Port-a-caths are implanted intravascular chest ports that enable venous access. With more port placements performed by interventional radiologists, it is important to discern differences in infection and complication rates between double- and single-lumen ports.

We retrospectively reviewed 1,385 port placements over 2 years at the University of Miami. Patients were grouped by single- or double-lumen ports. Data on duration of catheter stay, bloodstream infections, malfunctions, and other complications (fibrin sheath, thrombosis, catheter malposition) were collected. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to identify variables predicting port infection.

The mean patient age was 58.8 years; the mean BMI was 26.9 kg/m2; and 61.5% of these patients were female. Our search revealed 791 double-lumen ports (57.1%) and 594 single-lumen ports (42.9%). The median follow-up was 668 days (range, 2–1,297). Double-lumen ports were associated with significantly higher rates of bacteremia (2.78% vs 0.84%; P = .02), port malfunction (8.3% vs 2.0%; P < .001), fibrin sheath formation (2.2% vs 0.5%; P < .02), catheter tip malposition (1.0% vs 0; P = .01), and catheter-associated thrombosis (1.4% vs 0; P = .003). Multivariate Cox regression analysis, after adjusting for other variables, showed that double-lumen chest ports had 2.98 times (95% confidence interval, 1.12–7.94) the hazard rate of single-lumen ports for developing bloodstream infection (P = .029).

Double-lumen chest ports are associated with increased risk for bloodstream infection, malfunction, fibrin sheath formation, catheter tip malposition, and catheter-associated thrombosis. Interventional radiologists may consider placing single-lumen ports if clinically feasible; however, future studies are needed to determine clinical significance. The study limitations included the retrospective study design and the potential loss of patient follow-up.

To understand how healthcare facilities employ contact precautions for patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in the post–coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era and explore changes since 2014.

Cross-sectional survey.

Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physicians involved in infection prevention or hospital epidemiology.

In September 2022, we sent via email an 8-question survey on contact precautions and adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission in inpatient facilities. We also asked about changes since the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data and compared results to a similar survey administered in 2014.

Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey and 201 reported working in infection prevention. A majority of facilities (66% and 69%) routinely use contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) respectively, compared to 93% and 92% in 2014. Nearly all (>90%) use contact precautions for Candida auris, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. More variability was reported for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative organisms. Compared to 2014, fewer hospitals perform active surveillance for MRSA and VRE. Overall, 90% of facilities used chlorhexidine gluconate bathing in all or select inpatients, and 53% used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge. Many respondents (44%) reported changes to contact precautions since COVID-19 that remain in place.

Heterogeneity exists in the use of transmission-based precautions and adjunctive infection prevention measures aimed at reducing MDRO transmission. This variation reflects a need for updated and specific guidance, as well as further research on the use of contact precautions in healthcare facilities.

New Delhi metallo-β-lactamases (NDMs) are major contributors to the spread of carbapenem resistance globally. In Australia, NDMs were previously associated with international travel, but from 2019 we noted increasing incidence of NDM-positive clinical isolates. We investigated the clinical and genomic epidemiology of NDM carriage at a tertiary-care Australian hospital from 2016 to 2021.

We identified 49 patients with 84 NDM-carrying isolates in an institutional database, and we collected clinical data from electronic medical record. Short- and long-read whole genome sequencing was performed on all isolates. Completed genome assemblies were used to assess the genetic setting of blaNDM genes and to compare NDM plasmids.

Of 49 patients, 38 (78%) were identified in 2019–2021 and only 11 (29%) of 38 reported prior travel, compared with 9 (82%) of 11 in 2016–2018 (P = .037). In patients with NDM infection, the crude 7-day mortality rate was 0% and the 30-day mortality rate was 14% (2 of 14 patients). NDMs were noted in 41 bacterial strains (ie, species and sequence type combinations). Across 13 plasmid groups, 4 NDM variants were detected: blaNDM-1, blaNDM-4, blaNDM-5, and blaNDM-7. We noted a change from a diverse NDM plasmid repertoire in 2016–2018 to the emergence of conserved blaNDM-1 IncN and blaNDM-7 IncX3 epidemic plasmids, with interstrain spread in 2019–2021. These plasmids were noted in 19 (50%) of 38 patients and 35 (51%) of 68 genomes in 2019–2021.

Increased NDM case numbers were due to local circulation of 2 epidemic plasmids with extensive interstrain transfer. Our findings underscore the challenges of outbreak detection when horizontal transmission of plasmids is the primary mode of spread.

There is a paucity of data guiding treatment duration of oral vancomycin for Clostridiodes difficile infection (CDI) in patients requiring concomitant systemic antibiotics.

To evaluate prescribing practices of vancomycin for CDI in patients that required concurrent systemic antibiotics and to determine whether a prolonged duration of vancomycin (>14 days), compared to a standard duration (10–14 days), decreased CDI recurrence.

In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated adult hospitalized patients with an initial episode of CDI who were treated with vancomycin and who received overlapping systemic antibiotics for >72 hours. Outcomes of interest included CDI recurrence and isolation of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE).

Among the 218 patients included, 36% received a standard duration and 64% received a prolonged duration of treatment for a median of 13 days (11–14) and 20 days (16–26), respectively. Patients who received a prolonged duration had a longer median duration of systemic antibiotic overlap with vancomycin (11 vs 8 days; P < .001) and significantly more carbapenem use and infectious disease consultation. Recurrence at 8 weeks (12% standard duration vs 8% prolonged duration; P = .367), recurrence at 6 months (15% standard duration vs 10% prolonged duration; P = .240), and VRE isolation (3% standard duration vs 9% prolonged duration; P = .083) were not significantly different between groups. Discontinuation of vancomycin prior to completion of antibiotics was an independent predictor of 8-week recurrence on multivariable logistic regression (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3–18.1).

Oral vancomycin prescribing relative to the systemic antibiotic end date may affect CDI recurrence to a greater extent than total vancomycin duration alone. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The 2014 US National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (CARB) aimed to reduce inappropriate inpatient antibiotic use by 20% for monitored conditions, such as community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), by 2020. We evaluated annual trends in length of therapy (LOT) in adults hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP from 2013 through 2020.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adults with a primary diagnosis of bacterial or unspecified pneumonia using International Classification of Diseases Ninth and Tenth Revision codes in MarketScan and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services databases. We included patients with length of stay (LOS) of 2–10 days, discharged home with self-care, and not rehospitalized in the 3 days following discharge. We estimated inpatient LOT based on LOS from the PINC AI Healthcare Database. The total LOT was calculated by summing estimated inpatient LOT and actual postdischarge LOT. We examined trends from 2013 to 2020 in patients with total LOT >7 days, which was considered an indicator of likely excessive LOT.

There were 44,976 and 400,928 uncomplicated CAP hospitalizations among patients aged 18–64 years and ≥65 years, respectively. From 2013 to 2020, the proportion of patients with total LOT >7 days decreased by 25% (68% to 51%) among patients aged 18–64 years and by 27% (68%–50%) among patients aged ≥65 years.

Although likely excessive LOT for uncomplicated CAP patients decreased since 2013, the proportion of patients treated with LOT >7 days still exceeded 50% in 2020. Antibiotic stewardship programs should continue to pursue interventions to reduce likely excessive LOT for common infections.

To determine whether removal of default duration, embedded in electronic prescription (e-script), influenced antibiotic days of therapy.

Interrupted time-series analysis.

The study was conducted across 2 community hospitals, 1 academic hospital, 3 emergency departments, and 86 ambulatory clinics.

Adults prescribed a fluoroquinolone with a duration <31 days.

Removal of standard 10-day fluoroquinolone default duration and addition of literature-based duration guidance in the order entry on December 19, 2017. The study period included data for 12 months before and after the intervention.

The study included 35,609 fluoroquinolone e-scripts from the preintervention period and 31,303 fluoroquinolone e-scripts from the postintervention period, accounting for 520,388 cumulative fluoroquinolone DOT. Mean durations before and after the intervention were 7.8 (SD, 4.3) and 7.7 (SD, 4.5), a nonsignificant change. E-scripts with a 10-day duration decreased prior to and after the default removal. The inpatient setting showed a significant 8% drop in 10-day e-scripts after default removal and a reduced median duration by 1 day; 10-day scripts declined nonsignificantly in ED and ambulatory settings. In the ambulatory settings, both 7- and 14-day e-script durations increased after default removal.

Removal of default 10-day antibiotic durations did not affect overall mean duration but did shift patterns in prescribing, depending on practice setting. Stewardship interventions must be studied in the context of practice setting. Ambulatory stewardship efforts separate from inpatient programs are needed because interventions cannot be assumed to have similar effects.

Monitoring antibiotic consumption is a key component to steer antimicrobial stewardship programs, including in nursing homes. We analyzed changes in antibiotic consumption in French nursing homes during 5 years, including the COVID-19 pandemic, to identify potential priorities for improvement.

A multicenter survey was conducted between 2018 and 2022.

The study was conducted across 220 French nursing homes with on-site pharmacies.

Antibiotic consumption data were collected from pharmacy records and are expressed as defined daily doses per 1,000 resident days. Antibiotic indicators promoted by health authorities were calculated from quantitative data to evaluate the quality of prescribing.

Antibiotic consumption significantly decreased between 2018 and 2022, particularly during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, despite a slight increase in 2022. During the study period, the most used antibiotic classes were penicillins (61.9% in 2022) followed by cephalosporins (10.5%), macrolides–lincosamides–streptogramins (7.3%) then fluoroquinolones (7.0%). Amoxicillin–clavulanic acid was the most consumed antibiotic; amoxicillin and ceftriaxone ranked second and third. Azithromycin consumption increased from 2020, as did the indicator regarding broad-spectrum antibiotics.

The decreasing trend in antibiotic use and control of fluoroquinolone use over the study period suggest compliance with antibiotic use guidelines. However, changes in the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and the substantial use of amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, although it is rarely a first-line antibiotic, highlight the need for antimicrobial stewardship activities and the usefulness of antibiotic consumption surveillance to identify priorities.

The number of hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) does not differentiate between patients admitted due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (ie, primary cases) and incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection (ie, incidental cases). We developed an adaptable method to distinguish primary cases from incidental cases upon hospital admission.

Retrospective cohort study.

Data were obtained from 3 German tertiary-care hospitals.

The study included patients of all ages who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by a standard quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay upon admission between January and June 2022.

We present 2 distinct models: (1) a point-of-care model that can be used shortly after admission based on a limited range of parameters and (2) a more extended point-of-care model based on parameters that are available within the first 24–48 hours after admission. We used regression and tree-based classification models with internal and external validation.

In total, 1,150 patients were included (mean age, 49.5±28.5 years; 46% female; 40% primary cases). Both point-of-care models showed good discrimination with area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.80 and 0.87, respectively. As main predictors, we used admission diagnosis codes (ICD-10-GM), ward of admission, and for the extended model, we included viral load, need for oxygen, leucocyte count, and C-reactive protein.

We propose 2 predictive algorithms based on routine clinical data that differentiate primary COVID-19 from incidental SARS-CoV-2 infection. These algorithms can provide a precise surveillance tool that can contribute to pandemic preparedness. They can easily be modified to be used in future pandemic, epidemic, and endemic situations all over the world.

Nursing home residents may be particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Therefore, a question is when and how often nursing homes should test staff for COVID-19 and how this may change as severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) evolves.

We developed an agent-based model representing a typical nursing home, COVID-19 spread, and its health and economic outcomes to determine the clinical and economic value of various screening and isolation strategies and how it may change under various circumstances.

Under winter 2023–2024 SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant conditions, symptom-based antigen testing averted 4.5 COVID-19 cases compared to no testing, saving $191 in direct medical costs. Testing implementation costs far outweighed these savings, resulting in net costs of $990 from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services perspective, $1,545 from the third-party payer perspective, and $57,155 from the societal perspective. Testing did not return sufficient positive health effects to make it cost-effective [$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) threshold], but it exceeded this threshold in ≥59% of simulation trials. Testing remained cost-ineffective when routinely testing staff and varying face mask compliance, vaccine efficacy, and booster coverage. However, all antigen testing strategies became cost-effective (≤$31,906 per QALY) or cost saving (saving ≤$18,372) when the severe outcome risk was ≥3 times higher than that of current omicron variants.

SARS-CoV-2 testing costs outweighed benefits under winter 2023–2024 conditions; however, testing became cost-effective with increasingly severe clinical outcomes. Cost-effectiveness can change as the epidemic evolves because it depends on clinical severity and other intervention use. Thus, nursing home administrators and policy makers should monitor and evaluate viral virulence and other interventions over time.