T D Waite1, A Georgiou2, M Abrishami2, C R Beck3. 1. Field Epidemiology Training Programme, Public Health England, Bristol, UK; European Programme for Interventional Epidemiology Training, Stockholm, Sweden; Field Epidemiology Service South West, Public Health England, Bristol, UK; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Electronic address: Thomas.waite@phe.gov.uk. 2. Royal United Hospitals NHS Trust, Bath, UK. 3. Field Epidemiology Service South West, Public Health England, Bristol, UK; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In June 2014, a cluster of identical S. maltophilia isolates was reported in an adult intensive care unit (ICU) at a district general hospital. An outbreak control team was convened to investigate the cluster and inform control measures. AIM: To identify potential risk factors for isolation of S. maltophilia in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of ICU patients for whom a bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimen was submitted between October 2013 and October 2014. Cases were patients with S. maltophilia-positive BAL. We calculated the association between isolation of S. maltophilia and patient characteristics using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and univariate logistic regression. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used. BAL specimens were microbiologically typed using pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). FINDINGS: Eighteen patients met the case definition. Two patients had clinical presentations that warranted antibiotic treatment for S. maltophilia. All cases were exposed to bronchoscopy. PFGE typing revealed clusters of two strain types. We found statistically significant elevated risks of isolating BRISPOSM-4 in patients exposed to bronchoscope A (RR: 13.56; 95% CI: 1.82-100; P < 0.001) and BRISPOSM-3 in patients exposed to bronchoscope B (RR: 16.89; 95% CI: 2.14-133; P < 0.001). S. maltophilia type BRISPOSM-4 was isolated in water used to flush bronchoscope A after decontamination. CONCLUSION: Two pseudo-outbreaks occurred in which BAL specimens had been contaminated by reusable bronchoscopes. We cannot exclude the potential for colonization of the lower respiratory tract of exposed patients. Introduction of single-use bronchoscopes was an effective control measure. Crown
BACKGROUND: In June 2014, a cluster of identical S. maltophilia isolates was reported in an adult intensive care unit (ICU) at a district general hospital. An outbreak control team was convened to investigate the cluster and inform control measures. AIM: To identify potential risk factors for isolation of S. maltophilia in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of ICU patients for whom a bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimen was submitted between October 2013 and October 2014. Cases were patients with S. maltophilia-positive BAL. We calculated the association between isolation of S. maltophilia and patient characteristics using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and univariate logistic regression. Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests were used. BAL specimens were microbiologically typed using pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). FINDINGS: Eighteen patients met the case definition. Two patients had clinical presentations that warranted antibiotic treatment for S. maltophilia. All cases were exposed to bronchoscopy. PFGE typing revealed clusters of two strain types. We found statistically significant elevated risks of isolating BRISPOSM-4 in patients exposed to bronchoscope A (RR: 13.56; 95% CI: 1.82-100; P < 0.001) and BRISPOSM-3 in patients exposed to bronchoscope B (RR: 16.89; 95% CI: 2.14-133; P < 0.001). S. maltophilia type BRISPOSM-4 was isolated in water used to flush bronchoscope A after decontamination. CONCLUSION: Two pseudo-outbreaks occurred in which BAL specimens had been contaminated by reusable bronchoscopes. We cannot exclude the potential for colonization of the lower respiratory tract of exposed patients. Introduction of single-use bronchoscopes was an effective control measure. Crown
Authors: Ariadnna Cruz-Córdova; Jetsi Mancilla-Rojano; Víctor M Luna-Pineda; Gerardo Escalona-Venegas; Vicenta Cázares-Domínguez; Christopher Ormsby; Isabel Franco-Hernández; Sergio Zavala-Vega; Mónica Andrés Hernández; Marisol Medina-Pelcastre; Israel Parra-Ortega; Daniela De la Rosa-Zamboni; Sara A Ochoa; Juan Xicohtencatl-Cortes Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Javier Flandes; Luis Fernando Giraldo-Cadavid; Javier Alfayate; Iker Fernández-Navamuel; Carlos Agusti; Carmen M Lucena; Antoni Rosell; Felipe Andreo; Carmen Centeno; Carmen Montero; Iria Vidal; Lucía García-Alfonso; Antonio Bango; Miguel Ariza; Rocío Gallego; Marta Orta; Salvador Bello; Elisa Mincholé; Alfons Torrego; Virginia Pajares; Héctor González; Aurelio Luis Wangüemert; Julio Pérez-Izquierdo; Carlos Disdier; Blanca de Vega Sanchez; Rosa Cordovilla; Juan Cascón; Antonio Cruz; J Javier García-López; Luis Puente; Paola Benedetti; Cristina L García-Gallo; Gema Díaz Nuevo; Silvia Aguado; Concepción Partida; Prudencio Díaz-Agero; Estefanía Luque Crespo; María Pavón; Francisco Páez; Enrique Cases; Raquel Martínez; Andrés Briones; Cleofe Fernández; Concepción Martín Serrano; Ana Maria Uribe-Hernández; Jose Robles Journal: Respir Res Date: 2020-12-02
Authors: Stefanie Kampmeier; Mike H Pillukat; Aleksandra Pettke; Annelene Kossow; Evgeny A Idelevich; Alexander Mellmann Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 4.887