Heterogeneous Vancomycin‐Intermediate Susceptibility Phenotype in Bloodstream Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates from an International Cohort of Patients with Infective Endocarditis: Prevalence, Genotype, and Clinical Significance
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The significance of heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus (hVISA) is unknown. Using a multinational collection of isolates from methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infective endocarditis (IE), we characterized patients with IE with and without hVISA, and we genotyped the infecting strains. METHODS: MRSA bloodstream isolates from 65 patients with definite IE from 8 countries underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for 31 virulence genes, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and multilocus sequence typing. hVISA was defined using population analysis profiling. RESULTS: Nineteen (29.2%) of 65 MRSA IE isolates exhibited the hVISA phenotype by population analysis profiling. Isolates from Oceania and Europe were more likely to exhibit the hVISA phenotype than isolates from the United States (77.8% and 35.0% vs 13.9%; P < .001). The prevalence of hVISA was higher among isolates with a vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentration of 2 mg/L (P = .026). hVISA-infected patients were more likely to have persistent bacteremia (68.4% vs 37.0%; P = .029) and heart failure (47.4% vs 19.6%; P = .033). Mortality did not differ between hVISA- and non-hVISA-infected patients (42.1% vs 34.8%, P = .586). hVISA and non-hVISA isolates were genotypically similar. CONCLUSIONS: In these analyses, the hVISA phenotype occurred in more than one-quarter of MRSA IE isolates, was associated with certain IE complications, and varied in frequency by geographic region.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Published studies estimate that the overall prevalence of MRSA strains with hVISA/VISA profile ranges between 0 and 8.24%, but it can be as high as 30% in selected populations (e.g. patients with MRSA infective endocarditis).
“Published studies estimate that the overall prevalence of MRSA strains with hVISA/VISA profile range between 0 and 8.24%, but it can be as high as 30% in selected populations (e.g. patients with MRSA infective endocarditis) (102, 103).”
From Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance (2016) · cites this paper as [103]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 122
- Authors
- Bae, I., Federspiel, J. J., Miró, J. M., Woods, C. W., Park, L., Rybak, M. J., Rude, T. H., Bradley, S., Bukovski, S., de la Maria, C. G., Kanj, S. S., Korman, T. M., Marco, F., Murdoch, D. R., Plesiat, P., Rodriguez‐Creixems, M., Reinbott, P., Steed, L., Tattevin, P., Tripodi, M., Newton, K. L., Corey, G. R., & Fowler Jr, V. G.
- Affiliations
- Gyeongsang National University (KR)
- Duke Medical Center (US)
- Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
- Wayne State University (US)
- Ann Arbor VA Medical Center (US)
- University Hospital for Infectious Diseases "Dr Fran Mihaljevic" (HR)
- American University of Beirut Medical Center (LB)
- Monash Medical Centre (AU)
- University of Otago (NZ)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- Hôpital Pontchaillou (FR)
- University of Naples Federico II (IT)
- Corresponding author
- Bae, In‐Gyu
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-11
- Volume
- 200
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1355-1366
- ISSN
- 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6613
- PMC
- PMC3600359
- OpenAlex
- W2147674033
- Cited by
- 122
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 8.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI059111)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Keywords
- heterogeneous vancomycin-intermediate Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, infective endocarditis, bloodstream isolates, vancomycin resistance, virulence genes, multilocus sequence typing, persistent bacteremia, heart failure, mortality, regional variation, population analysis profiling
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Endocarditis, Bacterial, Female, Genotype, Humans, Male, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Middle Aged, Phenotype, Phylogeny, Population Surveillance, Staphylococcal Infections, Global Health, Prevalence, Bacteremia, Vancomycin Resistance, Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review