4.3 Article

Detection of airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in high-risk areas of health care facilities in Thailand

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.18.0218

关键词

indoor air; nosocomial transmission; real-time qPCR

资金

  1. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok
  2. National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT), Bangkok, Thailand
  3. Ratchadapiseksompotch Fund, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand [RA 2015/015]
  4. 90th Anniversary of Chulalongkorn University Fund [16]
  5. FY2016 Thesis Grant for a Doctoral Degree Student of the NRCT [1/19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SETTING : In high-risk areas (sputum collection room in a tuberculosis [TB] clinic, patient rooms in a TB ward, the emergency department and the bronchoscopy unit) in seven health care facilities located in central Thailand. OBJECTIVE : To detect airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and other environmental parameters using the liquid impinger and real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (real-time qPCR) technique in high-risk areas. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. RESULTS : M. tuberculosis was detected in 3 of 99 (3.0%, 95% CI 0.6-8.6) areas: one sputum collection room and one TB in-patient room in one facility and one sputum collection room in another facility. In these three areas, the M. tuberculosis copy number/m(3) ranged from 9.6 to 1671. Lower air change rate (<6 h(-1)), higher relative humidity (>65%), and contact with coughing patient(s) were more common in airborne M. tuberculosis-positive areas than in M. tuberculosis-negative areas. CONCLUSIONS : Air sampling using a liquid impinger followed by real-time qPCR is effective for quantitative detection of airborne M. tuberculosis in high-risk areas. Our findings indicate TB risk among health care workers, and suggest that improved ventilation, enhanced appropriate cough etiquette and respiratory protection are needed to mitigate M. tuberculosis transmission.

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

4.3
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