rates of device use in a given ICU are proxy measures for severity of illness, although these factors were not significant in the multivariate model. Third, our analysis of pooled data over a study period did not evaluate a possible temporal association between specific antimicrobial use and VRE; this evaluation will be possible in a future analysis after receipt of additional data. Finally, our study was of an ecologic nature and did not include collection of data on patient-specific exposures or risk factors or on specific clinical outcomes regarding infection, treatment, or mortality associated with VRE. While ecologic studies have several practical advantages, their lack of individual-level data limits the extent to which causal inferences can be drawn and makes control of confounding more challenging (24). On a related issue, we did not ascertain the clinical relevance of the isolates. However, we have analyzed these and related data from the ICU component of the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System and have determined that the aggregated susceptibility data from isolates reported in Project ICARE (including the data in this study) accurately reflect the resistance prevalence related only to isolates associated with hospital-acquired infections (25). Despite such limitations, our data demonstrate an association between the rates of use of some antimicrobial agents and rates of antimicrobial resistance at an institutional level for 60 hospitals. These findings are supported by those of single-institution studies that used patient-level analysis (1, 5, 7).
Unit-level analysis of this type has several advantages compared with the traditional patient-level analysis. Collection of unit-level data on rates of use and resistant organisms can be incorporated into routine infection control surveillance activities. The data collection mechanisms can be automated in pharmacies and microbiology laboratories. Then, such data from ongoing surveillance can be used to monitor the effect of control interventions (such as implementing guidelines on use of antimicrobial agents or enhanced isolation efforts) on rates of antimicrobial use and resistance; they can also be included in existing quality-improvement processes at hospitals (26, 27).
Several previous studies have demonstrated that vancomycin is frequently used inappropriately (10-16). Our data can be used to support efforts at improving the judicious use of specific antimicrobial agents in adult ICUs. Methods to accomplish this are not well established, but several approaches have been recommended (26, 27); the most efficient methods will probably differ among institutions. Systems such as those used in Project ICARE for collection of pharmacy and microbiology data can provide insight into factors associated with increased rates of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and antimicrobial use itself. A previous analysis of Project ICARE data showed that after adjustment for type of ICU, the major determinants of vancomycin use in adult ICUs were the endemic rate of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia in the hospital and the rate of central line–associated bloodstream infections in the ICU (28, 29). These findings suggested that reducing rates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus or central line–associated nosocomial infections—traditional priorities of infection control activities—should help to reduce use of vancomycin in adult ICUs (29). Similarly, our analysis identifies use of vancomycin and use of third-generation cephalosporins at very high amounts as modifiable factors within an ICU; reducing use of these agents should reduce rates of VRE. More studies are needed to identify modifiable factors associated with use of other antimicrobial agents. Moreover, these data emphasize that traditional efforts to reduce cross-transmission may be needed hospital-wide because rates of VRE outside of the ICUs greatly affected ICU-specific VRE rates.

References

  1. Shay
    DK
    ,  
    Maloney
    SA
    ,  
    Montecalvo
    M
    ,  
    Banerjee
    S
    ,  
    Wormser
    GP
    ,  
    Arduino
    MJ
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Epidemiology and mortality risk of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infections
    J Infect Dis
    1995
    172
    993
    1000
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  2. Montecalvo
    MA
    ,  
    Shay
    DK
    ,  
    Patel
    P
    ,  
    Tacsa
    L
    ,  
    Maloney
    SA
    ,  
    Jarvis
    WR
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Bloodstream infections with vancomycin-resistant enterococci
    Arch Intern Med
    1996
    156
    1458
    62
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  3. Archibald
    L
    ,  
    Phillips
    L
    ,  
    Monnet
    D
    ,  
    McGowan
    JE
    Jr
    ,  
    Tenover
    F
    ,  
    Gaynes
    R
    .  
    Antimicrobial resistance in isolates from inpatients and outpatients in the United States: increasing importance of the intensive care unit
    Clin Infect Dis
    1997
    24
    211
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  4. Nosocomial enterococci resistant to vancomycin—United States, 1989-1993
    MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
    1993
    42
    597
    9
     PubMed
     PubMed
  5. Boyce
    JM
    ,  
    Opal
    SM
    ,  
    Chow
    JW
    ,  
    Zervos
    MJ
    ,  
    Potter-Bynoe
    G
    ,  
    Sherman
    CB
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Outbreak of multidrug-resistant Enterococcus faecium with transferable vanB class vancomycin resistance
    J Clin Microbiol
    1994
    32
    1148
    53
     PubMed
     PubMed
  6. Morris
    JG
    Jr
    ,  
    Shay
    DK
    ,  
    Hebden
    JN
    ,  
    McCarter
    RJ
    Jr
    ,  
    Perdue
    BE
    ,  
    Jarvis
    W
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, including vancomycin. Establishment of endemicity in a university medical center
    Ann Intern Med
    1995
    123
    250
    9
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  7. Stroud
    L
    ,  
    Edwards
    J
    ,  
    Danzing
    L
    ,  
    Culver
    D
    ,  
    Gaynes
    R
    .  
    Risk factors for mortality associated with enterococcal bloodstream infections
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1996
    17
    576
    80
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  8. Handwerger
    S
    ,  
    Raucher
    B
    ,  
    Altarac
    D
    ,  
    Monka
    J
    ,  
    Marchione
    S
    ,  
    Singh
    KV
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Nosocomial outbreak due to Enterococcus faecium highly resistant to vancomycin, penicillin, and gentamicin
    Clin Infect Dis
    1993
    16
    750
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  9. Recommendations for preventing the spread of vancomycin resistance. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1995
    16
    105
    13
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  10. Hamilton
    CD
    ,  
    Drew
    R
    ,  
    Hayward
    S
    ,  
    Kure
    J
    ,  
    Janning
    S
    .  
    Improving clinician adherence to vancomycin-use guidelines: results of a pharmacist-based strategy at an academic medical center [Abstract]
    Clin Infect Dis
    1997
    25
    425
  11. Salemi
    C
    ,  
    Becker
    L
    ,  
    Morrissey
    R
    ,  
    Warmington
    J
    .  
    A clinical decision process model for evaluating vancomycin use with modified HICPAC guidelines. Hospital Infection Control Practice Advisory Committee
    Clin Perform Qual Health Care
    1998
    6
    12
    6
     PubMed
     PubMed
  12. Petrofsky
    MV
    ,  
    Dicker
    RC
    .  
    Vancomycin utilization project based on the HICPAC guidelines in thirteen Northeastern States [Abstract]
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1997
    18
    33
  13. Johnson
    SV
    ,  
    Hoey
    LL
    ,  
    Vance-Bryan
    K
    .  
    Inappropriate vancomycin prescribing based on criteria from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Pharmacotherapy
    1995
    15
    579
    85
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  14. Evans
    ME
    ,  
    Kortas
    KJ
    .  
    Vancomycin use in a university medical center: comparison with hospital infection control practices advisory committee guidelines
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1996
    17
    356
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  15. Watanakunakorn
    C
    .  
    Prescribing pattern of vancomycin in a community teaching hospital with low prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1997
    18
    767
    9
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  16. Singer
    MV
    ,  
    Haft
    R
    ,  
    Barlam
    T
    ,  
    Aronson
    M
    ,  
    Shafer
    A
    ,  
    Sands
    KE
    .  
    Vancomycin control measures at a tertiary-care hospital: impact of interventions on volume and patterns of use
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1998
    19
    248
    53
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  17. Quale
    J
    ,  
    Landman
    D
    ,  
    Saurina
    G
    ,  
    Atwood
    E
    ,  
    DiTore
    V
    ,  
    Patel
    K
    .  
    Manipulation of a hospital antimicrobial formulary to control an outbreak of vancomycin-resistant enterococci
    Clin Infect Dis
    1996
    23
    1020
    5
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  18. Garner
    JS
    ,  
    Jarvis
    WR
    ,  
    Emori
    TG
    ,  
    Horan
    TC
    ,  
    Hughes
    JM
    .  
    CDC definitions for nosocomial infections, 1988
    Am J Infect Control
    1988
    16
    128
    40
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  19. Emori
    TG
    ,  
    Culver
    DH
    ,  
    Horan
    TC
    ,  
    Jarvis
    WR
    ,  
    White
    JW
    ,  
    Olson
    DR
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    National nosocomial infections surveillance system (NNIS): description of surveillance methods
    Am J Infect Control
    1991
    19
    19
    35
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  20. Fridkin
    SK
    ,  
    Steward
    CD
    ,  
    Edwards
    JR
    ,  
    Pryor
    ER
    ,  
    McGowan
    JE
    Jr
    ,  
    Archibald
    LK
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Surveillance of antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in United States hospitals: project ICARE phase 2. Project Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) hospitals
    Clin Infect Dis
    1999
    29
    245
    52
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  21. Steward
    CD
    ,  
    Wallace
    D
    ,  
    Hubert
    SK
    ,  
    Lawton
    R
    ,  
    Fridkin
    SK
    ,  
    Gaynes
    RP
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Ability of laboratories to detect emerging antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial pathogens: a survey of project ICARE laboratories
    Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis
    2000
    38
    59
    67
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  22. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985; 13:818-29. [PMID: 3928249]12.
  23. Cullen
    DJ
    ,  
    Keene
    R
    ,  
    Waternaux
    C
    ,  
    Peterson
    H
    .  
    Objective, quantitative measurement of severity of illness in critically ill patients
    Crit Care Med
    1984
    12
    155
    60
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  24. Morgenstern
    H
    .  
    Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods
    Annu Rev Public Health
    1995
    16
    61
    81
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  25. Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Tenover FC, Gaynes RP, McGowan JE Jr. Antimicrobial Resistance Prevalence Rates in Hospital Antibiograms Reflect Prevalence Rates Among Pathogens Associated with Hospital-Acquired Infections. Clin Infect Dis. [In press].
  26. Goldmann
    DA
    ,  
    Weinstein
    RA
    ,  
    Wenzel
    RP
    ,  
    Tablan
    OC
    ,  
    Duma
    RJ
    ,  
    Gaynes
    RP
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Strategies to prevent and control the emergence and spread of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in hospitals. A challenge to hospital leadership
    JAMA
    1996
    275
    234
    40
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  27. Duncan
    RA
    .  
    Controlling use of antimicrobial agents
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
    1997
    18
    260
    6
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  28. Fridkin
    SK
    ,  
    Edwards
    JR
    ,  
    Pichette
    SC
    ,  
    Pryor
    ER
    ,  
    McGowan
    JE
    Jr
    ,  
    Tenover
    FC
    ,  
    et al
    .  
    Determinants of vancomycin use in adult intensive care units in 41 United States hospitals
    Clin Infect Dis
    1999
    28
    1119
    25
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
  29. Wenzel
    RP
    ,  
    Wong
    MT
    .  
    Managing antibiotic use—impact of infection control [Editorial]
    Clin Infect Dis
    1999
    28
    1126
    7
     PubMed
    CrossRef
     PubMed
Figure.

Correlation of the rate of parenteral vancomycin (defined daily doses per 1000 patient-days) and the prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci (percentage of enterococci that are vancomycin resistant) in 126 intensive care units.PrP

Table 1. Class, Grouping, and Defined Daily Dose of Antimicrobial Agents

Table 1. Class, Grouping, and Defined Daily Dose of Antimicrobial Agents

Table 2. Selected Characteristics (Median Values) of 126 Intensive Care Units, according to Unit Type

Table 2. Selected Characteristics (Median Values) of 126 Intensive Care Units, according to Unit Type

Table 3. Independent Predictors of Intensive Care Unit–Specific Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Table 3. Independent Predictors of Intensive Care Unit–Specific Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.


Factors Associated with the Development of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

Fridkin SK, Edwards JR, Courval JM, et al, for the Intensive Care Antimicrobial Resistance Epidemiology (ICARE) Project and the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Hospitals. The Effect of Vancomycin and Third-Generation Cephalosporins on Prevalence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in 126 U.S. Adult Intensive Care Units. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:175–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-3-200108070-00009

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(3):175-183.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-3-200108070-00009

182 Citations

See Also

Factors Associated with the Development of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

A Comparison of the Effect of Universal Use of Gloves and Gowns with That of Glove Use Alone on Acquisition of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in a Medical Intensive Care Unit
Annals of Internal Medicine; 125 (6): 448-456
Enterococci Resistant to Multiple Antimicrobial Agents, Including Vancomycin: Establishment of Endemicity in a University Medical Center
Annals of Internal Medicine; 123 (4): 250-259
Infection-Control Measures Reduce Transmission of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in an Endemic Setting
Annals of Internal Medicine; 131 (4): 269-272
The Commonality of Risk Factors for Nosocomial Colonization and Infection with Antimicrobial-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, Gram-Negative Bacilli, Clostridium difficile, and Candida
Annals of Internal Medicine; 136 (11): 834-844
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Review: Flexible vs restrictive ICU visiting policies reduce delirium and anxiety severity in patients
Annals of Internal Medicine; 169 (4): JC23
Preoperative geriatric assessment reduced hospital stay and complications in patients ≥ 65 y having vascular surgery
Annals of Internal Medicine; 167 (2): JC2
Review: Interventions improve hospital antibiotic prescribing and reduce hospital stay but do not affect mortality
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (10): JC59
Review: NAATs diagnose C difficile; vancomycin improves cure, and fidaxomicin reduces recurrence
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (2): JC4
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (7): ITC1
Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Annals of Internal Medicine; 151 (7): ITC4-1
Cellulitis and Soft Tissue Infections
Annals of Internal Medicine; 168 (3): ITC17-ITC32
Cellulitis and Soft-Tissue Infections
Annals of Internal Medicine; 150 (1): ITC1-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Hospital Medicine
Pulmonary/Critical Care

Hospital Medicine, Pulmonary/Critical Care.

PubMed Articles

Reversed-phase HPLC enantioseparation of pantoprazole using a teicoplanin aglycone stationary phase-Determination of the enantiomer elution order using HPLC-CD analyses.
Chirality 2019.
Safety of nasal stenting in pharyngeal flap surgery for pediatric velopharyngeal dysfunction.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2019;
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×