Sniadack D H, Ostroff S M, Karlix M A, Smithwick R W, Schwartz B, Sprauer M A, Silcox V A, Good R C
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1993 Nov;14(11):636-41. doi: 10.1086/646656.
To determine risk factors for Mycobacterium xenopi isolation in patients following a pseudo-outbreak of infection with the organism.
Retrospective cohort analysis of mycobacteriology laboratory specimen records and frequency-matched case-control study of hospital patients.
General community hospital.
For the case-control study, 13 case patients and 39 randomly selected controls with mycobacterial cultures negative for M xenopi, frequency matched by specimen source, whose specimens were submitted from June 1990 through June 1991.
Between June 1990 and June 1991, M xenopi was isolated from 13 clinical specimens processed at a midwestern hospital, including sputum (n = 6), bronchial washings (2), urine (4), and stool (1). None of the patients with M xenopi-positive specimens had apparent mycobacterial disease, although five received antituberculosis drug therapy for a range of one to six months. Specimens collected in a nonsterile manner were more likely to grow the organism than those collected aseptically (3.1% versus 0, relative risk = infinity, P = 0.003). M xenopi isolation was attributed to exposure of clinical specimens to tap water, including rinsing of bronchoscopes with tap water after disinfection, irrigation with tap water during colonoscopy, gargling with tap water before sputum collection, and collecting urine in recently rinsed bedpans. M xenopi was isolated from tap water in 20 of 24 patient rooms tested, the endoscopy suite, and the central hot water mixing tank, but not from water in the microbiology laboratory. The pseudo-outbreak occurred following a decrease in the hot water temperature from 130 degrees F to 120 degrees F in 1989.
Maintenance of a higher water temperature and improved specimen collection protocols and instrument disinfection procedures probably would have prevented this pseudo-outbreak.
确定在该生物体感染假暴发后患者中分离出偶发分枝杆菌的危险因素。
对分枝杆菌学实验室标本记录进行回顾性队列分析,并对医院患者进行频率匹配的病例对照研究。
综合社区医院。
在病例对照研究中,13例病例患者和39例随机选择的对照者,其分枝杆菌培养物中偶发分枝杆菌呈阴性,按标本来源进行频率匹配,他们的标本于1990年6月至1991年6月期间提交。
1990年6月至1991年6月期间,在一家中西部医院处理的13份临床标本中分离出了偶发分枝杆菌,包括痰液(n = 6)、支气管灌洗液(2份)、尿液(4份)和粪便(1份)。偶发分枝杆菌阳性标本的患者均无明显的分枝杆菌病,尽管有5例接受了1至6个月的抗结核药物治疗。以非无菌方式采集的标本比无菌采集的标本更有可能培养出该生物体(3.1%对0,相对危险度=无穷大,P = 0.003)。偶发分枝杆菌的分离归因于临床标本接触自来水,包括消毒后用自来水冲洗支气管镜、结肠镜检查期间用自来水冲洗、痰液采集前用自来水漱口以及在最近冲洗过的便盆中收集尿液。在测试的24个病房中的20个、内镜检查室和中央热水混合水箱的自来水中分离出了偶发分枝杆菌,但微生物实验室的水中未分离出。假暴发发生在1989年热水温度从130华氏度降至120华氏度之后。
维持较高水温以及改进标本采集方案和仪器消毒程序可能会预防此次假暴发。