↓ Skip to main content

Prolonged outbreak of clonal MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa on an intensive care unit: contaminated sinks and contamination of ultra-filtrate bags as possible route of transmission?

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prolonged outbreak of clonal MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa on an intensive care unit: contaminated sinks and contamination of ultra-filtrate bags as possible route of transmission?
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13756-016-0157-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florian Salm, Maria Deja, Petra Gastmeier, Axel Kola, Sonja Hansen, Michael Behnke, Désirée Gruhl, Rasmus Leistner

Abstract

We report on an outbreak in a surgical, interdisciplinary intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care hospital. We detected a cluster of ICU patients colonized or infected with multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We established an outbreak investigation team, performed an exploratory epidemiological analysis and initiated an epidemiology-based intervention. As part of the outbreak investigation, we performed microbiological examinations of the sinks in the patient rooms and a retrospective case-control study. All patients admitted to the outbreak ICU between January 2012 and February 2014 were included. Cases were patients colonized with the outbreak strain. Controls were patients with a different Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain. Risk factors were evaluated using multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis. Strain typing was performed using the repetitive element-based polymerase chain reaction (rep-PCR) DiversiLab system. The outbreak strain was found in the sinks of five (of 16) patient rooms. Altogether 21 cases and 21 (randomly selected) controls were included. In the univariate analysis, there was no significant difference in baseline data of the patients. In the multivariate analysis, stay in a room with a colonized sink (Odds Ratio[OR] 11.2, p = 0.007) and hemofiltration (OR 21.9, p = 0.020) were independently associated with an elevated risk for colonization or infection by the outbreak strain. In a subsequent evaluation of the work procedures associated with hemofiltration, we found that the ultra-filtrate bags had been on average five times per day emptied in the sinks of the patient rooms and were used multiple for the same patient. We exchanged the traps of the contaminated sinks and eliminated work procedures involving sinks in patient rooms by implementation of single use bags, which are emptied outside patient rooms to reduce splash water at the sinks. In the 20 month follow-up period, the outbreak strain was detected only once, which indicated that the outbreak had been ceased (incidence 0.75% vs. 0.04%, p < 0.001) Furthermore, the incidence of Pseudonomas aeruginosa overall was significantly decreased (2.5% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001). In ICUs, limiting work processes involving sinks results in reduced multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa rates. ICUs with high rates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa should consider eliminating work processes that involve sinks and potentially splash water in close proximity to patients. All data were surveillance based data which were obtained within the German Law on Protection against Infection ("Infektionsschutzgesetz"). Therefore a trial registration was not required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,166,911
of 24,792,566 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#413
of 1,407 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,144
of 430,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,792,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,407 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.