{"title":"急诊超声探头的细菌污染:一项多中心观察研究。","authors":"Takahiro Yamanaka, Ryo Yamamoto, Keitaro Yajima, Ikutaro Yamashita, Tomohiro Kurihara, Dai Kujirai, Kazunori Moritani, Hanae Kamikura, Hidefumi Koh, Junichi Sasaki","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.03.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound is frequently used in emergency departments (ED) for patient evaluation and diagnosis. Despite the risk of probe contamination from body fluids and blood, the rate of such contamination remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in EDs, focusing on hospital types and reprocessing methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted at a university hospital, a non-academic tertiary hospital, and a regional hospital in 2023. Samples were collected from probes used on ED patients. Reprocessing methods included water-moistened wipes alone, water-moistened wipes with ethanol wipes, quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and quaternary ammonium wipes with ethanol or hypochlorite wipes. Outcomes included the level of bacterial contamination, measured by colony-forming units (CFU) per total surface area of each probe, and resistant bacterial strains.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The median CFU was 10 (IQR: 0-50) at the university hospital, 40 (10-135) at the non-academic tertiary hospital, and 30 (1-95) at the regional hospital. By reprocessing method, the median CFU was 20 (1-90) for water-moistened wipes alone, 10 (0-20) for water-moistened wipes and additional ethanol wipe, 90 (40-180) for quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and 20 (1-50) for quaternary ammonium wipe and additional ethanol or hypochlorite wipe. Resistant bacterial strains were found on 18.2% of probes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>High levels of bacterial contamination, including resistant strains, were observed on ultrasound probes in EDs, regardless of facility type and reprocessing method.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in emergency departments: A multicentre observational study.\",\"authors\":\"Takahiro Yamanaka, Ryo Yamamoto, Keitaro Yajima, Ikutaro Yamashita, Tomohiro Kurihara, Dai Kujirai, Kazunori Moritani, Hanae Kamikura, Hidefumi Koh, Junichi Sasaki\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.03.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound is frequently used in emergency departments (ED) for patient evaluation and diagnosis. Despite the risk of probe contamination from body fluids and blood, the rate of such contamination remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in EDs, focusing on hospital types and reprocessing methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted at a university hospital, a non-academic tertiary hospital, and a regional hospital in 2023. Samples were collected from probes used on ED patients. Reprocessing methods included water-moistened wipes alone, water-moistened wipes with ethanol wipes, quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and quaternary ammonium wipes with ethanol or hypochlorite wipes. Outcomes included the level of bacterial contamination, measured by colony-forming units (CFU) per total surface area of each probe, and resistant bacterial strains.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The median CFU was 10 (IQR: 0-50) at the university hospital, 40 (10-135) at the non-academic tertiary hospital, and 30 (1-95) at the regional hospital. By reprocessing method, the median CFU was 20 (1-90) for water-moistened wipes alone, 10 (0-20) for water-moistened wipes and additional ethanol wipe, 90 (40-180) for quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and 20 (1-50) for quaternary ammonium wipe and additional ethanol or hypochlorite wipe. Resistant bacterial strains were found on 18.2% of probes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>High levels of bacterial contamination, including resistant strains, were observed on ultrasound probes in EDs, regardless of facility type and reprocessing method.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2025.03.017\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2025.03.017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in emergency departments: A multicentre observational study.
Background: Ultrasound is frequently used in emergency departments (ED) for patient evaluation and diagnosis. Despite the risk of probe contamination from body fluids and blood, the rate of such contamination remains unclear.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in EDs, focusing on hospital types and reprocessing methods.
Methods: A multicentre prospective observational study was conducted at a university hospital, a non-academic tertiary hospital, and a regional hospital in 2023. Samples were collected from probes used on ED patients. Reprocessing methods included water-moistened wipes alone, water-moistened wipes with ethanol wipes, quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and quaternary ammonium wipes with ethanol or hypochlorite wipes. Outcomes included the level of bacterial contamination, measured by colony-forming units (CFU) per total surface area of each probe, and resistant bacterial strains.
Findings: The median CFU was 10 (IQR: 0-50) at the university hospital, 40 (10-135) at the non-academic tertiary hospital, and 30 (1-95) at the regional hospital. By reprocessing method, the median CFU was 20 (1-90) for water-moistened wipes alone, 10 (0-20) for water-moistened wipes and additional ethanol wipe, 90 (40-180) for quaternary ammonium wipes alone, and 20 (1-50) for quaternary ammonium wipe and additional ethanol or hypochlorite wipe. Resistant bacterial strains were found on 18.2% of probes.
Conclusion: High levels of bacterial contamination, including resistant strains, were observed on ultrasound probes in EDs, regardless of facility type and reprocessing method.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience.
The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that:
provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings;
provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination;
provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises;
describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection;
throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship;
describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control;
improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change;
improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.