MRSA Discussion Forum USA and Canada |
Home
1
| number of replies (6) - Page 1 of 1 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
negative coagulation??
Started by abcdeb |
Posted: December 17, 2009 at 22:46 | |
|
Hello, everyone, and thank you again for listening! A few questions: I've had three negative nasal swabs. I'm not a carrier, apparently, but could I still have MRSA on my skin and infect myself or others? I have started to boost my immune system and I bathe with Hibiclens - everything I learned here! I could not be more terrified to get it again. I almost have a heart attack with every little red bump I see. I was never officially diagnosed with MRSA, but the surgeon who did the I and D said it looked like MRSA. He gave me doxycycline and it cleared right up. No culture or anything (he said there was no pus). I've had three lesions in two years, all in the same spot. I can't imagine what else it could be. Lastly, one of my dogs was diagnosed with MRSA. He had some skin lesions that the vet said was allergies, but I finally insisted on a culture. They said it was MRSA, but wasn't a "true" form of MRSA because it coagulated negatively, and that it was no more dangerous than any other skin infection. Does this make sense to you? What does that mean? Happy holidays to everybody, and thank you again for your time. 15834
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #1 by Nancy R |
Posted: December 17, 2009 at 23:12 | |
|
Did a vet do the test? I really haven't a clue whether that makes any sense or not. I would ask my ID to talk to the vet and make a decision based on both of their experience. I have learned to never just take one doctor's word when it comes to MRSA. Frankly, I assume your dog got it from you. If not, he likely passed it to you. That would make it zoonotic, or a pathogen than can cross species lines and infect.I just think it sounds suspicious to me. 15835
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #2 by abcdeb |
Posted: December 17, 2009 at 23:25 | |
|
Hi, Nancy, Yes, the vet did a skin scraping and culture. That's what they told me, and that it was sensitive to Erithromycin (sp?), but not doxycycline, which is what worked for me. Maybe we had two different kinds - I don't know. I'm sure one of us gave it to the other, but it seemed like we both kind of had it at the same time. It's definitely zoonotic, though. The bellamossfoundation.com has an awesome website about this. I was just wondering what negative coagulation really means. 15836
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #3 by Pauly |
Posted: December 18, 2009 at 10:44 | |
|
ABCDEB: Background Staphylococcal infections are usually caused by the organism Staphylococcus aureus. However, the incidence of infections due to Staphylococcus epidermidis and other coagulase-negative staphylococci has been steadily increasing in recent years. This article focuses on S aureus but also discusses infections caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci when important differences exist. Pathophysiology S aureus is a gram-positive coccus that is both catalase- and coagulase-positive. Colonies are golden and strongly hemolytic on blood agar. They produce a range of toxins, including alpha-toxin, beta-toxin, gamma-toxin, delta-toxin, exfoliatin, enterotoxins, Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL), and toxic shock syndrome toxin–1 (TSST-1). The enterotoxins and TSST-1 are associated with toxic shock syndrome. PVL is associated with necrotic skin1 and lung infections and has been shown to be a major virulence factor for pneumonia2 and osteomyelitis.3 Coagulase-negative staphylococci, particularly S epidermidis, produce an exopolysaccharide (slime) that promotes foreign-body adherence and resistance to phagocytosis. Frequency United States Up to 80% of people are eventually colonized with S aureus. Most are colonized only intermittently; 20-30% are persistently colonized. Colonization rates in health care workers, persons with diabetes, and patients on dialysis are higher than in the general population. The anterior nares are the predominant site of colonization in adults; carriage here has been associated with the development of bacteremia.4 Other potential sites of colonization include the throat,5 axilla, rectum, and perineum. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/228816-overview There's more info at this site & you can google negative coagulase staphylococcus for even more info. What kind of nasal swabs did you have? I was told by a doctor after a Nares for MRSA that I didn't have MRSA. That if I had it anywhere in my body, it would show up in the nostrils. I found out since that this isn't the case. Also that the Mupirocin, Hibiclens & Bactrim she placed me on prior to the test negated the results. How soon after the Doxycycline or any other antibiotic, did you have the swabs? Were you bathing w/ Hibiclens at the time? If so, the swab probably wouldn't have picked up MRSA on your skin. I have to wonder why they did 3 swabs & not a blood culture for MRSA. Then again, I'm suspicious of doctors because of my experiences since I tested positve for MRSA. The results they never notified me about. Have you received the reports of the swabs. If not, it's probably a very good idea. If it loooked like MRSA, why wasn't the lesion swabbed? You don't need pus to swab a lesion, wound or incision. It could have been another bacteria. Was there drainage before you saw the surgeon? Did it drain into the tissue? I would ask for a blood culture. Especially since your dog was positive. Happy Holidays. 15840
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #4 by abcdeb |
Posted: December 19, 2009 at 15:15 | |
|
Thank you, Pauly! It appears my vet was correct - it was not a true form of MRSA. On my bill from the lab, it said MRSA screen by PCR, or something like that. My first nasal swab was a bit over two weeks since the Doxycycline, and I had never even heard of Hibiclens then. The next one was about a week later, and I had started with Hibiclens for a few days prior. My doctor (PCP) said you're not negative until you have three negative nasal swabs. They did try to swab the lesion last year (which looked exactly the same and was in the exact same spot as the one this year), but nothing ever grew. They don't drain. Please forgive the "ick factor", but they just make a round little bump inside my skin, and the middle gets kind of crusty. Nothing ever seems to comes out. The doctor said that's my body walling off the infection, and to not pick at it. All around it, though, gets very red and angry looking, like a sunburst. My lymph nodes also get quite swollen near the lesion. I finally have an appointment with an ID, but I have to travel two hours. Here, the IDs only see patients in hospitals. Pauly, I've read your posts, too, and I want to wish you the very best. Please keep us up to date. Thank you again. 15847
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #5 by ladyk |
Posted: December 20, 2009 at 16:34 | |
|
Abcdeb – Three negative nare cultures is common protocol often implemented to clear one… decolonize/for surgery/re-entry into the work force. Be ever mindful this is temporary, carrier status is transient as bacteria come and go. You wrote: ["but could I still have MRSA on my skin and infect myself or others?"] Yes. The thing about MRSA is it offers no immunity, meaning you can become infected over and over. This is why topical ‘maintenance’ is necessary. Are you sure Veterinarian’s office didn’t say coagulase-negative? Since MRSA is often erythromycin/macrolide resistant, and MRSA is gram positive-coagulase positive… this does not indicate MRSA is the bacteria you are dealing with. One should always demand culture to avoid speculation, and more importantly avoid inappropriate antibiotic treatment which only complicates an already complicated situation. Microbiology There are more than 30 species currently recognized in the genus staphylococcus, which are members of the Micrococcaceae family. Staphylococci have a tendency to form irregular clusters, produce catalase, and do not form spores. Staphylococcus epidermidis accounts for more than half of resident staphylococci with extensive distribution over the body surface. *S. epidermidis is clearly predominant, comprising more than 75 percent of coagulase-negative staphylococci in clinical specimens; this is perhaps due to its sheer numbers on the skin surface. Staphylococcus bacteria are prevalent all around us, found on both healthy skin, and also within mucous membranes of the body. In each species, there are two strains… coagulase positive or coagulase negative staph. The difference between coagulase-negative and coagulase positive is the constitution of the bacteria and the ways it can affect the body of an individual. The bacteria has the ability to form clusters on solid materials, such as bench tops, door handles, utensils and other objects within the home or medical setting which are then passed to those who come into contact with those objects. The deadliest form of this kind of bacteria is called the methicillin resistant staph aureus MRSA. When 'coagulase-negative' staph infections occur these are called as such because of the productive capacity to produce coagulase. Coagulase affects fibrinogen, which is an important factor for blood clotting. Coagulase-negative staph infections have taken on the antibiotic resistant characteristics of MRSA. This becomes alarming because it proves that the bacteria is constantly mutating and adapting to antibiotics and medical treatment. Hope this helps. ladyk 15850
|
||
|
Re: negative coagulation??
Reply #6 by linda mccafferty |
Posted: January 2, 2010 at 12:21 | |
|
An interesting read for animal lovers ......http://www.wormsandgermsblog.com/articles/diseases/test-subcategory/ 15978
|
||