4.7 Article

Prospective study of cross-infection from upper-GI endoscopy in a hepatitis C-prevalent population

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 65, 期 4, 页码 584-588

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.033

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A high prevalence of hepatitis C (HCV) in the Egyptian Nile Delta increases the demand for upper-GI endoscopy (UGIE) and the risk of cross-infection with this virus. Objective: To assess the potential for UGIE to transmit HCV when endoscopes are reprocessed according to current international standards. Design: A prospective cohort study to detect the incidence of HCV and hepatitis B cross-infections. Setting: The endoscopic unit of the National Liver Institute, a hospital for patients with chronic liver disease. Patients: A total of 859, including 149 of 249 patients (60%) at risk (HCV-antibody negative) retested 3 to 10 months after UGIE with encloscopes previously used on HCV carriers. Interventions: Nurses were trained to process encloscopes according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and procedures were observed and recorded. Main Outcome Measurements: Seroconversions were determined by using enzyme immunoassays for anti-HCV; reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction was used to detect HCV-ribonucleic acid (RNA). Results: Four patients, initially negative, tested positive for anti-HCV after UGIE. However, 2 of these had HCV-RNA in their baseline blood sample, and the other 2 did not have HCV-RNA in their follow-up sample. Limitations: Very-high prevalence of anti-HCV in subjects reduced the proportion at risk of infection, and follow-up was difficult. Conclusions: There were no cases of proven transmission of HCV when encloscopes were reprocessed by using currently accepted standards. This negative study is encouraging, because patients undergoing UGIE in the Nile Delta of Egypt where HCV-caused liver disease is so pervasive would be at maximum risk of HCV cross-infection from UGIE.

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

4.7
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