Prospective observational study of prior rectal colonization status as a predictor for subsequent development of Pseudomonas aeruginosa clinical infections

Abstract

The potential role of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) intestinal colonization in the subsequent development of infections has not been thoroughly investigated. The aims of this study were to assess the role of PA intestinal colonization as a predictor of subsequent infections and to investigate the risk factors associated with the development of PA infection in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). For this purpose, a prospective study was conducted that included (i) active surveillance of PA rectal colonization at ICU admission and weekly until ICU discharge, (ii) detection of PA clinical infections, and (iii) genotypic analysis by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). A total of 414 patients were included, of whom 179 (43%) were colonized with PA. Among the 77 patients who developed PA infection, 69 (90%) had prior PA colonization, and 60 (87%) of these showed genotyping concordance between rectal and clinical isolates. The probability of PA infection 14 days after ICU admission was 26% for carriers versus 5% for noncarriers (P < 0.001). Cox regression analysis identified prior PA rectal colonization as the main predictor of PA infection (hazard ratio [HR], 15.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.9 to 33.7; P < 0.001). Prior use of nonantipseudomonal penicillins was also identified as an independent variable associated with PA infection (HR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.55; P < 0.003). Our study demonstrated that prior PA rectal colonization is a key factor for developing PA infection.

FIG 1

Flow diagram of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) clinical infection selection process, indicating episode.

FIG 2

Survival curves showing the probability of developing Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) infection based on rectal colonization status. The start of the risk period was defined as the ICU admission. Solid line, noncolonized patients; dashed line, PA-colonized patients. The areas of 95% confidence intervals of both groups are shown.