Beam, Elena

Background: We describe an investigation of a cluster of eight Corynebacterium amycolatum sternal surgical site infections (SSIs) that occurred among cardiac surgery patients from February to October 2025. Although C. amycolatum is a member of the skin microbiota, clinically significant infections caused by this organism may occur in cardiac surgery patients. Methods: The investigation included retrospective reviews of SSIs, clinical cultures and medical records, surgical observations, and operating room (OR) assessment. Line lists of surgical case criteria and infection prevention practices were created to assess common factors among cases (e.g., staffing, instrumentation, equipment, skin preparation and antisepsis, nasal decolonization, antibiotic protocols, and closure). Whole genome sequencing of isolates was performed and analyzed using SNIPPY for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based phylogenetic analysis. Results: Phylogenetic analysis indicated isolates from five of eight case patients who had cardiac surgeries occurring over a six-week period from February to April 2025 were genetically related (?7 SNPs across the genome), suggesting a common source of infection. These five isolates were ceftriaxone, meropenem, and penicillin resistant. The other three case patient isolates were unrelated (<3181 to <15,000 SNPs); two were ceftriaxone, meropenem and penicillin resistant (one also doxycycline intermediate resistant), and the third penicillin resistant. Use of sternal tape for closure was identified as a recent practice change. Four of five genetically related cases involved the same surgeons and suture tape for sternal closure (wire for all other cases). Sternal tape was discontinued with three cases occurring afterwards. Seven patients completed chlorhexidine gluconate bathing and nasal decolonization. Hair was removed in the OR with reusable surgical clippers. All received the same skin antiseptic, and antibiotic prophylaxis was appropriate. No trends were identified in instrument or equipment use. Broad infection control measures were implemented, including surgical clipper replacement, OR cleaning and ultraviolet light disinfection, headlamp cleaning, and environmental repairs. Leadership was engaged through frequent meetings and audits. Infection control practices such as minimizing OR traffic, double gloving, glove changes, and strict adherence to hand hygiene and attire were reinforced. Two of eight cases occurred after these recommendations were completed but were not genetically related to the primary cluster. Conclusion: We describe a cluster of invasive C. amycolatum sternotomy SSIs. Only two genetically unrelated cases of C. amycolatum occurred following infection control investigation and interventions, underscoring the effectiveness of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach. This organism has rarely been reported as a cause of SSIs and may be an emerging pathogen.

Background: Measles is a highly transmissible virus. A single case can result in significant exposures within a healthcare facility and prompt action is needed to prevent secondary cases. In October 2025, Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) was notified of a patient being admitted to our facility with recent international travel and symptoms consistent with measles. The patient was unvaccinated and had five healthcare facility visits prior to measles being suspected and subsequently confirmed. Objective: To describe our facility’s effective identification, prioritization, and prophylaxis of individuals exposed to measles. Methods: IPAC leveraged the electronic medical record to identify potentially exposed patients. Patients were quickly assessed for age and immune status, then prioritized and assigned to primary care teams. These teams promptly contacted patients and coordinated PEP administration. Results: Across five encounters, the index patient exposed 539 other patients. Due to delayed notification, our teams had less than four days to administer PEP for those exposed and still within PEP window. PEP administration began within hours of the index case’s positive test and patients received PEP within three days (Table 1). No secondary measles cases occurred within our facility. Conclusion: Timely and coordinated multidisciplinary effort enabled us to rapidly respond to our first measles case and control secondary transmission. Although the index case resulted in a large exposure, patients that were exposed and eligible for PEP were quickly prioritized to prevent secondary transmission.

Background: Advanced planning and adaptable response strategies are essential for preventing measles transmission in healthcare facilities. Objective: To describe a measles management plan and subsequent modifications in response to a cluster of measles cases. Methods: Drawing on previously published work (doi:10.1017/ice.2025.49), the Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) team initiated a multi-disciplinary team and developed a measles preparedness plan with the following domains: Guidance and education; early detection and testing; isolation and patient movement; contact tracing and exposure management (Table 1). In October 2025, a patient was admitted during their fifth healthcare encounter and was diagnosed with measles. Two family members were later hospitalized with measles. Delayed recognition of the first case prompted enhancements to our preparedness framework (Table 1). Results: The first case resulted in 539 exposed patients. The second resulted in 87 exposures, and the third resulted in no exposure. Despite the extensive exposure, zero secondary measles were reported. Conclusion: Proactive planning enabled rapid response to our first case and controlled secondary transmission. Despite extensive planning, delayed identification of the first case caused significant exposures. As the cluster unfolded, we refined our plan, resulting in zero exposures from the last patient and zero secondary cases, despite over 850 exposures. These efforts may guide other healthcare facilities in improving their measles preparedness and response.

ABSTRACT Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for developing recurrent clinically significant cytomegalovirus infections (csCMVi) in heart transplant recipients. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving adult heart transplant recipients at three large transplant centers in the United States between January 2011 and March 2019. All patients with a history of csCMVi, defined as CMV disease or CMV infection requiring preemptive therapy, were followed from the date of treatment completion for the primary csCMVi episode. Outcomes of interest were recurrent csCMVi and all‐cause mortality. Results Among 98 heart transplant recipients with csCMVi, 22 (22.4%) episodes of recurrent csCMVi occurred. Median time‐to‐recurrent csCMVi was 31.5 (IQR 21.3–59.8) days following treatment completion. A preceding episode of CMV disease (versus infection) was associated with a lower risk of recurrent csCMVi (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08–0.98; p = 0.047). Patients with lymphopenia had higher rates of recurrent csCMVi without statistical significance (HR 2.13, 95% CI 0.88–5.13; p = 0.093). Seroconversion by the end‐of‐therapy among CMV D+/R− mismatched patients was associated with a reduced risk of csCMVi recurrence (HR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.30; p < 0.001). Overall, 17 (17.3%) patients died during follow‐up, which was not significantly higher among those with recurrent csCMVi (HR 2.13, 95% CI 0.78–5.79; p = 0.141). Conclusions About one in five heart recipients with csCMVi developed post‐treatment recurrence. A preceding episode of CMV disease and seroconversion was protective against recurrence. Lymphopenia may be a practical biomarker to stratify recurrence risk. Overall, recurrent csCMVi was not significantly associated with mortality.

Background. Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients is rare. We aim to investigate the pretransplant seroprevalence, MMR infection posttransplant, and whether immediate pretransplant MMR vaccination is associated with MMR infection. Methods. We queried the TriNetX database in December 2024 to assess (1) pretransplant MMR seroprevalence, (2) characteristics and outcomes of posttransplant MMR infections, and (3) outcomes for recipients who received the MMR vaccine within 30 d pretransplant. Only US data were included. MMR infection was identified through International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Results. Among 313 548 SOT recipients identified in the database (from 2009 to 2024), IgG positivity for MMR was 72%, 80%, and 78% when available (~5% each). Based on ICD codes, posttransplant MMR infections occurred in 107 (0.03%), 124 (0.04%), and 38 (0.01%) recipients, respectively. The 90-d rejection rates were 36%, 27%, and 42%, whereas mortality rates were 7%, 8%, and 5%, respectively, in patients with MMR infection. Among 114 recipients vaccinated within 30 d pretransplant, none developed posttransplant MMR infections. Conclusions. Overall, posttransplant MMR infections in adult SOT recipients were uncommon in this data set, and no vaccine-associated infections were documented among those who received the MMR vaccine within 30 d pretransplant in real-world practice. The primary limitation of this study is that most MMR infections were identified using ICD codes without confirmation through serological testing or polymerase chain reaction, and we were unable to further characterize the infections because the de-identified database lacked information on the patient’s ZIP code and transplant hospital. Our study highlights the need for improvement in MMR serology screening and pretransplant MMR vaccination.

ABSTRACTIntroductionVaccination is crucial to the thoracic solid organ transplant (SOT) population to reduce vaccine‐preventable infection. However, data on posttransplant hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination compliance and vaccine‐induced seroprotection are lacking.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of adult thoracic organ (heart and lung) transplant recipients at Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida between January 2018 and August 2023. Recombivax HB was used before 2020, and Heplisav‐B was preferred after 2020. Recipients with posttransplant hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb) < 10 IU/L were eligible for the HBV vaccine. HBV seroprotection was defined as an HBsAb ≥ 10 IU/L.ResultsA total of 1116 recipients were evaluated, all of whom underwent posttransplant HBsAb testing. Of these, 751 (67%) had an HBsAb level < 10 IU/L and were eligible for posttransplant HBV vaccination. Of the eligible recipients, 117 (16%) completed the HBV vaccine series during the study period. Among these 117 recipients, 40 (34%) had their HBsAb levels rechecked after completing the vaccine series, with a seroprotection rate of 37.5% (15/40). There was no statistically significant difference in the seroprotection rates between Heplisav‐B and Recombivax HB vaccines (39% [13/33] vs. 29% [2/7]; p = 0.691). In addition, HBsAb levels were lowest at week 2 but rebounded at week 4 posttransplant and pretransplant HBsAb levels of ≥100 IU/L ensured 5‐year seroprotection.ConclusionSuboptimal compliance with HBV vaccination and poor vaccine‐induced seroprotection occur in thoracic organ transplant recipients, regardless of the vaccine used. These findings underscore the necessity of enhancing vaccination strategies for SOT recipients. image

Abstract Based on expert consensus, the American Society of Transplantation recommends 7–14 days of preventive antibiotic therapy for solid organ transplant recipients from donors with positive blood cultures. We evaluated management and outcomes of kidney transplant recipients from these donors.