Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Case-case-control study on factors associated with vanB vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bacteraemia

  • Agnes Loo Yee Cheah1, 2, 3,
  • Trisha Peel4,
  • Benjamin P Howden3, 6, 7,
  • Denis Spelman2, 8, 9,
  • M Lindsay Grayson3, 5,
  • Roger L Nation1 and
  • David CM Kong1Email author
BMC Infectious Diseases201414:353

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-353

Received: 19 June 2013

Accepted: 18 June 2014

Published: 28 June 2014

Abstract

Background

Enterococci are a major cause of healthcare-associated infection. In Australia, vanB vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) is the predominant genotype. There are limited data on the factors linked to vanB VRE bacteraemia. This study aimed to identify factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia, and compare them with those for vancomycin-susceptible enterococci (VSE) bacteraemia.

Methods

A case-case-control study was performed in two tertiary public hospitals in Victoria, Australia. VRE and VSE bacteraemia cases were compared with controls without evidence of enterococcal bacteraemia, but may have had infections due to other pathogens.

Results

All VRE isolates had vanB genotype. Factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia were urinary catheter use within the last 30 days (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.09-7.53), an increase in duration of metronidazole therapy (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.33), and a higher Chronic Disease Score specific for VRE (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.05-2.77). Factors linked to VSE bacteraemia were a history of gastrointestinal disease (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.05-4.99) and an increase in duration of metronidazole therapy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.48). Admission into the haematology/oncology unit was associated with lower odds of VSE bacteraemia (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.74).

Conclusions

This is the largest case-case-control study involving vanB VRE bacteraemia. Factors associated with the development of vanB VRE bacteraemia were different to those of VSE bacteraemia.

Keywords

Enterococci Vancomycin-resistant Vancomycin-susceptible Bacteraemia

Background

Globally, enterococci are a major cause of nosocomial infection [13]. Of concern is vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) bacteraemia, which has been associated with higher mortality and morbidity compared to VRE wound, urinary tract and intra-abdominal infections [4]. In Australia, vanB is the major genotype [3, 5], in contrast to the United States (US) where vanA is predominant [2, 6]. Importantly, VRE is increasingly isolated in clinical settings [3], and has emerged in the community viz. aged-care facilities and outpatient clinics [7, 8].

Studies which examined the factors associated with VRE colonisation and/or a range of different VRE infections have either had vanA genotype as the predominant strain (as reported or through personal communication with the authors) [914], or did not report the genotype [4, 1529]. All aforementioned studies were performed in the US, where vanA is predominant [2]. Only two studies examining factors linked to the development of VRE bacteraemia involved predominantly the vanB genotype [30, 31]. The clinical profile of a colonised versus an infected patient is different [32]. Thus, studies [4, 23, 2527] that have included both colonised and infected patients as their VRE cases should be interpreted with care. Case–control studies [4, 1114, 16, 17, 19, 25] comparing VRE to VSE bacteraemia patients may not accurately account for the impact of vancomycin use; this bias is minimised with a case-case-control study that compares VRE bacteraemia patients to controls without enterococcal bacteraemia and VSE bacteraemia patients to controls [33]. Of the two studies involving predominantly vanB genotype [30, 31], only one [31] was a case-case-control study which used the same control patients for both case groups, thereby enabling meaningful characterisation of the distinct features of bacteraemia specific to the resistant and susceptible enterococci [33]. However, the external validity of the results from this single centre study is limited [31]. Furthermore, that study [31] and another involving vanA VRE [12] do not adjust for patient co-morbidities, and duration of hypoalbuminaemia and neutropenia. Other studies [4, 911, 1330] did not adjust for a combination of factors (co-morbidities and/or duration of antibiotic therapy, hypoalbuminaemia, and/or neutropenia).

Studies have found that neutropenia, use of antibiotics (e.g. cephalosporins, imipenem and metronidazole), urinary catheter and central venous catheter use, older age, gastrointestinal disease, biliary complications, severe mucositis, a higher severity of illness score and low plasma albumin levels were linked to VSE bacteraemia [31, 3440]. Unfortunately, the majority of these studies on factors linked to VSE bacteraemia were descriptive (had small sample size) [3437], and did not adjust for duration of antibiotic therapy, hypoalbuminaemia and/or neutropenia [31, 38, 39].

Given that enterococcal bacteraemia is increasing and data on factors linked to vanB VRE bacteraemia remain limited, an understanding of the factors associated with vanB VRE and VSE bacteraemia would facilitate efforts to prevent and manage these infections. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to identify the potential factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia and secondarily, to compare them with those for VSE bacteraemia.

Methods

A retrospective case-case-control study was conducted at two tertiary public hospitals, The Alfred (~420 acute-care beds) and Austin Health (~400 acute-care beds) in Victoria, Australia. Both institutions service adult patients, have intensive care units and emergency departments, infectious diseases and infection control units, haematology-oncology services and provide other specialist services. This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committees of both hospitals and Monash University. Waiver of patient consent was approved by all ethics committees because no patient recruitment of follow-up occurred, and data utilised in this study included information already collected as part of patient care.

All study participants were admitted to the hospital between January 2002 and March 2010 (inclusive). The sample size was based around all cases of VRE bacteraemia identified during the study period. The study period was specified a priori, from January 2002 to March 2010, as the infection control interventions against VRE in both hospitals did not change substantially over this time period. Only patients with hospital length of stay (LOS) > 2 days were eligible for inclusion in the study. Pregnant patients and those < 18 years of age were excluded. Selection of all patients was made without knowledge of patient outcomes. Each patient was only included once. Patients from whom one or more blood cultures were positive for VRE were classified as VRE cases. The VRE genotype was determined by polymerase chain reaction [5, 41]. Patients who had one or more blood cultures positive for VSE were also identified (VSE cases). Controls without evidence of enterococcal bacteraemia were identified from a list of patients admitted to the hospital and may have had infections (including bacteraemia) due to other pathogens. Matching was performed within the same hospital on a 1:1:1 basis. VSE cases and controls were matched with VRE cases according to date of admission (within 2 years of VRE case admission date), and where possible, unit of admission. Where more than one VSE case or control was eligible for matching on the same admission date, the VSE case or control was randomly chosen.

The present analysis included additional data (e.g. patient co-morbidities, and duration of hypoalbuminaemia and neutropenia) which were not considered in the study discussed above [31] and patients from another hospital. Information on patient demographics and clinical characteristics, antimicrobial use, and outcomes of hospitalisation were collected via a retrospective review of patients’ medical records by the same researcher (ALYC). These criteria for the exposure and outcome measures were pre-determined prior to data collection.

Polymicrobial bacteraemia was the isolation of one or more bacterial or fungal pathogens within 24 hours from the same or different blood sample where the initial VRE or VSE was isolated [17]. Chronic Disease Score specific to VRE (CDS-VRE), which has been validated for use in studies on factors linked to disease, was used to measure patient co-morbidities [42]. Gastrointestinal disease included a history of liver disease, peptic ulcers, diverticulitis, graft-versus-host-disease of the gut, inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer and colorectal cancer. Neutropenia, hypoalbuminaemia, exposure to medical devices, and antibiotic-specific days were defined, respectively, as number of days where neutrophils were < 500/mm3, serum or plasma albumin < 35 g/L, exposure to central lines, mechanical ventilation, urinary catheter and total parenteral nutrition, and total number of days that antibiotic(s) were administered orally or intravenously, within 30 days prior to bacteraemia (for VRE and VSE cases) or death or discharge (controls).

Data analyses were performed with Stata, version 12.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Categorical variables are expressed as frequencies and percentages. For continuous variables, mean or median are reported for normally or non-normally distributed data, respectively. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess the association between each independent variable and the presence or absence of VRE or VSE bacteraemia. We assessed the assumption of a linear relationship between log odds and each of the continuous exposure factors in the multivariable models for VRE and VSE bacteraemia. The continuous exposure factors were analysed as continuous variables with coefficients expressed as odds ratio because the relationships between log odds and each of the continuous exposure factors were approximately linear. Variables that were significant on univariable analysis, or biologically plausible factors linked to disease, or potential confounders, were inserted into the multivariable models. Link test was used to assess the fit of each of the multivariable models for VRE and VSE bacteraemia [43]. All statistical tests were two-tailed and a p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Of the 724 patients with enterococcal bacteraemia identified during the study period, 121 (17%) and 603 (83%) were VRE and VSE cases, respectively. A final number of 116 VRE cases (and corresponding matched VSE cases and controls) were reviewed given four VRE patients had missing medical records and one VRE patient was pregnant. The ratio of enterococcal isolates that were vancomycin-resistant to -susceptible was 6% in 2002, and increased to 39% in 2009 and 22% in the first quarter of 2010. All VRE isolates were vanB genotype.

Demographics of the VRE and VSE cases, and controls are shown in Table 1. For the studied admission, the reason for admission and co-morbidities were similar between cases and controls. Most VRE isolates were Enterococcus faecium, whereas the VSE isolates were predominantly E. faecalis. To account for this difference, factors associated with VSE bacteraemia due to E. faecium (haematological malignancy and duration of neutropenia) and E. faecalis (urinary catheter use) [44], were included in the multivariable analysis. We also accounted for time at risk for enterococcal bacteraemia by adjusting in the multivariable analyses for the following factors occurring in the 30 days prior to bacteraemia (for VRE and VSE cases) and death or discharge (for controls): number of days of antibiotic administration, neutropenia and hypoalbuminaemia, and use of medical devices (e.g. catheters). Adjustment for age was performed on multivariable analysis when age was found to be significant on univariable analysis.
Table 1

Patient demographics

Characteristics

VRE cases (n = 116)

VSE cases (n = 116)

Controls (n = 116)

Age, median (IQR), years

60 (47–68)

63.5 (51–76)

58 (44–68)

Sex

   

  Male

69 (59)

72 (62)

63 (54)

  Female

47 (41)

44 (38)

53 (46)

Unit of admission

   

  Haematology/oncology

61 (53)

43 (37)

67 (58)

  Non-haematology/oncology

55 (47)

73 (63)

49 (42)

Reason for admission

  Medical

89 (77)

87 (75)

89 (77)

  Surgical

27 (23)

29 (25)

27 (23)

Charlson score, median (IQR)

4 (2–5)

3 (1–5)

4 (1–4)

Chronic disease score-VRE (CDS-VRE), median (IQR)

1 (0–1.9)

0 (0–1)

0 (0–1.6)

Lung disease

17 (15)

17 (15)

17 (15)

Ischaemic heart disease

25 (22)

23 (20)

11 (9)

Myocardial infarction

10 (9)

10 (9)

3 (3)

Congestive heart failure

13 (11)

14 (12)

2 (2)

Cerebrovascular disease

7 (6)

13 (11)

5 (4)

Gastrointestinal disease

54 (47)

64 (55)

38 (33)

Renal disease

21 (18)

18 (16)

15 (13)

Diabetes mellitus

25 (22)

30 (26)

20 (17)

Cancer

74 (64)

64 (55)

74 (64)

Solid organ transplant recipient

14 (12)

7 (6)

5 (4)

Enterococcus species

   

  E. faecalis

9 (8)

71 (61)

-

  E. faecium

107 (92)

39 (34)

-

  E. casseliflavus, E. gallinarum, or E. durans

-

4 (3)

-

  Both E. faecalis and E. faecium

-

1 (1)

-

  Unknown

-

1 (1)

-

Polymicrobial bacteraemia

33 (28)

50 (43)

-

Infection (other than due to Enterococci) prior to bacteraemia (VRE and VSE cases) and prior to discharge (controls)

61 (53)

43 (37)

34 (29)

Days from admission until bacteraemia, median (IQR), days

16 (7–24)

7.5 (1–18.5)

-

Total length of stay, median (IQR), days

35 (22.5-50.5)

25 (16–45.5)

9 (5–20)

In-hospital mortality

42 (36)

30 (26)

5 (4)

Note:

Data are number (%) of patients unless indicated otherwise.

Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number.

In patients with vanB VRE bacteraemia, 54 (47%), 22 (19%) and 14 (12%) were treated with teicoplanin monotherapy, linezolid monotherapy and no antibiotics, respectively. For 26 (22%) vanB VRE bacteraemia patients, a combination (concurrent or in sequence) of teicoplanin, linezolid, quinupristin-dalfopristin or benzylpenicillin was administered as definitive therapy. In VSE patients, 46 (40%), 21 (18%), 1 (1%), 9 (8%), 6 (5%), and 2 (2%) patients were administered definitive therapy using intravenous glycopeptides (teicoplanin or vancomycin), penicillins (ampicillin, benzylpenicillin, ticarcillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam), meropenem, no antibiotics, combination of intravenous gentamicin and ampicillin, and oral linezolid, respectively. In 30 (26%) VSE patients, a combination (concurrent or in sequence) of vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, ampicillin, benzylpenicillin or meropenem was administered.

Tables 2 and 3 summarise the analyses of factors linked to VRE and VSE bacteraemia, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, a higher CDS-VRE score, an increase in duration of metronidazole therapy, and use of urinary catheters within the previous 30 days were associated with increased odds of vanB VRE bacteraemia (Table 2). When patients with VSE bacteraemia were compared to controls (Table 3), after adjustment for confounders, admission to the haematology/oncology unit (compared to non-haematology/oncology units) was associated with lower odds of VSE bacteraemia whilst, gastrointestinal disease and duration of metronidazole use were associated with higher odds of VSE bacteraemia.
Table 2

Factors associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia

Factors associated with vanBVRE bacteraemia

VRE cases (n = 116)

Controls (n = 116)

Univariable

Multivariable

OR

95% CI

p-value

OR

95% CI

p-value

Age, median (IQR), years

60 (47–68)

58 (44–68)

1.01

0.99-1.02

0.481

   

Female

47 (41)

53 (46)

0.81

0.48-1.36

0.432

   

Transfer from another hospital

28 (24)

14 (12)

2.56

1.18-5.52

0.017

   

Unit of admission

        

  Non-haematology/oncology to read Non-haematology/oncology

55 (47)

49 (42)

Reference

   

  Haematology/

oncology

61 (53)

67 (58)

0

-

-

   

ICU admission in prior 30 days

39 (34)

13 (11)

6.57

2.97-14.55

<0.001

   

CDS-VRE score, median (IQR)

1 (0–1.9)

0 (0–1.6)

1.36

1.02-1.80

0.036

1.70

1.05-2.77

0.032

Clostridium difficile toxin positive

5 (4)

1 (1)

5.00

0.58-42.80

0.142

   

Infection(s) due to pathogens other than Enterococci

61 (53)

34 (29)

2.93

1.60-5.37

0.001

0.97

0.39-2.46

0.953

Gastrointestinal disease

54 (47)

38 (33)

2.00

1.10-3.64

0.024

   

Liver disease

16 (14)

15 (13)

1.14

0.41-3.15

0.796

   

Haematological malignancy

66 (57)

63 (54)

1.6

0.52-4.89

0.410

0.41

0.06-2.61

0.342

Bone marrow transplantation type

  Nil

97 (84)

100 (86)

Reference

Reference

  Autologous

3 (3)

7 (6)

0.33

0.07-1.65

0.178

0.27

0.03-2.22

0.221

  Allogeneic

16 (14)

9 (8)

2.40

0.85-6.81

0.100

2.79

0.57-13.66

0.206

Ceftriaxone days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.09

0.98-1.22

0.130

1.16

0.91-1.48

0.234

Third generation cephalosporin days , median (IQR), daysa

0 (0–1)

0 (0–0.49)

1.04

0.95-1.13

0.439

   

Fluoroquinolone days, median (IQR), daysb

1 (0–7.63)

0 (0–2.42)

1.07

1.01-1.12

0.016

   

Metronidazole days, median (IQR), days

0 (0–1.78)

0 (0)

1.54

1.16-2.04

0.003

1.65

1.17-2.33

0.004

Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.02

0.92-1.13

0.674

   

Piperacillin-tazobactam days, median (IQR), days

0 (0–2.18)

0 (0)

1.04

0.96-1.14

0.352

   

Meropenem days, median (IQR), days

0 (0–5.94)

0 (0)

1.15

1.06-1.25

0.001

   

Vancomycin days, median (IQR), days

2.58 (0–8)

0 (0–2.18)

1.10

1.04-1.17

0.002

1.04

0.95-1.15

0.401

Neutropenia days, median (IQR), days

1 (0–10)

0 (0–1)

1.08

1.03-1.14

0.003

1.04

0.96-1.11

0.341

Hypoalbuminaemia days, median (IQR), days

13 (7.5-20)

5.5 (2–14.5)

1.08

1.04-1.12

<0.001

0.97

0.91-1.04

0.435

Central line use

94 (81)

55 (47)

5.22

2.56-10.66

<0.001

3.06

0.94-9.99

0.063

Mechanical ventilation

29 (25)

7 (6)

5.40

2.08-14.02

0.001

   

Urinary catheter

57 (49)

27 (23)

3.50

1.84-6.65

<0.001

2.86

1.09-7.53

0.033

Parenteral nutrition

28 (24)

8 (7)

3.86

1.68-8.86

0.001

   

Note:

Data are number (%) of patients unless indicated otherwise.

aThird generation cephalosporins include cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime.

bFluoroquinolones include moxifloxacin, norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin.

Table 3

Factors associated with VSE bacteraemia

Factors associated with VSE bacteraemia

VSE cases (n = 116)

Controls (n = 116)

Univariable

Multivariable

OR

95% CI

p-value

OR

95% CI

p-value

Age, median (IQR), years

63.5 (51–76)

58 (44–68)

1.02

1.00-1.04

0.019

1.01

0.99-1.03

0.305

Female

44 (38)

53 (46)

0.74

0.44-1.23

0.243

   

Transfer from another hospital

21 (18)

14 (12)

1.64

0.77-3.46

0.198

   

Unit of admission

        

  Non-haematology/oncology to read Non-haematology/oncology

73 (63)

49 (42)

Reference

Reference

  Haematology/oncology

43 (37)

67 (58)

0.04

0.01-0.30

0.002

0.08

0.01-0.74

0.026

ICU admission in prior 30 days

29 (25)

13 (11)

2.60

1.25-5.39

0.010

1.71

0.52-5.58

0.373

CDS-VRE score, median (IQR)

0 (0–1)

0 (0–1.6)

0.89

0.66-1.20

0.446

   

Clostridium difficile toxin positive

2 (2)

1 (1)

2.00

0.18-22.06

0.571

   

Infection(s) due to pathogens other than Enterococci

43 (37)

34 (29)

1.45

0.82-2.56

0.201

   

Gastrointestinal disease

64 (55)

38 (33)

3.00

1.60-5.62

0.001

2.29

1.05-4.99

0.037

Liver disease

13 (11)

15 (13)

0.71

0.23-2.25

0.566

   

Haematological malignancy

35 (30)

63 (54)

0.15

0.06-0.39

<0.001

0.40

0.12-1.33

0.134

Bone marrow transplantation type

  Nil

105 (91)

100 (86)

 

Reference

Reference

  Autologous

2 (2)

7 (6)

0.29

0.06-1.38

0.118

   

  Allogeneic

9 (8)

9 (8)

1.00

0.38-2.66

1.000

   

Ceftriaxone days, median (IQR), days

0 (0–0.5)

0 (0)

1.10

0.99-1.24

0.088

   

Third generation cephalosporin days , median (IQR), daysa

0 (0–1)

0 (0–0.49)

1.03

0.94-1.13

0.523

   

Fluoroquinolone days, median (IQR), daysb

0 (0–1.04)

0 (0–2.42)

0.96

0.91-1.02

0.190

   

Metronidazole days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.23

1.06-1.43

0.007

1.23

1.02-1.48

0.032

Ticarcillin-clavulanic acid days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.02

0.93-1.11

0.711

   

Piperacillin-tazobactam days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

0.89

0.79-1.00

0.054

   

Meropenem days, median (IQR), days

0 (0)

0 (0)

1.00

0.92-1.08

0.934

   

Vancomycin days, median (IQR), days

0 (0–1.25)

0 (0–2.18)

0.97

0.92-1.03

0.343

   

Neutropenia days, median (IQR), days

0

0 (0–1)

0.98

0.94-1.02

0.344

1.00

0.94-1.06

0.911

Hypoalbuminaemia days, median (IQR), days

7 (1–16)

5 (1–13.5)

1.01

0.98-1.05

0.479

1.00

0.95-1.05

0.888

Central line use

59 (51)

55 (47)

1.17

0.67-2.05

0.572

   

Mechanical ventilation

17 (15)

7 (6)

2.67

1.04-6.81

0.040

   

Urinary catheter

46 (40)

27 (23)

2.12

1.19-3.77

0.011

1.16

0.47-2.88

0.741

Parenteral nutrition

16 (14)

8 (7)

2.00

0.86-4.67

0.109

   

Note:

Data are number (%) of patients unless indicated otherwise.

aThird generation cephalosporins include cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ceftazidime.

bFluoroquinolones include moxifloxacin, norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin.

Discussion and conclusions

Unlike earlier studies [4, 23, 2527], the current study only included data from patients who had vanB VRE bacteraemia and did not assess colonised patients. It is not a single-centre study [4, 912, 1527, 30, 31] and, to our knowledge, is the largest case-case-control study involving vanB VRE bacteraemia. The present report is the only case-case-control study to identify the factors associated with vanB VRE and VSE bacteraemia, while adjusting for patient co-morbidities and duration of antibiotic therapy, hypoalbuminaemia, and neutropenia.

The association between patient co-morbidities, as measured by the CDS-VRE score, and development of vanB VRE bacteraemia was investigated. The CDS-VRE score was calculated based on medications ordered within 24 hours of hospital admission for medical conditions such as diabetes, peptic ulcers, kidney disease, history of transplantation and cancer [42]. A weight is assigned for each medical condition and the final CDS-VRE score is a weighted sum of the medical conditions for each patient. The presence of a higher number of co-morbidities included in the score is associated with a higher CDS-VRE score. Co-morbidities related to immune-suppression such as transplantation and cancer were given a higher weighting, compared to diabetes and peptic ulcer. As such, patients with co-morbidities associated with immune-suppression tend to have high CDS-VRE scores. Our results show that patients with a higher CDS-VRE score have higher odds for vanB VRE bacteraemia. This was consistent with studies that reported association between haematological malignancy and vanA VRE bacteraemia [11]. Diabetes [20], acute renal failure [19], and severity of gut mucositis [18] may predispose patients to the development of VRE bacteraemia; VRE genotype was not determined in these studies.

Antibiotic use has been linked to VRE colonisation in the gastrointestinal tract and/or infection, including bacteraemia [19, 26, 45]. In the present study, duration of therapy with specific antibiotics was considered, unlike many earlier studies [12, 13, 16, 17, 1922, 24, 27, 28, 30]. Exposure to anti-anaerobic antibiotics has been linked to VRE gastrointestinal tract colonisation [45] and bacteraemia [10, 46]; however, the VRE genotype was either vanA VRE [10, 46] or not determined [45]. In our study, an increase in duration of therapy with metronidazole (an anti-anaerobic antibiotic) was linked to VRE bacteraemia. Whilst exposure to metronidazole may be a marker for bacteraemia with suspected intra-abdominal source, this was not explored as it was beyond the scope of the current work. A recent study reported an association between increased ceftriaxone usage and VRE bacteraemia (genotype not reported) [29]. An association with ceftriaxone therapy, however, was not observed in our study which adjusted for patient co-morbidities. Although VRE overgrowth and subsequent VRE colonisation and/or infection may occur with vancomycin exposure [11, 13], multivariable analysis suggests that the use of vancomycin was not associated with increased odds of VRE bacteraemia in this study. This is probably due to a reduction in bias [33, 47] as the present study did not use VSE as controls, in contrast to studies that had included VSE patients as controls [11, 13]. In this study, the controls without enterococcal bacteraemia have had exposure to vancomycin. Thus, a comparison of VRE to VSE bacteraemia patients could be made to identify factors linked to VRE bacteraemia; however, we chose to compare VRE bacteraemia patients to controls without enterococcal bacteraemia in a case-case–control study as it will minimise the selection bias that affects the identification, and the magnitude, of the effect due to vancomycin [33, 47]. To further minimise selection bias related to choice of controls in the current study, VSE patients and controls were randomly chosen and matched to VRE cases for time of admission and wherever possible, unit of admission.

Similar to studies that demonstrated VRE bacteraemia was associated with exposure of patients to VRE contaminated ‘exogenous’ sources [16, 31], urinary catheter use was independently associated with the development of VRE bacteraemia. The need for a urinary catheter may also be an indicator of severe underlying illness [16]. Compared to an earlier study that only considered hypoalbuminaemia and neutropenia in a binary manner (i.e. presence or absence) [31], in the present study the durations of these conditions were found to be linked to VRE bacteraemia. The use of a continuous variable (i.e. duration) provides a more robust measure of exposure to these potential factors linked to disease.

The duration of metronidazole therapy was linked to VSE bacteraemia, similar to our finding for vanB VRE bacteraemia. However, other factors linked to disease differed between these two types of bacteraemia. We found that a history of gastrointestinal disease was associated with VSE bacteraemia. Changes in the gastrointestinal tract may predispose to the migration of gut micro-organisms such as enterococci, increasing the link to VSE bacteraemia [48]. Due to the difficulty in matching VSE cases to VRE cases from the haematology/oncology unit, we adjusted for unit of admission in the multivariable analysis for VSE bacteraemia. Interestingly, admission to the haematology/oncology unit compared to other units was associated with reduced odds of VSE bacteraemia. This finding may be due to an unmeasured confounder such as exposure in this group of patients to antibiotics that are active against VSE, thereby reducing the odds of VSE bacteraemia. Unlike earlier studies that did not adjust for duration of hypoalbuminaemia and neutropenia [31, 38], the present study found no association between the duration of low albumin and neutrophil levels, and odds of VSE bacteraemia.

Through this case-case–control study we were able to differentiate the factors associated with VRE and VSE bacteraemia. It is recognised that data collected retrospectively may be subject to variability in reporting from different clinicians and missing data. Whilst the effect of individual enterococcal species on the results of this study was not specifically studied given the sample size, the potential effects of enterococcal species on study findings were accounted for in the analysis. Failure to adjust for confounding may result in falsely elevated or reduced odds ratio [49]. Accordingly, multivariable analyses were also performed in the current study to minimise bias associated with confounding.

This study, the largest published case-case–control study involving only vanB VRE bacteraemia has identified and differentiated the factors associated with vanB VRE and VSE bacteraemia. VSE bacteraemia was linked to a history of gastrointestinal disease. In contrast, a higher burden of patient co-morbidities and urinary catheter use were associated with vanB VRE bacteraemia.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms Kerrie Watson from the Infectious Diseases Unit at The Alfred, Ms Elizabeth Grabsch from the Microbiology Department at Austin Health, and Mr Ray Robbins and Mr Peter Davey from the Clinical Information, Analysis and Reporting Department at Austin Health for providing the list of patients eligible for matching. We also thank Mr Eldho Paul from the Department of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, and Kris Jameson from Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University, for their statistical advice.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Monash University
(2)
Department of Infectious Diseases, The Alfred
(3)
Infectious Diseases Department, Austin Health
(4)
Department of Surgery, St Vincent’s Health, University of Melbourne
(5)
Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne
(6)
Microbiology Department, Austin Health
(7)
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne
(8)
Microbiology Unit, The Alfred
(9)
Monash University

References

  1. Hidron Alicia I, Edwards Jonathan R, Patel J, Horan Teresa C, Sievert Dawn M, Pollock Daniel A, Fridkin Scott K: NHSN annual update: antimicrobial-resistant pathogens associated with healthcare-associated infections: annual summary of data reported to the national healthcare safety network at the centers for disease control and prevention, 2006–2007. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008, 29: 996-1011. 10.1086/591861.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Deshpande LM, Fritsche TR, Moet GJ, Biedenbach DJ, Jones RN: Antimicrobial resistance and molecular epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci from North America and Europe: a report from the SENTRY antimicrobial surveillance program. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007, 58: 163-170. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2006.12.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Group for Antimicrobial Resistance (AGAR) posters and publications website. Vancomycin resistant enterococci in Australia: results of the AGAR surveys. 1995, http://www.agargroup.org/files/VRE%20in%20Australia.pdf. Accessed 7 June, 2012, to 2010
  4. Webb M, Riley L, Roberts R: Cost of hospitalization for and risk factors associated with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection and colonization. Clin Infect Dis. 2001, 33: 445-452. 10.1086/321891.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell JM, Paton JC, Turnidge J: Emergence of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci in Australia: phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of isolates. J Clin Microbiol. 1998, 36: 2187-2190.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Schouten MA, Hoogkamp-Korstanje JA, Meis JF, Voss A: Prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in Europe. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000, 19: 816-822. 10.1007/s100960000390.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Stuart RL, Kotsanas D, Webb B, Vandergraaf S, Gillespie EE, Hogg GG, Korman TM: Prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in residential aged care facilities. Med J Aust. 2011, 195: 530-533. 10.5694/mja11.10724.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Burrell LJ, Grabsch EA, Padiglione AA, Grayson ML: Prevalence of colonisation with vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) among haemodialysis outpatients in Victoria: implications for screening. Med J Aust. 2005, 182: 492-PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Montecalvo MA, Horowitz H, Gedris C, Carbonaro C, Tenover FC, Issah A, Cook P, Wormser GP: Outbreak of vancomycin-, ampicillin-, and aminoglycoside-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia in an adult oncology unit. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1994, 38: 1363-1367. 10.1128/AAC.38.6.1363.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Edmond MB, Ober JF, Weinbaum DL, Pfaller MA, Hwang T, Sanford MD, Wenzel RP: Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia: risk factors for infection. Clin Infect Dis. 1995, 20: 1126-1133. 10.1093/clinids/20.5.1126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shay DK, Maloney SA, Montecalvo M, Banerjee S, Wormser GP, Arduino MJ, Bland LA, Jarvis WR: Epidemiology and mortality risk of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infections. J Infect Dis. 1995, 172: 993-1000. 10.1093/infdis/172.4.993.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Peset V, Tallon P, Sola C, Sanchez E, Sarrion A, Perez-Belles C, Vindel A, Canton E, Gobernado M: Epidemiological, microbiological, clinical, and prognostic factors of bacteremia caused by high-level vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus species. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000, 19: 742-749. 10.1007/s100960000360.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhavnani SM, Drake JA, Forrest A, Deinhart JA, Jones RN, Biedenbach DJ, Ballow CH: A nationwide, multicenter, case–control study comparing risk factors, treatment, and outcome for vancomycin-resistant and -susceptible enterococcal bacteremia. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000, 36: 145-158. 10.1016/S0732-8893(99)00136-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Vergis EN, Hayden MK, Chow JW, Snydman DR, Zervos MJ, Linden PK, Wagener MM, Schmitt B, Muder RR: Determinants of vancomycin resistance and mortality rates in enterococcal bacteremia: a prospective multicenter study. Ann Intern Med. 2001, 135 (7): 484-492. 10.7326/0003-4819-135-7-200110020-00007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Roghmann M-C, McCarter RJ, Brewrink J, Cross AS, Morris JG: Clostridium difficile infection is a risk factor for bacteremia due to vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) in VRE-colonized patients with acute leukemia. Clin Infect Dis. 1997, 25: 1056-1059. 10.1086/516112.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Stosor V, Peterson LR, Postelnick M, Noskin GA: Enterococcus faecium bacteremia: does vancomycin resistance make a difference?. Arch Intern Med. 1998, 158: 522-527. 10.1001/archinte.158.5.522.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lucas GM, Lechtzin N, Puryear DW, Yau LL, Flexner CW, Moore RD: Vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bacteremia: comparison of clinical features and outcomes. Clin Infect Dis. 1998, 26: 1127-1133. 10.1086/520311.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuehnert MJ, Jernigan JA, Pullen AL, Rimland D, Jarvis WR: Association between mucositis severity and vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infection in hospitalized cancer patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999, 20: 660-663. 10.1086/501561.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lautenbach E, Bilker WB, Brennan PJ: Enterococcal bacteremia: risk factors for vancomycin resistance and predictors of mortality. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999, 20: 318-323. 10.1086/501624.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Zaas A, Song X, Tucker P, Perl T: Risk factors for development of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infection in patients with cancer who are colonized with vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Clin Infect Dis. 2002, 35: 1139-1146. 10.1086/342904.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. de Perio MA, Yarnold Paul R, Warren J, Noskin Gary A: Risk factors and outcomes associated with non–Enterococcus faecalis, non–Enterococcus faecium enterococcal bacteremia. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol. 2006, 27: 28-33. 10.1086/500000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Olivier C, Blake R, Steed L, Salgado C: Risk of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) bloodstream infection among patients colonized with VRE. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008, 29: 404-409. 10.1086/587647.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Morris JG, Shay DK, Hebden JN, McCarter RJ, Perdue BE, Jarvis W, Johnson JA, Dowling TC, Polish LB, Schwalbe RS: Enterococci resistant to multiple antimicrobial agents, including vancomycin: establishment of endemicity in a university medical center. Ann Intern Med. 1995, 123: 250-259. 10.7326/0003-4819-123-4-199508150-00002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Papanicolaou G, Meyers B, Meyers J, Mendelson M, Lou W, Emre S, Sheiner P, Miller C: Nosocomial infections with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in liver transplant recipients: risk factors for acquisition and mortality. Clin Infect Dis. 1996, 23: 760-766. 10.1093/clinids/23.4.760.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Tornieporth NG, Roberts RB, John J, Hafner A, Riley LW: Risk factors associated with vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection or colonization in 145 matched case patients and control patients. Clin Infect Dis. 1996, 23: 767-772. 10.1093/clinids/23.4.767.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Carmeli Y, Eliopoulos GM, Samore MH: Antecedent treatment with different antibiotic agents as a risk factor for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002, 8: 802-807. 10.3201/eid0808.010418.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Chavers LS, Moser SA, Funkhouser E, Benjamin WH, Chavers P, Stamm AM, Waites KB: Association between antecedent intravenous antimicrobial exposure and isolation of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. Microb Drug Resist. 2003, 9: S69-S77. 10.1089/107662903322541928.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nguyen GC, Leung W, Weizman AV: Increased risk of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) infection among patients hospitalized for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2011, 17: 1338-1342. 10.1002/ibd.21519.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. McKinnell JA, Kunz DF, Chamot E, Patel M, Shirley RM, Moser SA, Baddley JW, Pappas PG, Miller LG: Association between vancomycin-resistant Enterococci bacteremia and ceftriaxone usage. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012, 33: 718-724. 10.1086/666331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Worth LJ, Thursky KA, Seymour JF, Slavin MA: Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium infection in patients with hematologic malignancy: patients with acute myeloid leukemia are at high-risk. Eur J Haematol. 2007, 79: 226-233. 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2007.00911.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Peel T, Cheng AC, Spelman T, Huysmans M, Spelman D: Differing risk factors for vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-sensitive enterococcal bacteraemia. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2011, 18: 388-394.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Patel R: Clinical impact of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003, 51 (iii): 13-21.Google Scholar
  33. Kaye KS, Harris AD, Samore M, Carmeli Y: The case-case–control study design: addressing the limitations of risk factor studies for antimicrobial resistance. Infect Contr Hosp Epidemiol. 2005, 26: 346-351. 10.1086/502550.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Barrall DT, Kenney PR, Slotman GJ, Burchard KW: Enterococcal bacteremia in surgical patients. Arch Surg. 1985, 120: 57-63. 10.1001/archsurg.1985.01390250049008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pallares R, Pujol M, Pena C, Ariza J, Martin R, Gudiol F: Cephalosporins as risk factor for nosocomial Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia: a matched case–control study. Arch Intern Med. 1993, 153: 1581-1586. 10.1001/archinte.1993.00410130103010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mikulska M, Del Bono V, Prinapori R, Boni L, Raiola A, Gualandi F, Van Lint M, Dominietto A, Lamparelli T, Cappellano P, Bacigalupo A, Viscoli C: Risk factors for enterococcal bacteremia in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Transpl Infect Dis. 2010, 12: 505-512. 10.1111/j.1399-3062.2010.00544.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Gray J, Marsh PJ, Stewart D, Pedler SJ: Enterococcal bacteraemia: a prospective study of 125 episodes. J Hosp Infect. 1994, 27: 179-186. 10.1016/0195-6701(94)90125-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Caballero-Granado FJ, Becerril B, Cisneros JM, Cuberos L, Moreno I, Pachon J: Case–control study of risk factors for the development of enterococcal bacteremia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2001, 20: 83-90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sitges-Serra A, Lopez M, Girvent M, Almirall S, Sancho J: Postoperative enterococcal infection after treatment of complicated intra-abdominal sepsis. Br J Surg. 2002, 89: 361-367. 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.02023.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Patel R, Badley AD, Larson-Keller J, Harmsen WS, Ilstrup DM, Wiesner RH, Steers JL, Krom RA, Portela D, Cockerill FR, Paya CV: Relevance and risk factors of enterococcal bacteremia following liver transplantation. Transplantation. 1996, 61: 1192-1197. 10.1097/00007890-199604270-00013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Dutka-Malen S, Evers S, Courvalin P: Detection of glycopeptide resistance genotypes and identification to the species level of clinically relevant enterococci by PCR. J Clin Microbiol. 1995, 33: 24-27.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. McGregor JC, Perencevich EN, Furuno JP, Langenberg P, Flannery K, Zhu J, Fink JC, Bradham DD, Harris AD: Comorbidity risk-adjustment measures were developed and validated for studies of antibiotic-resistant infections. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59: 1266-1273. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Pregibon D: Goodness of link tests for generalized linear models. J Roy Stat Soc C Appl Stat. 1980, 29: 15-24.Google Scholar
  44. Suppola JP, Kuikka A, Vaara M, Valtonen VV: Comparison of risk factors and outcome in patients with Enterococcus faecalis vs Enterococcus faecium bacteraemia. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998, 30: 153-157. 10.1080/003655498750003546.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Donskey CJ, Chowdhry TK, Hecker MT, Hoyen CK, Hanrahan JA, Hujer AM, Hutton-Thomas RA, Whalen CC, Bonomo RA, Rice LB: Effect of antibiotic therapy on the density of vancomycin-resistant Enterococci in the stool of colonized patients. New Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 1925-1932. 10.1056/NEJM200012283432604.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Taur Y, Xavier JB, Lipuma L, Ubeda C, Goldberg J, Gobourne A, Lee YJ, Dubin KA, Socci ND, Viale A, Perales MA, Jenq RR, van den Brink MR, Pamer EG: Intestinal domination and the risk of bacteremia in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2012, 55: 905-914. 10.1093/cid/cis580.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Harris A, Samore M, Lipsitch M, Kaye K, Perencevich E, Carmeli Y: Control-group selection importance in studies of antimicrobial resistance: examples applied to Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococci, and Escherichia coli. Clin Infect Dis. 2002, 34: 1558-1563. 10.1086/340533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Timmers GJ, van der Zwet WC, Simoons-Smit IM, Savelkoul PH, Meester HH, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CM, Huijgens PC: Outbreak of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium in a haematology unit: risk factor assessment and successful control of the epidemic. Br J Haematol. 2002, 116: 826-833. 10.1046/j.0007-1048.2002.03339.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sedgwick P: Case–control studies: sources of bias. BMJ. 2011, 343: d6284-10.1136/bmj.d6284.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/14/353/prepub

Copyright

© Cheah et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement