Skip to main content
Annals of Intensive Care
Download PDF

Impact of systematic screening for AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacterales intestinal carriage in intensive care unit patients

Annals of Intensive Care volume 10, Article number: 149 (2020) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 26 May 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) is a challenge for community-acquired, hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, particularly in the context of the increasing occurrence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCR-E), including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) and high-level expressed AmpC cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacterales (HLAC-E). To prevent the overuse of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapies, such as carbapenems, we assessed the performance of screening for intestinal carriage of HLAC-E in addition to ESBL-E to predict 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) presence or absence in respiratory samples in ICU, and to evaluate its potential impact on carbapenem prescription.

Materials and methods

This monocentric retrospective observational study was performed in a surgical ICU during a 4-year period (January 2013–December 2016). Patients were included if they had a positive culture on a respiratory sample and a previous intestinal carriage screening performed by rectal swabbing within 21 days. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated for the screening for intestinal carriage of ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) as predictor of their absence/presence in respiratory samples. Impact of HLAC-E and ESBL-E reporting on EAT was also studied.

Results

765 respiratory samples, retrieved from 468 patients, were analyzed. ESBL-E prevalence was 23.8% in rectal swab and 4.4% in respiratory samples. HLAC-E prevalence was 9.0% in rectal swabs and 3.7% in respiratory samples. Overall, the 3GCR-E prevalence was 31.8% in rectal swabs and 7.7% in respiratory samples. NPVs were 98.8%, 98.0% and 96.6% for ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E, respectively. Over the study period, empirical antimicrobial therapy was initiated for 315 episodes of respiratory infections: 228/315 (72.4%) were associated with negative intestinal carriage screening for both HLAC-E and ESBL-E, of whom 28/228 (12.3%) were treated with carbapenems. Of 23/315 (7.3%) cases with screening for positive intestinal carriage with HLAC-E alone, 10/23 (43.5%) were treated with carbapenems.

Conclusion

Systematic screening and reporting of HLAC-E in addition to ESBL-E in intestinal carriage screening could help to predict the absence of 3GCR-E in respiratory samples of severe surgical ICU patients. This could improve the appropriateness of EAT in ICU patients with HAP and may prevent the overuse of carbapenems.

Introduction

Community-acquired, hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated pneumonia (CAP, HAP and VAP) are the most common infections in intensive care units (ICUs) and are associated with high morbidity and mortality rate [1, 2]. Empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) is a challenge for ICU physicians. Early antimicrobial therapy is recommended especially in case of sepsis or acute respiratory failure [3] and its appropriateness can only be validated a posteriori when sample cultures and antibiotic susceptibility testing are known. The choice of an EAT is, therefore, difficult and there is a trade-off to find between large-spectrum, which may promote antimicrobial resistances and narrow-spectrum therapy, which may result in treatment inadequacy. Because of frequent long hospital stays, previous antimicrobial exposure, or presence of other individual patient risk factors of multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens, broad-spectrum antibiotics are often used, in accordance with the latest recommendations on the management of patients with HAP and VAP [4]. The dramatically increasing occurrence of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCR-E) leads to increased use of carbapenems [5], with serious adverse effects such as an increase of antibiotic selective pressure [6, 7].

To prevent the overuse of such broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy, strategies have been developed such as rapid susceptibility testing [8, 9] and intestinal carriage monitoring [10,11,12,13]. The 2015 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESMID) guidelines provided strong recommendations to implement contact precautions to reduce the spread of beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) in non-epidemic settings [14]. In line with these recommendations, rectal swabs are performed at admission and weekly thereafter in our ICU to screen intestinal carriage of ESBL-E. This approach is included in our institutional infection control policy to implement isolation measures in the identified carrier, and to prevent and identify cross-contaminations.

We have recently shown that in severe ICU patients, negative screening for ESBL-E intestinal carriage could predict the absence of ESBL-E in respiratory samples. This finding was suggested to avoid carbapenem overuse [15].

Most microbiological culture media used to screen ESBL-E are not specific and also detect high-level expressed AmpC cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacterales (HLAC-E) [16]. These are classically not reported to clinicians, as there is no recommendation to isolate such patients [14, 17]. Thus, the epidemiology of HLAC-E intestinal carriage, especially in ICU, remains poorly described [18,19,20] despite its increasing burden [21]. In the present study, we explore the potential clinical relevance of providing information on the intestinal carriage screening for HLAC-E in addition to ESBL-E.

The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the impact of reporting HLAC-E intestinal carriage screening in addition to ESBL-E to predict 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) in respiratory samples in ICU patients with suspected HAP; and (2) to evaluate such strategy on carbapenem prescription.

Methods

Study design and inclusion criteria

From January 2013 to December 2016, a retrospective observational study was performed in a 30-bed surgical ICU in a teaching hospital in Paris. Our department is particularly involved in the management of neurological failure, due to the high level of neurosurgery activity in our hospital, which participates in a regional network of stroke centers.

Since rectal swabs and respiratory samples were part of our daily practice and no intervention was tested, the Ethics Committee of Société Française d’Anesthésie-Réanimation approved the protocol and waived the requirement of written informed consent. Furthermore, a declaration to the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) was done (declaration number: 2214863).

During the study period, all patients with a positive respiratory specimen (endotracheal aspirate, bronchoalveolar lavage, protected distal sampling or sputum) were enrolled. Bacterial documentation, including oropharyngeal flora, was collected and ESBL-E/HLAC-E phenotypes were retrieved (see microbiology section). Respiratory samples were performed in case of pneumonia suspected by the physician in charge, with or without mechanical ventilation. Systemic endotracheal aspirate surveillance culture is not part of our daily practice.

In our institution, screening for ESBL-E intestinal carriage is routinely performed by rectal swabbing within the first 24 h after ICU admission and weekly thereafter. This approach is part of our institutional infection control policy to implement isolation measures in identified carriers.

Respiratory samples with culture results below the diagnostic threshold were excluded (see microbiology section). Redundant respiratory samples, i.e., at least two respiratory samples positive for the same pathogen within 5 days, were excluded. Respiratory specimens without rectal swab cultures within the previous 21 days were excluded. Patients with known intestinal carriage with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales were excluded.

Clinical characteristics of selected patients were collected to describe the population: age, gender, simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II), ICU mortality rate, length of stay in ICU, duration of mechanical ventilation and main admission diagnosis.

Microbiology

Screening for ESBL-E and HLAC-E intestinal carriage

Rectal swabs were performed by nurses using ESwab® (COPAN Diagnostics, Italy). Transport medium was then inoculated using PREVI® Isola standardized inoculation system (BioMérieux, Marcy-L’Etoile, France) on selective chromogenic ChromID ® ESBL agar plates (BioMérieux, Marcy-L’Etoile, France). This medium is not specific of ESBL-E [16] and also detects HLAC-E. Growing colonies were identified after a 24-h aerobic incubation at 37 °C using mass spectrometry with MALDI™ Biotyper system (Bruker Daltonics, Germany). Results were expressed qualitatively, and no quantification or semi-quantification of growing colonies has been performed. Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by the disk diffusion method with Mueller–Hinton agar plates (MH agar plates, BioMérieux, Marcy-L’Etoile, France) according to the EUCAST (European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing) and CA-SFM (Antibiogram Committee of the French Society of Microbiology) guidelines.

3GCR-E isolates showing a synergy zone between expanded-spectrum cephalosporins (ESC) and clavulanate were categorized as ESBL-E, while those without synergy and less than 5-mm increase in the ESC inhibition diameter on cloxacillin-supplemented Mueller–Hinton agar (250 mg/mL) were categorized as HLAC-E.

The following ESC and monobactams were used in our antimicrobial susceptibility testing: cefotaxime, ceftazidime, cefepime, and aztreonam.

Carbapenem-Producing Enterobacterales (CPE) were identified using the Xpert® Carba-R Assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA).

HLAC-E results were not transmitted to clinicians, as there is no recommendation to isolate patients carrying such bacteria, but were prospectively collected in our laboratory information system (Glims, version 8.11.14, MIPS, Gent, Belgium).

3GCR-E were defined as Enterobacterales expressing resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, whatever the mechanism (i.e. ESBL-E and/or ESBL).

Respiratory samples

Respiratory samples were sputum samples obtained by expectoration after oral care with the assistance of a physiotherapist when necessary, endotracheal aspirates (Unomedical, ConvaTec, Deeside, United Kingdom), bronchoalveolar lavages (BAL) during bronchoscopy by slowly injecting and retrieving from the lung area of interest 100 mL of isotonic saline, and protected distal sampling (Combicath, Plastimed, Le Plessis Bouchard, France) using a fiberoptic bronchoscope. Samples were isolated on agar plates using routine methods according to the French Society of Microbiology guidelines. Microbiological identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) were obtained as described above. Respiratory samples were defined as positive when at least 107 CFU/mL were observed in sputum cultures, 106 CFU/mL in endotracheal aspirates, 104 CFU/mL in BAL, and 103 colony-forming units CFU/mL in protected distal sampling. Culture results with microbiological identification and resistance patterns were reported to the physicians within 2 days after sampling.

The potential impact of screening for ESBL-E and HLAC-E intestinal carriage on empirical antibiotic therapy

The potential impact of screening for ESBL-E and HLAC-E intestinal carriage on EAT was evaluated for episodes of respiratory infections.

Episodes of respiratory infection were defined as a positive respiratory culture associated with at least 5 consecutive days of antimicrobial therapy. Respiratory colonization was defined for patients with incomplete antimicrobial therapy (i.e., less than 5 days), or who did not receive antimicrobial therapy. Episodes of respiratory infection associated with extrapulmonary infections were excluded. Last, episodes of respiratory infection for which antimicrobial therapy was initiated after the AST result were excluded.

EAT was defined as antimicrobial therapy initiated after respiratory sampling and before culture and AST results. The choice of EAT is routinely guided by local protocol during a daily infectious disease consultation, according to the guidelines [4, 22]. EAT is prescribed by the physician in charge of the patient, considering the length of previous hospitalization, intestinal carriage status, presumed infection origin and hemodynamic status. EAT with carbapenem was recommended for patients with ESBL-E intestinal carriage, following international recommendations [23] and the results of our previous works [15].

EAT was compared to the status of intestinal carriage according to the 4 main resistance profiles reported in the intestinal carriage: ESBL-E(-)/HLAC-E(-), ESBL-E(-)/HLAC-E(+), ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(-), and ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(+). We defined a “Potential Carbapenem overuse” for patients with suspected pneumonia and without ESBL-E intestinal carriage, for which EAT with carbapenem should be carefully justified [15]. “Potential inappropriate EAT” was defined as an EAT which was not effective on the resistance pattern reported in intestinal carriage.

Statistical analyses

Quantitative variables were described using the median (interquartile range) and categorical variables using the number (percentage). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LR) were determined to assess if ESBL-E and HLAC-E intestinal carriage could predict their presence or absence in respiratory samples. All analyses were performed using R, version 3.5.3.

Results

Population characteristics

During the study period, 3228 patients were admitted in the ICU and 468 were included in the study. The demographic data of included patients are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic data (n = 468)
Full size table

Respiratory samples and rectal swabs

A total of 2166 respiratory samples were retrieved from 944 patients. Among them, 1401 respiratory samples were excluded: 840 below threshold samples, 123 duplicate samples for which only one sample was included, and 421 samples with missing rectal swab, 17 were excluded due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales intestinal carriage. Finally, 765 respiratory samples were obtained on 468 patients (Fig. 1a). Respiratory samples were mainly endotracheal aspirates (n = 476, 62.2%), followed by distal protected aspirates (n = 152, 19.9%), BAL (n = 81, 10.6%) and sputum cultures (n = 56, 7.3%). The median time between respiratory samples and the last positive rectal swab was 6 days (IQR [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11]) for HLAC-E carriers, and 5 days (IQR [3,4,5,6,7,8]) for ESBL-E carriers.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of patients included in the study. a Data used to test the performances of rectal colonization surveillance to predict presence of HLAC-E, ESBL-E and 3GCR-E in respiratory samples. b Data used to test the potential impact of rectal colonization surveillance on empirical antimicrobial therapy of pulmonary infections. a Respiratory sample was defined as negative when less than 103 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL were observed in protected distal sampling, 104 CFU/mL in BAL, 106 CFU/mL in endotracheal aspirates and 107 CFU/mL in sputum cultures. b Patients without rectal swab culture available within 21 days before the respiratory sample were excluded. c CPE, carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales. d AST: antimicrobial susceptibility testing

Full size image

Microbiological epidemiology

Concerning the respiratory samples, Enterobacterales (27.7%), Staphylococcus aureus (23.8%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (21.9%) represented the main species identified (Table 2).

Table 2 Micro-organism data in respiratory samples
Full size table

ESBL-E prevalence was 23.8% (95% CI [20.8–26.8%]) in intestinal carriage screening and 4.4% (95% CI [3.0–5.9%]) in respiratory samples. HLAC-E prevalence was 9.0% (95% CI [7.0–11.0%]) in intestinal carriage screening and 3.7% (95% CI [2.3–5.0%]) in respiratory samples. Overall, 3GCR-E prevalence was 31.8% (95% CI [28.5–35.1%]) in intestinal carriage screening and 7.7% (95% CI [5.8–9.6%]) in respiratory samples (Additional file 1).

Performance of screening for 3GCR-E intestinal carriage as a predictor of 3GCR-E in respiratory samples

Table 3 summarized the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios of ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) intestinal carriage as a predictor of ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) presence or absence in respiratory samples. NPV for ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E intestinal carriage as predictor of their absence in respiratory samples were 98.8% (95% CI [98–99.6%]), 98.0% (95% CI [97.0–99.0%]), and 96.6% (95% CI [95.3–97.8%]), respectively.

Table 3 Performance of screening for ESBL-E, HLAC-E and 3GCR-E (ESBL-E and/or HLAC-E) intestinal carriage as predictor of their absence/presence in respiratory samples
Full size table

The potential impact of screening for ESBL-E and HLAC-E intestinal carriage on empirical antimicrobial therapy of suspected pulmonary infections

The flow chart of episodes of respiratory infections treated by empirical antimicrobial therapy is described in Fig. 1b. Among 765 positive respiratory samples analyzed, 444/765 (58.0%) were associated with an episode of respiratory infection (i.e., treated by an antimicrobial therapy), 304/765 (39.8%) with respiratory colonization, 15 (1.9%) were excluded because of extra-respiratory infections; and 2 were excluded for insufficient clinical data.

A total of 129/444 (29.1%) episodes of respiratory infection were associated with antimicrobial therapy initiated after the AST result, 315/444 (70.9%) with empirical antimicrobial therapy. For these 315 episodes, the results of intestinal carriage were as follows: 228 (72.4%) were ESBL-E(−)/HLAC-E(−), 23 (7.3%) were ESBL-E(−)/HLAC-E(+), 58 (18.4%) were ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(−), and 6 (1.9%) were ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(+) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Potential impact of rectal colonization surveillance on empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) and on use of carbapenems. a 3GCR-E: third-generation cephalosporins resistant Enterobacterales; ESBL-E: Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales; HLAC-E: high-level expressed AmpC cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacterales. b EAT: empirical antimicrobial therapy. c CBP: carbapenem. d FEP: céfépime. e Potential carbapenem overuse and inappropriate EAT were determined by comparing EAT administered to EAT suggested by rectal carriage

Full size image

For 228 and 23 episodes of respiratory infection with ESBL-E(-)/HLAC-E(−) and ESBL-E(−)/HLAC-E(+) intestinal carriage, respectively, 28/228 (12.3%) and 10/23 (43.5%) were treated with carbapenems.

For 64 episodes of respiratory infection with ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(−) or ESBL-E(+)/HLAC-E(+) intestinal carriage, 40/64 (65.6%) were treated with carbapenems.

Discussion

Systematic screening for ESBL-E intestinal carriage by rectal swabbing is recommended in ICU patients in case of recent epidemic or outbreak settings [14, 17] and is commonly used for all patients admitted to ICUs experiencing high rates of intestinal carriage with these pathogens [10, 24, 25]. We recently showed that a negative systematic screening for ESBL-E intestinal carriage was associated with a low risk of ESBL-E in respiratory samples and therefore could help to improve EAT and limit the use of carbapenems [15].

The aim of this study was to explore the clinical relevance of investigating the intestinal carriage of HLAC-E in addition to ESBL-E. To our knowledge, this is the first study exploring the association between intestinal carriage and respiratory presence of HLAC-E in ICU patients.

Microbiological media used to screen ESBL-E are not specific [16] and also detect HLAC-E. Therefore, adding a systematic reporting of HLAC-E presence could be done without additional costs and could have a therapeutic impact.

Our results are in line with recent literature. Here, we confirmed our previous results with good performance of screening for ESBL-E intestinal carriage to predict the absence of ESBL-E in respiratory samples. We reported here a 23.8% prevalence of ESBL-E as compared to 23.2% in Carbonne et al. study and 6.8% observed in the Bruyère et al. study. We report an NPV for the absence of ESBL-E of 98.8% as compared to at least 93.4% and 99.4% in the two previously cited studies, respectively [11, 15].

Regarding the screening for HLAC-E intestinal carriage, we report here a prevalence of 9.0% and an NPV of 98.0% in our population. The prevalence of HLAC-E intestinal carriage remains poorly described [18,19,20]. The reported prevalence of HLAC-E intestinal carriage in ICU patients was 8.9% and 10.8% for Poignant et al. and Thiébaut et al. studies, respectively, which is in line with our observations [18, 19]. In our study, the rate of HLAC-E respiratory infections in HLAC-E carriers was 20.3% (14/69), a rate close to that reported by Poignant et al. (16.8%) [26]. Thus, negative testing for HLAC-E would be a strong advocate against targeting HLAC-E in the management of suspected HAP. Despite the presence of several MDR pathogens risk factors, as a long length of stay in ICU (median of 31 (15–48) days), and high probability of previous antimicrobial therapy, the NPV of 3GCR-E detection remains high (96.6%).

To go further, we investigated what would have been the clinical impact of combined ESBL-E/HLAC-E intestinal carriage screening on EAT for HAP in our population. We used a strict definition of HAP episodes, i.e., culture above recommended thresholds followed by antimicrobial therapy for more than 5 days. This ensures that the selected episodes were considered as relevant HAP by physicians in charge. Thus, we evaluated the impact of this dual screening for situations in which EAT was deemed necessary. Due to the high NPV of 3GCR-E “Potential Carbapenem overuse”, defined for patients with suspected pneumonia and without ESBL-E intestinal carriage, was identified in more than 10% EAT. Of note, despite recent studies confirmed that cefepime could be used to treat HLAC-E infections [27,28,29], this was not part, at that time, of our local protocol, and is probably responsible for an overestimation of potential carbapenem overuse. Conversely, “Potential inappropriate EAT”, defined as an EAT which was not effective on the resistance pattern reported in intestinal carriage was identified in more than 10% of EAT.

NPV for 3GCR-E intestinal carriage as a predictor of their absence in respiratory samples was high; therefore, the aim of the second part of our study was to compare prescribed EAT to EAT suggested by rectal carriage, and not to bacterial findings in respiratory samples. Due to the high prevalence of P. aeruginosa in our respiratory samples, this approach could be debatable. Therefore, we further explored respiratory samples of patients negative for ESBL intestinal carriage. Of 23 patients with ESBL-E(−)/HLAC-E(+) intestinal carriage, 8 patients had P. aeruginosa in the respiratory sample, and all of them were susceptible to ceftazidime or cefepime. Of 228 patients with ESBL-E(−)/HLAC-E(−) intestinal carriage, 40 patients had P. aeruginosa in the respiratory sample, and 39/40 were susceptible to ceftazidime or cefepime. This observation is particularly of interest, because cefepime can cover most AmpC-producing and AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacterales, and is indicated as an EAT for clinically suspected VAP for double antipseudomonal/Gram-Negative coverage [4]. Moreover, in the presence of septic shock, studies have shown that therapy based on antipseudomonal third-generation cephalosporins combined with aminoglycosides is a safe option to improve appropriateness of empiric antimicrobial therapy [30,31,32]. Therefore, coverage of Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be achieved without the prescription of carbapenem, even in case of septic shock.

Our study has some limitations. First, the selective medium we used (ChromID® ESBL) is dedicated to ESBL-E detection, and HLAC-E growth is generally considered as a side effect due to the lack of specificity of such media. This lack of specificity is mainly due to HLAC-E [16], but no studies previously explored the performance of this selective medium for HLAC-E detection.

Second, as detection of HLAC-E in rectal swabs performed weekly is not part of recommendations yet, our population comes from a single center and our results can only be applied to ICUs with similar microbial resistance patterns and prevalence of profile of resistance. However, it should be noted that the incidence of HLAC-E carriage may not have been profoundly influenced by our local ecology. Indeed, regarding HLAC-E acquisition, length of stay and antibiotic-related alteration of the anaerobic flora play a major role compared to cross-transmission [33]. Therefore, HLAC-E carriage and infections depend mostly on the mutant selection from endogenous intestinal microbiota and not on cross-transmission that depends on the bacterial ecology of a given ICU.

Third, the link between intestinal carriage and respiratory samples we evaluate is debatable, since we choose to analyze resistance patterns as a whole, regardless of bacteria species. Especially for HLAC-E (which is most of the time a vertically transferred mutation-promoted overexpression of normally low-level expressed ampC gene), knowing that the same species have colonized both intestinal microbiota and respiratory tract would have strengthened the value of intestinal carriage screening to predict the risk of detecting HLAC-E in respiratory samples. In a previous study, Poignant et al. showed that the same species were isolated from the intestinal carriage and clinical samples in all patients experiencing both carriage and HLAC-E infections [18].

Finally, these data were collected retrospectively; the risk of bias is high. However, digitalized laboratory information systems limit this risk. The clinical utility of adding HLAC-E detection and reporting to ESBL-E intestinal carriage screening should be evaluated prospectively, to establish its real impact on empiric antimicrobial therapy, carbapenem overuse, and outcome.

To conclude, we found that the addition of systematic identification and reporting of HLAC-E to current ESBL-E intestinal carriage screening could help to predict the absence of 3GCR-E in respiratory samples of severe surgical ICU patients. This result could help to improve the appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial therapy in ICU patients with suspected HAP.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Change history

Abbreviations

BAL:

Bronchoalveolar lavage

CFU:

Colony-forming units

EAT:

Empiric antimicrobial therapy

ESBL-E:

β-lactamase producing Enterobacterales

HLAC-E:

High-level expressed AmpC cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacterales

ICU:

Intensive care units

LR:

Likelihood ratio

MDR:

Multidrug-resistant pathogens

NPV:

Negative predictive value

PPV:

Positive predictive value

SAPS II:

Simplified acute physiology score II

VAP:

Ventilator-associated pneumonia

ESC:

Expanded-spectrum cephalosporin

References

  1. Cavallazzi R, Wiemken T, Arnold FW, Luna CM, Bordon J, Kelley R, et al. Outcomes in patients with community-acquired pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit. Respir Med. 2015;109:743–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Melsen WG, Rovers MM, Groenwold RH, Bergmans DC, Camus C, Bauer TT, et al. Attributable mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised prevention studies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:665–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Iregui M, Ward S, Sherman G, Fraser VJ, Kollef MH. Clinical importance of delays in the initiation of appropriate antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated Pneumonia. CHEST J. 2002;122:262–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalil AC, Metersky ML, Klompas M, Muscedere J, Sweeney DA, Palmer LB, et al. Management of adults with hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:e61–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Laxminarayan R, Duse A, Wattal C, Zaidi AKM, Wertheim HFL, Sumpradit N, et al. Antibiotic resistance—the need for global solutions. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13:1057–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Armand-Lefèvre L, Angebault C, Barbier F, Hamelet E, Defrance G, Ruppé E, et al. Emergence of imipenem-resistant gram-negative Bacilli in intestinal flora of intensive care patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2013;57:1488–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruppé É, Woerther P-L, Barbier F. Mechanisms of antimicrobial resistance in Gram-negative bacilli. Ann Intensive Care. 2015. http://www.annalsofintensivecare.com/content/5/1/21. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.

  8. Le Dorze M, Gault N, Foucrier A, Ruppé E, Mourvillier B, Woerther PL, et al. Performance and impact of a rapid method combining mass spectrometry and direct antimicrobial susceptibility testing on treatment adequacy of patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015;21:468.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Renvoisé A, Decré D, Amarsy-Guerle R, Huang TD, Jost C, Podglajen I, Raskine L, Genel N, Bogaerts P, Jarlier V, Arlet G. Evaluation of the βLacta test, a rapid test detecting resistance to third-generation cephalosporins in clinical strains of Enterobacteriaceae. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(12):4012–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Detsis M, Karanika S, Mylonakis E. ICU acquisition rate, risk factors, and clinical significance of digestive tract colonization with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae: a systematic review and meta-analysis*. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:705–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bruyère R, Vigneron C, Bador J, Aho S, Toitot A, Quenot J, et al. Significance of prior digestive colonization with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in patients with ventilator-associated Pneumonia. Crit Care Med. 2015;44(4):699–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. De Bus L, Saerens L, Gadeyne B, Boelens J, Claeys G, De Waele JJ, et al. Development of antibiotic treatment algorithms based on local ecology and respiratory surveillance cultures to restrict the use of broad-spectrum antimicrobial drugs in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia in the intensive care unit: a retrospective analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18:R152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Houard M, Rouzé A, Ledoux G, Six S, Jaillette E, Poissy J, et al. Relationship between digestive tract colonization and subsequent ventilator-associated pneumonia related to ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(8):e0201688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Dancer SJ, De Angelis G, Falcone M, Frank U, et al. ESCMID guidelines for the management of the infection control measures to reduce transmission of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria in hospitalized patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Carbonne H, Le Dorze M, Bourrel A-S, Poupet H, Poyart C, Cambau E, et al. Relation between presence of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in systematic rectal swabs and respiratory tract specimens in ICU patients. Ann Intensive Care. 2017;7:13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Réglier-Poupet H, Naas T, Carrer A, Cady A, Adam J-M, Fortineau N, et al. Performance of chromID ESBL, a chromogenic medium for detection of Enterobacteriaceae producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. J Med Microbiol. 2008;57:310–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Recommandations nationales - Prévention de la transmission croisée : précautions complémentaires contact - Consensus formalisé d’experts - 2009-Volume XVII - n°2 - ISSN 1249-0075.

  18. Poignant S, Guinard J, Guigon A, Bret L, Poisson D-M, Boulain T, et al. Risk factors and outcomes for intestinal carriage of AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care unit patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016;60:1883–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Thiébaut ACM, Arlet G, Andremont A, Papy E, Sollet J-P, Bernède-Bauduin C, et al. Variability of intestinal colonization with third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and antibiotic use in intensive care units. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2012;67:1525–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abbara S, Pitsch A, Jochmans S, Hodjat K, Cherrier P, Monchi M, et al. Impact of a multimodal strategy combining a new standard of care and restriction of carbapenems, fluoroquinolones and cephalosporins on antibiotic consumption and resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in a French intensive care unit. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2019;53:416–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Raisin. Surveillance des infections nosocomiales en réanimation adulte, Réseau REA-Raisin, France, résultats 2016.69.

  22. Torres A, Niederman MS, Chastre J, Ewig S, Fernandez-Vandellos P, Hanberger H, et al. International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT). Eur Respir J. 2017;50:1700582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Antibiothérapie des infections à entérobactéries et à Pseudomonas aeruginosa chez l’adulte : place des carbapénèmes et de leurs alternatives. Haute Autorité de Santé. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_2968915/fr/antibiotherapie-des-infections-a-enterobacteries-et-a-pseudomonas-aeruginosa-chez-l-adulte-place-des-carbapenemes-et-de-leurs-alternatives. Accessed 2 Sep 2019.

  24. MDRO Management | Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/mdro/index.html. Accessed 21 Apr 2019

  25. Depuydt P, Benoit D, Vogelaers D, Decruyenaere J, Vandijck D, Claeys G, et al. Systematic surveillance cultures as a tool to predict involvement of multidrug antibiotic resistant bacteria in ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:675–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Poignant S, Guinard J, Guigon A, Bret L, Poisson D-M, Boulain T, et al. Electronic Supplementary Material Intestinal carriage of AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care unit patients: risk factors and outcome:9.

  27. Nguyen HM, Shier KL, Graber CJ. Determining a clinical framework for use of cefepime and -lactam/-lactamase inhibitors in the treatment of infections caused by extended-spectrum- -lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:871–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Tamma PD, Girdwood SCT, Gopaul R, Tekle T, Roberts AA, Harris AD, et al. The use of cefepime for treating AmpC β-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;57:781–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Siedner MJ, Galar A, Guzmán-Suarez BB, Kubiak DW, Baghdady N, Ferraro MJ, et al. Cefepime vs other antibacterial agents for the treatment of Enterobacter Species Bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58:1554–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar A, Zarychanski R, Light B, Parrillo J, Maki D, Simon D, et al. Early combination antibiotic therapy yields improved survival compared with monotherapy in septic shock: a propensity-matched analysis. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:1773–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ong DSY, Frencken JF, Klouwenberg K, Juffermans N, van der Poll T, et al. Short-course adjunctive gentamicin as empirical therapy in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a prospective observational cohort study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:1731–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Micek ST, Welch EC, Khan J, Pervez M, Doherty JA, Reichley RM, et al. Empiric combination antibiotic therapy is associated with improved outcome against sepsis due to gram-negative bacteria: a retrospective analysis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:1742–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grohs P, Podglajen I, Guerot E, Bellenfant F, Caumont-Prim A, Kac G, et al. Assessment of five screening strategies for optimal detection of carriers of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care units using daily sampling. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20:O879–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

There was no specific funding. The study was retrospective on tests performed in routine conditions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Service de Réanimation Chirurgicale Polyvalente, Département d’Anesthésie Réanimation, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, 2 Rue Ambroise Paré, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France

    Elsa Manquat, Matthieu Le Dorze, Benjamin Soyer & Benjamin Glenn Chousterman

  2. Laboratoire de Bactériologie-Virologie, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, 2 Rue Ambroise Paré, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France

    Gauthier Pean De Ponfilly , Hanaa Benmansour, Emmanuelle Cambau & Hervé Jacquier

  3. Equipe Opérationnelle d’Hygiène, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, 2 Rue Ambroise Paré, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France

    Rishma Amarsy

  4. UMR1137, IAME, University of Paris, Paris, France

    Emmanuelle Cambau & Hervé Jacquier

  5. UMR-S942, Mascot, University of Paris, Paris, France

    Matthieu Le Dorze & Benjamin Glenn Chousterman

Authors
  1. Elsa Manquat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthieu Le Dorze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gauthier Pean De Ponfilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hanaa Benmansour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rishma Amarsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emmanuelle Cambau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Benjamin Soyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Benjamin Glenn Chousterman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hervé Jacquier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EM helped design the study, collect the data, analyze the data and write the manuscript. MLD helped design the study, collect the data, analyze the data and write the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. GPDP helped design the study, collect the data and analyze the data. HB helped conduct the study. AR helped conduct the study. EC helped conduct the study. BS helped analyze the data. BGC helped design the study, analyze the data and write the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elsa Manquat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Since rectal swabs and respiratory samples were part of our daily practice and no intervention was tested, the Ethics Committee of Societe Francaise d’Anesthesie-Reanimation approved the protocol and waived the requirement of written informed consent. Furthermore, a declaration to the Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) was done (declaration number: 2214863).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An error was identified in the authors’ names. The given names and family names were all erroneously transposed. The correct authors’ names are: Elsa: given name, Manquat: family name; Matthieu: given name, Le DOrze: family name; Gauthier: given name, Pean De Ponflly: family name; Hanaa: given name, Benmansour: family name; Rishma: given name, Amarsy: family name; Emmanuelle: given name, Cambau: family name; Benjamin: given name, Soyer: family name; Benjamin Glenn: given name, Chousterman: family name; Hervé: given name, Jacquier: family name. The original article has been corrected.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary table 1a. Prevalence of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacterales (ESBL-E) in intestinal carriage screening and respiratory samples paired by patients. Supplementary table 1b. Prevalence of Enterobacterales producing AmpC cephalosporinase (HLAC-E) in intestinal respiratory samples paired by patients. Supplementary table 1b. Prevalence of Enterobacterales producing AmpC cephalosporinase (HLAC-E) in intestinal cephalosporins (3GCR-E) in intestinal carriage screening and respiratory samples paired by patients.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Manquat, E., Le Dorze, M., Pean De Ponfilly , G. et al. Impact of systematic screening for AmpC-hyperproducing Enterobacterales intestinal carriage in intensive care unit patients. Ann. Intensive Care 10, 149 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00754-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-020-00754-9

Keywords