4.4 Article

Efficacy of high-efficiency particulate air filtration in preventing aspergillosis in immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies

期刊

INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 23, 期 9, 页码 525-531

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/502101

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To describe and investigate the cause of an outbreak of 10 cases of nosocomial invasive infection with Aspergillus flavus in a hematologic oncology patient care unit. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The hematologic oncology unit of a comprehensive cancer center. PATIENTS: Ninety-one patients admitted to the hematologic oncology service between January 1 and December 31, 1992, for 4 or more consecutive days were included in the study. RESULTS: Ten (18%) of 55 patients admitted from July to December 1992 were diagnosed as having invasive aspergillosis compared with 0 (0%) of 36 patients admitted from January to June 1992 to the same patient care units. Patient characteristics, mortality rate, autopsy rate, and admitting location did not change significantly during the course of the year to result in a sudden increase in the number of aspergillosis cases. The source of the outbreak was the high counts of Aspergillus conidia determined from air sampling in the non-bone marrow transplant wing during the outbreak. After high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters were installed as an infection control measure, there were only two additional cases of nosocomial aspergillosis in the 2 years following the outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: This outbreak occurred among hematologic oncology patients with prolonged granulocytopenia housed in an environment with neither HEPA filters nor laminar air flow units. Our data demonstrate that in the setting of an outbreak of aspergillosis, HEPA filters are protective for highly immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies and are effective at controlling outbreaks due to air contamination with Aspergillus conidia.

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

4.4
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