Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T08:21:49.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid Identification of Respiratory Viruses: Impact on Isolation Practices and Transmission Among Immunocompromised Pediatric Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Susan E. Beekmann ,
Howard D. Engler ,
Amy S. Collins ,
Jeanne Canosa ,
David K. Henderson  and
Alison Freifeld
Susan E. Beekmann
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Service
Howard D. Engler
Affiliation:
Microbiology Service, the Clinical Pathology Department, and the Clinical Center
Amy S. Collins
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Service
Jeanne Canosa
Affiliation:
Microbiology Service, the Clinical Pathology Department, and the Clinical Center
David K. Henderson
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Service
Alison Freifeld*
Affiliation:
Pediatric Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
*
National Cancer Institute, Pediatric Branch, Building 10, Room 13N240, Bethesda, MD 20892
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine whether empiric isolation of patients with acute respiratory virus infection symptoms could be discontinued when preliminary shell vial cultures were negative, and the impact of this approach on hospital resources.

Design:

In 1993, we retrospectively reviewed respiratory virus test results from 1992 to 1993 and extended data collection prospectively through the 1993 to 1994 season. The rapid test and 48-hour shell vial results were compared to a standard of rapid test plus 5-day shell vial culture results to determine the sensitivity and specificity of these “preliminary” results.

Setting:

A 400-bed tertiary referral research hospital.

Patients:

Patients from any inpatient unit or clinic with acute respiratory virus infection symptoms who had a specimen submitted for respiratory virus culture. Patients were placed on empiric respiratory isolation pending culture results.

Results:

The overall sensitivity of the combined rapid and 48-hour culture results in adults and children was 97%. All 15 pediatric patients with respiratory syncytial virus infection who had specimens submitted on first suspicion of respiratory virus infection were positive by rapid test. Culture results were positive within 48 hours for 100% of patients with influenza A (15 patients), influenza B (6), and parainfluenza (18) viruses. Of 59 pediatric inpatients who were isolated empirically awaiting 5-day culture results, 31 (52%) ultimately were determined to be culture negative.

Conclusions:

Empiric isolation of symptomatic children can be discontinued at 48 hours when both the rapid test and the early culture results are negative. Our institution would have saved 93 days of unnecessary isolation over 2 years had such a policy been in place.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 17 , Issue 9 , September 1996 , pp. 581 - 586
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Serwint, JR, Miller, RM. Why diagnose influenza infections in hospitalized pediatric patients? Pgdiatr Infect Dis J 1993;12(3):200–204.Google Scholar
2.Hoffman, PC, Dixon, RE. Control of influenza in the hospital. Ann Intern Med 1977;87:725–728.Google Scholar
3.Singh-Naz, N, Willy, M, Riggs, N. Outbreak of parainfluenza virus type 3 in a neonatal nursery. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990;9:31–33.Google Scholar
4.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: respiratory syncytial virus activity—United States, 1994-1995 season. MMWR 1994;43:920–921.Google Scholar
5.LeClair, J, Freeman, J, Sullivan, B, Crowley, C, Goldmann, D. Prevention of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infections through compliance with glove and gown isolation precautions. N Engl J Med 1987;317:329–334.Google Scholar
6.Falsey, A, Cunningham, C, Barker, W, et al. Respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A infections in the hospitalized elderly. J Infect Dis 1995;172:389–394.Google Scholar
7.Garner, JS, Simmons, BP. CDC guideline for isolation precautions in hospitals. Infect Control 1983;4:253–323.Google Scholar
8.Glezen, WP, Couch, RB. Influenza viruses. In: Evans, A, ed. Viral Infections of Humans: Epidemiology and Control. 3rd ed. New York City, NY: Plenum; 1989:419–449.Google Scholar
9.McIntosh, K, Halonen, P, Ruuskanen, O. Report of a workshop on respiratory viral infections: epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. Clin Infect Dis 1993;16:151–164.Google Scholar
10.Matthey, S, Nicholson, D, Ruhs, S, et al. Rapid detection of respiratory viruses by shell vial culture and direct staining by using pooled and individual monoclonal antibodies. J Clin Microbiol 1992;30:540–544.Google Scholar
11.Engler, HD, Selepak, ST. Effect of centrifuging shell vials at 3,500 × g on detection of viruses in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 1994;32:1580–1582.Google Scholar
12.Johnston, S, Siegel, C. Evaluation of direct immunofluorescence, enzyme immunoassay, centrifugation culture, and conventional culture for the detection of respiratory syncytial virus. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:2394–2397.Google Scholar
13.Michaels, M, Serdy, C, Barbadora, K, Green, M, Apalsch, A, Wald, E. Respiratory syncytial virus: a comparison of diagnostic modalities. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1992;11:613–616.Google Scholar
14.Halstead, D, Todd, S, Fritch, G. Evaluation of five methods for respiratory syncytial virus detection. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:1021–1025.Google Scholar
15.Wren, C, Bate, B, Masters, H, Lauer, B. Detection of respiratory syncytial virus antigen in nasal washings by Abbott TestPack enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:1395–1397.Google Scholar
16.Rabalais, G, Stout, G, Ladd, K, Cost, K. Rapid diagnosis of respiratory viral infections by using a shell vial assay and monoclonal antibody pool. J Clin Microbiol 1992;30:1505–1508.Google Scholar
17.Johnston, S, Siegel, C. A comparison of direct immunofluorescence, shell vial culture, and conventional cell culture for the rapid detection of influenza A and B. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 1991;14:131–134.Google Scholar
18.Kellner, G, Popow-Kraupp, T, Kundi, M, Binder, C, Kunz, C. Clinical manifestations of respiratory tract infections due to respiratory syncytial virus and rhinoviruses in hospitalized children. Acta Paediatr Scand 1989;78:390–394.Google Scholar
19.Krilov, L, Pierik, L, Keller, E, et al. The association of rhinoviruses with lower respiratory tract disease in hospitalized patients. J Med Virol 1986;19:345–352.Google Scholar
20.Ruuskanen, O, Nohynek, H, Zigler, T, et al. Pneumonia in childhood. Etiology and response to antimicrobial therapy. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 1992;11:217–223.Google Scholar
21.Schmidt, H, Fink, R. Rhinovirus as a lower respiratory tract pathogen in infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1991;10:700–702.Google Scholar
22.McMillan, J, Weiner, L, Higgins, A, Macknight, K. Rhinovirus infection associated with serious illness among pediatric patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1993;12:321–325.Google Scholar