急诊超声探头的细菌污染:一项多中心观察研究。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Takahiro Yamanaka, Ryo Yamamoto, Keitaro Yajima, Ikutaro Yamashita, Tomohiro Kurihara, Dai Kujirai, Kazunori Moritani, Hanae Kamikura, Hidefumi Koh, Junichi Sasaki
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:超声在急诊科(ED)经常用于病人的评估和诊断。尽管探针有被体液和血液污染的风险,但这种污染的比率仍不清楚。目的:评价急诊科超声探头的细菌污染情况,重点分析医院类型和再处理方法。方法:于2023年在一所大学医院、一所非学术性三级医院和一所地区医院进行多中心前瞻性观察研究。从用于ED患者的探针中收集样本。再处理方法包括单水湿巾、单水湿巾加乙醇湿巾、单季铵湿巾和单季铵湿巾加乙醇或次氯酸盐湿巾。结果包括细菌污染水平(以每个探针总表面积的菌落形成单位(CFU)测量)和耐药菌株。结果:大学医院CFU中位数为10 (IQR: 0-50),非学术性三级医院为40(10-135),地区医院为30(1-95)。通过后处理方法,单水湿巾的CFU中位数为20(1-90),单水湿巾加乙醇湿巾的CFU中位数为10(0-20),单季铵湿巾的CFU中位数为90(40-180),单季铵湿巾加乙醇或次氯酸盐湿巾的CFU中位数为20(1-50)。18.2%的探针检出耐药菌株。结论:无论设备类型和再处理方式如何,急诊超声探头均存在高水平的细菌污染,包括耐药菌株。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hospital Infection
Journal of Hospital Infection 医学-传染病学
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.80%
发文量
271
审稿时长
19 days
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信