四种环境取样方法对多重耐药菌回收的评价

Ahmed Babiker, Alex Page, Julia Van Riel, Eli Wilber, Amanda Strudwick, Chris Bower, Michael Woodworth, Sarah Satola
{"title":"四种环境取样方法对多重耐药菌回收的评价","authors":"Ahmed Babiker, Alex Page, Julia Van Riel, Eli Wilber, Amanda Strudwick, Chris Bower, Michael Woodworth, Sarah Satola","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Environmental contamination is a major risk factor for multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) exposure and transmission in the healthcare setting. Sponge-stick sampling methods have been developed and validated for MDRO epidemiological investigations, leading to their recommendation by public health agencies. However, similar bacteriological yields with more readily available methods that require less processing time or specialized equipment have also been reported. We compared the ability of 4 sampling methods to recover a variety of MDRO taxa from a simulated contaminated surface. Methods: We assessed the ability of (1) cotton swabs moistened with phosphate buffer solution (PBS), (2) e-swabs moistened with e-swab solution, (3) cellulose-containing sponge sticks (CSS), and (4) non–cellulose-containing sponge sticks (NCS) to recover extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli , carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE), and a mixture that contained VRE, MRSA, and ESBL organisms. A solution of known bacterial inoculum (~10 5 CFU/mL) was made for each MDRO. Then, 1 mL solution was pipetted on a stainless-steel surface (8 × 12 inch) in 5 µL dots and allowed to dry for 1 hour. All samples were collected by 1 individual to minimize variation in technique. Sponge sticks were expressed in PBS containing 0.02% Tween 80 using a stomacher, were centrifuged, and were then resuspended in PBS. Cotton and e-swabs were spun in a vortexer. Then, 1 mL of fluid from each method was plated to selective and nonselective media in duplicate and incubated at 35°C for 24 hours (MRSA plates, 48 hours) (Fig. 1). CFU per square inch and percentage recovery were calculated. Results: Table 1 shows the CFU per square inch and percentage recovery for each sampling method–MDRO taxa combination. The percentage recovery varied across MDRO taxa. Across all methods, the lowest rate of recovery was for CRPA and the highest was for VRE. Regardless of MDRO taxa, the percentage recovery was highest for the sponge stick (CSS and NCS) compared to swab (cotton and E-swab) methods across all taxa (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Conclusions: These findings support the preferential use of sponge sticks for the recovery of MDROs from the healthcare environment, despite the additional processing and equipment time needed for sponge sticks. Further studies are needed to assess the robustness of these findings in noncontrived specimens as well as the comparative effectiveness of different sampling methods for non–culture-based MDRO detection. Disclosure: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of four environmental sampling methods for the recovery of multidrug-resistant organisms\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Babiker, Alex Page, Julia Van Riel, Eli Wilber, Amanda Strudwick, Chris Bower, Michael Woodworth, Sarah Satola\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2023.232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Environmental contamination is a major risk factor for multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) exposure and transmission in the healthcare setting. Sponge-stick sampling methods have been developed and validated for MDRO epidemiological investigations, leading to their recommendation by public health agencies. However, similar bacteriological yields with more readily available methods that require less processing time or specialized equipment have also been reported. We compared the ability of 4 sampling methods to recover a variety of MDRO taxa from a simulated contaminated surface. Methods: We assessed the ability of (1) cotton swabs moistened with phosphate buffer solution (PBS), (2) e-swabs moistened with e-swab solution, (3) cellulose-containing sponge sticks (CSS), and (4) non–cellulose-containing sponge sticks (NCS) to recover extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli , carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE), and a mixture that contained VRE, MRSA, and ESBL organisms. A solution of known bacterial inoculum (~10 5 CFU/mL) was made for each MDRO. Then, 1 mL solution was pipetted on a stainless-steel surface (8 × 12 inch) in 5 µL dots and allowed to dry for 1 hour. All samples were collected by 1 individual to minimize variation in technique. Sponge sticks were expressed in PBS containing 0.02% Tween 80 using a stomacher, were centrifuged, and were then resuspended in PBS. Cotton and e-swabs were spun in a vortexer. Then, 1 mL of fluid from each method was plated to selective and nonselective media in duplicate and incubated at 35°C for 24 hours (MRSA plates, 48 hours) (Fig. 1). CFU per square inch and percentage recovery were calculated. Results: Table 1 shows the CFU per square inch and percentage recovery for each sampling method–MDRO taxa combination. The percentage recovery varied across MDRO taxa. Across all methods, the lowest rate of recovery was for CRPA and the highest was for VRE. Regardless of MDRO taxa, the percentage recovery was highest for the sponge stick (CSS and NCS) compared to swab (cotton and E-swab) methods across all taxa (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Conclusions: These findings support the preferential use of sponge sticks for the recovery of MDROs from the healthcare environment, despite the additional processing and equipment time needed for sponge sticks. Further studies are needed to assess the robustness of these findings in noncontrived specimens as well as the comparative effectiveness of different sampling methods for non–culture-based MDRO detection. Disclosure: None\",\"PeriodicalId\":7953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.232\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:环境污染是多药耐药菌(MDRO)暴露和传播的主要危险因素。海绵棒抽样方法已被开发并验证用于MDRO的流行病学调查,从而得到公共卫生机构的推荐。然而,类似的细菌产量与更容易获得的方法,需要较少的处理时间或专门的设备也有报道。我们比较了4种采样方法从模拟污染表面恢复多种MDRO类群的能力。方法:我们评估了(1)用磷酸缓冲液(PBS)润湿棉签、(2)用电子拭子溶液润湿电子拭子、(3)含纤维素海绵棒(CSS)和(4)不含纤维素海绵棒(NCS)对产生广谱β-内酰胺酶(ESBL)的大肠杆菌、耐碳青霉烯假单胞菌(CRPA)、耐碳青霉烯鲍曼不动杆菌(CRAB)、耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的回收能力。耐万古霉素屎肠球菌(VRE),以及含有VRE、MRSA和ESBL生物的混合物。每个MDRO配制已知细菌接种量(~10 5 CFU/mL)的溶液。然后,将1ml溶液移液于不锈钢表面(8 × 12英寸)的5µL点上,干燥1小时。所有样本均由一人收集,以尽量减少技术上的差异。海绵棒在含0.02% Tween 80的PBS中用胃镜表达,离心,然后在PBS中重悬。棉花和电子棉签在旋涡机中纺纱。然后,将每种方法中的1ml液体一式两份分别涂于选择性和非选择性培养基中,在35°C下孵育24小时(MRSA板,48小时)(图1)。计算每平方英寸CFU和百分比回收率。结果:表1显示了每种采样方法- mdro分类群组合的每平方英寸CFU和回收率百分比。不同MDRO分类群的恢复百分比不同。在所有方法中,CRPA的回收率最低,VRE的回收率最高。无论何种MDRO分类群,在所有分类群中,海绵棒(CSS和NCS)的回收率都高于棉签(棉花和电子棉签)方法(表1和图2)。结论:尽管海绵棒需要额外的处理和设备时间,但这些发现支持海绵棒优先用于医疗环境中MDRO的回收。需要进一步的研究来评估这些发现在非人工标本中的稳健性,以及不同采样方法在非培养MDRO检测中的比较有效性。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of four environmental sampling methods for the recovery of multidrug-resistant organisms
Background: Environmental contamination is a major risk factor for multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) exposure and transmission in the healthcare setting. Sponge-stick sampling methods have been developed and validated for MDRO epidemiological investigations, leading to their recommendation by public health agencies. However, similar bacteriological yields with more readily available methods that require less processing time or specialized equipment have also been reported. We compared the ability of 4 sampling methods to recover a variety of MDRO taxa from a simulated contaminated surface. Methods: We assessed the ability of (1) cotton swabs moistened with phosphate buffer solution (PBS), (2) e-swabs moistened with e-swab solution, (3) cellulose-containing sponge sticks (CSS), and (4) non–cellulose-containing sponge sticks (NCS) to recover extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)–producing Escherichia coli , carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE), and a mixture that contained VRE, MRSA, and ESBL organisms. A solution of known bacterial inoculum (~10 5 CFU/mL) was made for each MDRO. Then, 1 mL solution was pipetted on a stainless-steel surface (8 × 12 inch) in 5 µL dots and allowed to dry for 1 hour. All samples were collected by 1 individual to minimize variation in technique. Sponge sticks were expressed in PBS containing 0.02% Tween 80 using a stomacher, were centrifuged, and were then resuspended in PBS. Cotton and e-swabs were spun in a vortexer. Then, 1 mL of fluid from each method was plated to selective and nonselective media in duplicate and incubated at 35°C for 24 hours (MRSA plates, 48 hours) (Fig. 1). CFU per square inch and percentage recovery were calculated. Results: Table 1 shows the CFU per square inch and percentage recovery for each sampling method–MDRO taxa combination. The percentage recovery varied across MDRO taxa. Across all methods, the lowest rate of recovery was for CRPA and the highest was for VRE. Regardless of MDRO taxa, the percentage recovery was highest for the sponge stick (CSS and NCS) compared to swab (cotton and E-swab) methods across all taxa (Table 1 and Fig. 2). Conclusions: These findings support the preferential use of sponge sticks for the recovery of MDROs from the healthcare environment, despite the additional processing and equipment time needed for sponge sticks. Further studies are needed to assess the robustness of these findings in noncontrived specimens as well as the comparative effectiveness of different sampling methods for non–culture-based MDRO detection. Disclosure: None
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using whole genome sequencing to characterize Clostridioides difficile isolates at a tertiary center in Melbourne, Australia Influenza outbreak management tabletop exercise for congregate living settings Bring it on again: antimicrobial stewardship in transplant infectious diseases: updates and new challenges Professor Mahmood Bhutta on disrupting unhealthy supply chains and promoting environmental sustainability in health care Oral amoxicillin challenges for low-risk penicillin-allergic patients at a large Veterans Affairs facility: a retrospective feasibility analysis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1