4.5 Article

Environmental contamination with extended-spectrum β-lactamases: Is there any difference between Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 845-848

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2011.10.007

Keywords

Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases; Hospital environment; Multidrug resistant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The hospital environment contributes to the spread of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) during outbreaks. We aimed to assess the rate of environmental contamination in rooms occupied by ESBL carriers or infected children and to identify risk factors associated with contamination. Methods: Five environmental surface samples were systematically performed in rooms occupied by ESBL-PE carrier or infected children. Results: Forty-six Escherichia coli and 48 Klebsiella infected/carrier patients were included in the study. Nineteen (4%) of the 470 environmental samples performed yielded ESBL-PE. Klebsiella spp was the most frequent species isolated (16, 89%), whereas E coli and Citrobacter freundii were reported twice and once, respectively. Ten of the 19 (52%) isolates were identical to the corresponding strains isolated from children. Multivariate analysis highlighted ESBL-producing Klebsiella carriage/infection as the only risk factor significantly associated with surface contamination (P - .024). Conclusion: Our data suggest that hospital environmental contamination is more frequent in instances of fecal carriage or infection with ESBL-producing Klebsiella than ESBL-producing E coli. Reinforcing hygiene measures around ESBL-producing Klebsiella might be necessary to reduce the spread of ESBL-PE in hospital environments. Copyright (C) 2012 by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available