We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To determine the effectiveness of ultraviolet (UV) environmental disinfection system on rates of hospital-acquired vancomycin-resistant enterococcus (VRE) and Clostridium difficile.
Design
Using active surveillance and an interrupted time-series design, hospital-acquired acquisition of VRE and C. difficile on a bone marrow transplant (BMT) unit were examined before and after implementation of terminal disinfection with UV on all rooms regardless of isolation status of patients. The main outcomes were hospital-based acquisition measured through (1) active surveillance: admission, weekly, and discharge screening for VRE and toxigenic C. difficile (TCD) and (2) clinical surveillance: incidence of VRE and CDI on the unit.
Setting
Bone marrow transplant unit at a tertiary-care cancer center.
Participants
Stem cell transplant (SCT) recipients.
Intervention
Terminal disinfection of all rooms with UV regardless of isolation status of patients.
Results
During the 20-month study period, 579 patients had 704 admissions to the BMT unit, and 2,160 surveillance tests were performed. No change in level or trend in the incidence of VRE (trend incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81–1.14; level IRR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.37–1.18) or C. difficile (trend IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89–1.31; level IRR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.13–2.11) was observed after the intervention.
Conclusions
Utilization of UV disinfection to supplement routine terminal cleaning of rooms was not effective in reducing hospital-acquired VRE and C. difficile among SCT recipients.
To evaluate the use of a perianal swab to detect CDI.
METHODS
A perianal swab was collected from each inpatient with a positive stool sample for C. difficile (by polymerase chain reaction [PCR] test) and was tested for C. difficile by PCR and by culture. The variables evaluated included demographics, CDI severity, bathing before perianal swab collection, hours between stool sample and perianal swab, cycle threshold (Ct) to PCR positivity, and doses of CDI treatment before stool sample and before perianal swab.
RESULTS
Of 83 perianal swabs, 59 (71.1%) tested positive for C. difficile by PCR when perianal swabs were collected an average of 21 hours after the stool sample. Compared with the respective stool sample, the perianal sample was less likely to grow C. difficile (P=.005) and had a higher PCR Ct (P<.001). A direct, significant but weak correlation was detected between the Ct for a positive perianal sample and the respective stool sample (r=0.36; P=.006). An inverse dose relationship was detected between PCR positivity and CDI treatment doses before perianal swab collection (P=.27).
CONCLUSION
Perianal swabs are a simple method to detect C. difficile tcdB gene by PCR, with a sensitivity of 71%. These data were limited because stool samples and perianal swabs were not collected simultaneously. Compared with stool samples, the perianal Ct values and culture results were consistent with a lower bacterial load on the perianal sample due to the receipt of more CDI treatment before collection or unknown factors affecting perianal skin colonization.