Surveillance of nosocomial infections, like catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), central line-associated bloodstream infection, possible ventilator-associated pneumonia and secondary bloodstream infections were observed to study the impact of COVID-19 outbreak in ICUs from Tan Tock Seng Hospital and National Centre for Infectious Diseases, Singapore between February and June 2020. Higher nosocomial infection rates were observed in COVID-19 patients, although it was not statistically significant. Moreover, COVID-19 patients seem to be more predisposed to CAUTI despite a higher proportion of non-COVID-19 patients having urinary catheters. Thus, continued vigilance to ensure adherence to IPC measures is needed.
We conducted a prospective environmental surveillance study to investigate the air, surface, dust and water contamination of a room occupied by a patient infected with Monkeypox virus (MPXV) at various stages of his illness. The patient tested positive for MPXV from a throat swab and skin lesions. Environmental sampling was conducted in a negative pressure room with 12 unidirectional HEPA air changes per hour and daily cleaning of the surfaces. A total of 179 environmental samples were collected on days 7, 8, 13, and 21 of his illness. Air, surface, and dust contamination was highest during the first eight days of the illness, with a gradual decline to the lowest contamination level by day 21. Viable MPXV was isolated from surfaces and dust samples and no viable virus was isolated from the air and water samples.
Objectives: In this study, we compared the performance of a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method in detecting carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPOs) and its impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) measures compared with a culture PCR method. Methods: All patients requiring CPO screening were included. Rectal swabs were collected with double rayon swabs (Copan 139C). They were simultaneously analyzed for the presence of CPOs using rapid PCR assay (Xpert Carba-R assay, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) and a culture–PCR method (ChromID CARBA-SMART, bioMerieux, Marcy-l’Etoile, France). For CARBA-SMART, only colored colonies (ie, Enterobacterales) were evaluated for CPOs according to the prevailing institutional protocol. We tracked time to CPO detection. Using CPO positivity from either the rapid PCR or the culture PCR method as the gold standard, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of both tests. We calculated the number of epidemiologically linked contacts generated when the first test results were known. We prospectively followed the ward census to identify the putative additional number of contacts generated by the later known result. Contacts were patients who shared the same ward (with overlapping time) as the CPO patients. Results: Between April 2019 and June 2020, culture PCR method detected CPOs in 316 (1.3%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 211; blaNDM, N = 51; blaIMI, N = 21; blaIMP, N = 10; blaKPC, N = 9; mixed genotypes, N = 14). The rapid PCR test detected CPOs in 605(2.5%) of 24,514 samples (blaOXA48, N = 266; blaNDM, N = 161; blaIMP, N = 99; blaVIM, N = 29; blaKPC, N = 15; mixed genotypes, N = 35). The sensitivity of direct PCR and culture PCR methods were 94.2% (95% CI, 92.1%–95.8%) and 43.5% (95% CI, 39.6%–47.4%), respectively. Both tests had 100% specificity. The median times to detection for the rapid PCR and culture PCR methods were 3–4 hours and 4 days, respectively. Compared with rapid PCR, the culture PCR method generated additional 7,415 contacts when it also tested positive for CPOs and an additional 23,135 contacts when it tested negative for CPOs. Conclusions: In our study, the rapid PCR test was more sensitive, identified CPO faster, and generated fewer epidemiologically linked contacts than the culture PCR method.
Objectives: In healthcare facilities, environmental reservoirs of CPE are associated with CPE outbreaks. In the newly built NCID building, we studied the introduction of CPE in the aqueous environment. Methods: We sampled the aqueous environments (ie, sink, sink strainer, and shower drain-trap with Copan E-swabs and sink P-trap water) of 4 NCID wards (ie, 2 multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) wards and 2 non-MDRO wards). Two sampling cycles (cycle 1, June–July 2019 and cycle 2, September–November 2019) were conducted in all 4 wards. Cycle 3 (November 2020) was conducted in 1 non-MDRO ward to investigate CPE colonization from previous cycles. Enterobacterales were identified using MALDI-TOF MS and underwent phenotypic (mCIM and eCIM) and confirmatory PCR tests for CPE. Results: We collected 448, 636, and 96 samples in cycles 1, 2, and 3, respectively. MDRO and non-MDRO wards were operational for 1 and 7 months during the first sampling cycle. The CPE prevalence rates in MDRO wards were 1.67% (95% CI, 0.46% – 4.21%) in cycle 1 and 1.76% (95% CI, 0.65% – 3.80%) in cycle 2. In the aqueous environments in MDRO wards, multiple species were detected (cycle 1: 2 K. pneumoniae, 1 E. coli, and 1 S. marcescens; cycle 2: 5 K. pneumoniae and 1 R. planticola), and multiple genotypes were detected (cycle 1: 3 blaOXA48; cycle 2: 5 blaOXA48 and 1 blaKPC). The CPE prevalence in non-MDRO wards was 1.92% (95% CI, 0.53%–4.85%) in cycle 1. The prevalence rate increased by 5.51% (95% CI, 1.99%–9.03%) to 7.43% (95% CI, 4.72%–11.04%; P = .006) in cycle 2, and by another 2.98% (95% CI, −3.82% to 9.79%) to 10.42% (95% CI, 5.11% – 18.3%; P = .353) in cycle 3. Only blaOXA48 S. marcescens were detected in all cycles (except 1 blaOXA48 K. pneumoniae in cycle 2) in the non-MDRO ward. Conclusions: CPE established rapidly in the aqueous environment of NCID wards, more so in MDRO wards than non-MDRO wards. Longitudinal studies to understand the further expansion of the CPE colonization and its impact on patients are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.