Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T11:42:15.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prevalence of and Risks for Internal Contamination among Hospital Staff Caring for a Patient Contaminated with a Fatal Dose of Polonium-210

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Olivier le Polain de Waroux*
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training, European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Stockholm, Sweden
Sandra Cohuet
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom European Programme for Intervention Epidemiology Training, European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Stockholm, Sweden
Louise Bishop
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom
Sandra Johnson
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom
Karen Shaw
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom
Helen Maguire
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom
André Charlett
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, Statistics, Modelling and Economics Department, Centre for Infections, London, United Kingdom
Graham Fraser
Affiliation:
Health Protection Agency, London and South East Regional Epidemiology Units, London, United Kingdom
*
Health Protection Agency, London Region Epidemiology Unit, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 9SZ, United Kingdom (olivier.lepolain@hpa.org.uk)

Abstract

Background.

Alexander Litvinenko died on November 23, 2006, from acute radiation sickness syndrome caused by ingestion of polonium-210 (210Po).

Objective.

The objective was to assess the prevalence of and risk factors for internal contamination with 210Po in healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for the contaminated patient.

Setting.

Hospital.

Participants.

HCWs who had direct contact with the patient.

Methods.

We interviewed 43 HCWs and enquired about their activities and use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Internal contamination was denned as urinary 210Po excretion above 20 mBq within 24 hours. We obtained risk ratios (RRs) for internal contamination using Poisson regression.

Results.

Thirty-seven HCWs (86%) responded, and 8 (22%) showed evidence of internal contamination, all at very low levels that were unlikely to cause adverse health outcomes. Daily care of the patient (washing and toileting the patient) was the main risk factor (RR, 3.6 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-11.6]). In contrast, planned invasive procedures were not associated with a higher risk. There was some evidence of a higher risk associated with handling blood samples (RR, 3.5 [95% CI, 0.8-15.6]) and changing urine bags and/or collecting urine samples (RR, 2.7 [95% CI, 0.8-9.5]). There was also some evidence that those who reported not always using standard PPE were at higher risk than were others (RR, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-8.1]).

Conclusions.

The sensitive quantitative measurement enabled us to identify factors associated with contamination, which by analogy to other conditions with similar transmission mechanisms may help improve protection and preparedness in staff dealing with an ill patient who experiences an unknown illness.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

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. Bailey, MR, Birchall, A, Etherington, G, et al. Individual monitoring conducted by the Health Protection Agency in the London polonium-210 incident. Health Protection Agency, Chilton, UK. HPA-RPD-067, 2010. Available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Publications/Radiation/HPARPDSeriesReports/. Accessed August 12, 2011.Google Scholar
2. Cornett, J, Tracy, B, Kramer, G, et al. Polonium-210: lessons learned from the contamination of individual Canadians. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2009;134:164166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Maguire, H, Fraser, G, Croft, J, et al. The London polonium-210 incident 2006: public health emergency response. Public Health 2010;124:313318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Stather, JW. The polonium-210 poisoning in London. J Radiol Prof 2007;27:13.Google Scholar
5. Shaw, K, Anders, K, Olowokure, B, et al. The international follow-up of individuals potentially exposed to polonium-210 in London 2006. Public Health 2010;124:319325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Fraser, G, Giraudon, I, Cohuet, S, et al. Epidemiology of internal contamination with polonium-210 in the London incident, 2006. J Epidemiol Community Health 2011. doi:10.1136/ jech.2009.102087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Sisti, D, Rocchi, MB, Meli, MA, Desideri, D. 210Po log-normal distribution in human urines: survey from central Italy people. Toxicol Mech Methods 2009;19:197201.Google Scholar
8. Pratt, RJ, Pellowe, C, Loveday, HP, et al. The epic project: developing national evidence-based guidelines for preventing healthcare associated infections. Phase I: guidelines for preventing hospital-acquired infections. Department of Health (England). J Hosp Infect 2001;47(suppl):S3S82.Google Scholar
9. Ham, GJ. The determination of polonium-210 in urine following the Litvinenko incident. Radioprotection 2009;44:4146.Google Scholar
10. Al-Arifi, M, Alkarfy, KM, Al-Suwayeh, SA, et al. Levels of 210Po in blood, urine and hair of some Saudi smokers. Radioanal Nucl Chem 2006;269:115118.Google Scholar
11. Zou, G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702706.Google Scholar