Exposure to Brucella in the laboratory

Zervos, Marcus J.; Bostic, Grace

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)61599-1

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three employees worked with isolates outside a BSC after misinterpretation of the Gram stain, all of whom developed LAB (27,35). Nine workers reportedly sniffed a culture plate of Brucella, five of whom developed LAB (AR, 56%) (13,14,28,(36)(37)(38). Exposure to Brucella sp.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Serological monitoring of exposed workers was described in 6 of 28 case reports and included 72 exposed workers, of which 13 seroconverted (14,28,30,32,38,44). A standard or microagglutination assay was used in each instance; however, one individual was treated for brucellosis based on IgM antibody detection using indirect fluorescence, although the Brucella microagglutination test results were negative (not categorized as a LAB case) (44).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Manipulation of unknown isolates in a BSC is considered unnecessary by some (65); however, this review suggests that it is a primary safety measure to prevent LAB, particularly for slow-growing Gramnegative or Gram-variable organisms. In addition, risky diagnos-tic methods, such as mouth pipetting and sniffing plates, should be prohibited due to the associated risk of infection (13,14,28,(36)(37)(38).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Literature Review of Laboratory-Acquired Brucellosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bBrucellosis is a bacterial zoonotic disease which has been associated with laboratory-acquired infections. No recent reviews have addressed the characteristics of laboratory-acquired brucellosis (LAB). English-language literature was reviewed to identify reports of laboratory exposures to Brucella spp. and LAB cases between 1982 and 2007. Evaluation of 28 case reports identified 167 potentially exposed laboratory workers, of whom 71 had LAB. Nine reports were identified that summarized an additional 186 cases of LAB. Only 18 (11%) exposures were due to laboratory accidents, 147 (88%) exposures were due to aerosolization of organisms during routine identification activities, and the circumstances of 2 (1%) exposures were unknown. Brucella melitensis was the causative agent in 80% (135/167) of the exposures. Workers with high-risk exposures were 9.3 times more likely to develop LAB than workers with low-risk exposures (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 38.6; P < 0.0001); they were also 0.009 times likelier to develop LAB if they took antimicrobial PEP than if they did not (95% CI, 0 to 0.042; P < 0.0001). The median incubation period in case and summary reports was 8 weeks (range 1 to 40 weeks). Antimicrobial PEP is effective in preventing LAB. The incubation period may be used to identify appropriate serological and symptom surveillance time frames for exposed laboratory workers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Literature Review of Laboratory-Acquired Brucellosis

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Di er yandan, laboratuvar kaynakl enfeksiyonlar içinde bruselloz ilk s ralarda yer al r. Laboratuvar ile ili kili brusellozda s kl kla daha virülan olan Brucella melitensis etkendir. Laboratuvar çal -anlar nda bruselloz görülme riski %10-18 olarak bildirilmektedir (12). Hastalar n kan ve eklem s v s nda Brucella konsantrasyonu genellikle dü ük-tür.…”

Section: Brucella Türleriunclassified

“…Vakalar n ço unda bula tan aerosoller sorumludur (14). Santrifüj tüplerinin veya kan-kültür i elerinin k r lmas laboratuvar ile ili kili hastal kta minör bir role sahiptir ve vakalar n sadece %20'sinden sorumludur (12,15). Etkene maruziyet; plaklar n koklanmas , canl organizma ile aç k ortamlarda çal mak, eldiven, maske gibi koruyucu ekipman kullanmamak veya a zla pipetleme s ras nda olmaktad r (16,17).…”

Section: Brucella Türleriunclassified

Sağlık Çalışanlarında Enfeksiyon Riskleri ve Korunma II: Solunum Yoluyla Bulaşan Enfeksiyonlar

KARAHAN¹

2014

Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Mecmuası

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sa l k çal anlar n n çal t klar ortamda maruz kald klar en önemli mesleki hastal k ve ölüm nedeni enfeksiyonlard r. Enfeksiyon etkenlerinin sa l k personeline bula nda solunum yolu, kan ve di er vücut s v lar yla temastan sonra ikinci s rada yer almaktad r. Sa l k çal anlar na hava yoluyla bula an en önemli etkenlerden biri Mycobacterium tuberculosis olup sa l k çal -an nda tüberküloz görülme s kl ülkelerin geli mi li inin de bir göstergesi olarak kabul edilmektedir. Solunum yoluyla bula an di er önemli etkenler influenza virüsü ve laboratuvar çal anlar için Brucella türleridir. Bu derlemede sa l k çal anlar nda solunum yolu ile bula an enfeksiyon riskleri ele al nm ve bu risklerden korunma yollar na de inilmi tir.Anahtar Sözcükler: Sa l k personeli, enfeksiyon, etyoloji, korunma.The most important cause of occupational disease and mortality among healthcare workers is infections. Respiratory system is the second most frequent route for the transmission of infectious agents to healthcare workers following exposure to blood and other body fluids. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is one of the most important agents transmitted by airway to healthcare workers and the prevalance of tuberculosis in healthcare workers is regarded as a criteria for the development level of countries. Other agents transmitted by respiratory route are influenza virus and Brucella species for laboratory workers. In this review, infection risks transmitted by airway are covered and ways of protection are briefly discussed.Key Words: Healthcare worker, infection, ethiology, protection.Sa l k çal anlar n n meslek riskleri aras nda yer alan solunum yolu ile bulaan enfeksiyonlar önemli bir i gücü kayb nedenidir. Hastanelerde hava yoluyla bula an enfeksiyonlar, çevre-sel rezervuarlardan herhangi bir yolla (insanlar, hava ak m , su, in aat malzemeleri, cihazlar vb.) hastaneye giren mikroorganizmalar n, hastanede uygun bir ekolojik ortamda üremesi ve sonra havaya kar arak bir enfeksiyon kayna olu turmas yla geli mektedir (1).Solunum yolu enfeksiyonlar , damlac klar arac l yla (direkt bula ) veya damlac k çekirdekleri içindeki patojenlere maruziyet sonucu (indirekt bula ) olu ur. Damlac klar, enfekte hastalar n hap rma veya öksürmeleriyle oluan 5 μm'den büyük enfeksiyöz partiküllerdir ve kaynak ki inin yakla k 1 m uza na kadar yay labilir. Konjonktival, nazal veya oral mukozaya damlac klar n temas sonucu bula gerçek-le ir. nfluenza virüs, rinovirüsler, adenovirüsler ve respiratuvar sinsityal virüs (RSV) bu tür yay lan patojenlere örnek olarak verilebilir. Bu mikroorganizmalar n esas olarak direkt yayl mla bula mas ve damlac klar n havadan h zl bir ekilde yere dü me e ilimleri nedeniyle, hastanelerdeki hava ak m kontrol tedbirleri bu enfeksiyonlar önlemede yeterli olmayabilir (1).Damlac k çekirdekleri, havada as l kalan damlac klar n kuruyarak olu turdu u, 1-5 μm büyüklü ündeki partiküller-dir. Bu partiküller; kuru bir sekresyon örtüsü ile korunan potansiyel olarak canl mikroorganizmalar ta yabilir, havada uzun süre as l kalabilir ve hava ak m ile uzak m...

show abstract