RESUMEN
Cross-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa is an emerging issue in the care of patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). This study sought to determine the extent of, and patient factors associated with, cross-infection in a tertiary referral adult CF centre. P. aeruginosa isolates were genotyped into two groups between November 2001 and February 2003, using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis after DNA digestion by the SpeI endonuclease, and identified as clustered if there was >80% homology in the macrorestriction profiles. Patient factors and measures of disease severity were identified a priori. In total, 157 out of 227 patients had a P. aeruginosa isolate genotyped. Of these, 94 patients (60%) were infected with clustered genotypes and 47 (30%) were infected with the newly described "Midlands 1" (Md1) genotype. A further 18 patients were infected with the previously identified "Liverpool" genotype and two with the "Manchester" genotype. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the predominant predictor of infection with Md1 was age at the time of referral to the centre, suggesting that infection may have occurred prior to referral in some patients. Md1 demonstrated a relatively benign anti-biogram and did not appear to be associated with more severe disease. In conclusion, the present study provides further evidence of the emerging importance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa cross-infection in cystic fibrosis.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria , Fibrosis Quística/complicaciones , Infecciones por Pseudomonas/microbiología , Pseudomonas aeruginosa/genética , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To obtain information which might guide vascular specialists and their patients in the choice of site for implantation of central venous access devices (CVADs). DESIGN: Questionnaire study. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 69 patients with cystic fibrosis and 54 (78%) responded (39 females: age 5-63, median 24 years). They had received a total of 79 CVADs placed in the upper chest (60), lower chest (13), thigh (3) and arm (3). Only 46% patients had been offered a choice of site. RESULTS: Questions about 14 specific areas of disability or concern found problems most frequently with discomfort (54%), wearing a seatbelt (51%), cosmetic appearance (44%), scarring (44%), choice of clothing (42%) and lying in bed or sleeping (42%). There were no significant differences between upper and lower chest CVADs. Patients with upper chest CVADs seldom had any problems with use of their arm (12%). 81% CVADs could not be accessed by the patients, and in 39% of these cases patients would have liked to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients complain of few problems with their CVADs, regardless of site, but half have some persistent discomfort. Cosmetic considerations frequently cause concern and patients should be given choice in the site of their CVADs.