Open AccessScreening for Gram-negative bacteria: Impact of preanalytical parameters
Author(s) -
Philipp Warnke,
Friederike Pola Johanna Pohl,
Guenther Kundt,
Andreas Podbielski
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
scientific reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.24
H-Index - 213
ISSN - 2045-2322
DOI - 10.1038/srep30427
Subject(s) - acinetobacter baumannii , bacteria , sampling (signal processing) , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , antibiotic resistance , antibiotics , biology , pseudomonas aeruginosa , genetics , filter (signal processing) , computer science , computer vision
Screening recommendations for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria comprise microbiological analyses from rectal swabs. However, essential specifications of the preanalytic steps of such screenings, i.e. the sampling technique, sampling devices and sampling site, are lacking. For standardized and optimum screening conditions these parameters are indispensable. Here, the optimum parameters were examined irrespective of the antibiotic resistance patterns of the target bacteria in order to establish a general basis for this type of screening. Swabs with rayon, polyurethane-cellular-foam and nylon-flocked tips were tested. Different sampling locations were evaluated, i.e. perianal, intraanal and deep intraanal. Subjects were swabbed and quantities of E. coli , K. pneumoniae , P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii were assessed. Overall prevalences of E. coli , K. pneumoniae , P. aeruginosa , and A. baumannii were 94%, 16%, 12%, and 2%, respectively. Bacterial recovery rates were independent from the sampling-timepoint during hospital stay. Polyurethane-cellular-foam or nylon-flocked swabs recovered significantly more bacteria as compared to rayon swabs. Intraanal swabbing resulted in significantly higher bacterial quantities as compared to perianal swabbing. In contrast, for the detection of A. baumannii , perianal swabbing seems more suitable than intraanal swabbing. Gender-related differences in bacterial recovery could be detected from perianal but not from intraanal swabs.