3.9 Article

Nosocomial infections caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Exogenous or endogenous origin of this bacterium?

期刊

PATHOLOGIE BIOLOGIE
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 9-12

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.patbio.2008.07.011

关键词

Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Intensive care units; Environment; Infections; Cross-transmission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through numerous reports of Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreaks linked to transmission from environmental reservoirs, infection control practitionners have a univocal picture of its epidemiology: it is an opportunistic pathogen responsible of major outbreaks in intensive care units (ICU) with a major role played by the water network. The objective of this review was to answer to three questions: what is the part of hospital acquisition of P. aeruginosa? What is the part of outbreaks on incidence of hospital-acquired infections'? What is the part of environment as a reservoir for transmission? Genotyping of hospital-acquired P. aeruginosa isolates allows us to define the endogenous or exogenous Source of the infection and replace the concept of imported/acquired infection. If 80% of infections could be considered as acquired in ICU, the proportion of infections from exogenous source could he estimated at 50%. Even in a context of major outbreak, the epidemic clone represents 20% of the patients colonized and among these patients, only 50% are recognized with clinical samples. Some studies show that water fittings are a major source of P. aeruginosa in ICU. Other reports demonstrate a weak epidemiological link between environmental and clinical strains. Finally, despite the fact that the relative contributions of endogenous and exogenous sources to P. aeruginosa acquisition are not well established, we can assume that the epidemiological pattern of P. aeruginosa infection and colonization is not univocal and may vary both between ICU and within ICU depending on the period considered. (c) 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据