• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

A novel sampling method to detect airborne influenza and other respiratory viruses in mechanically ventilated patients: a feasibility study

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Apr 17;8(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s13613-018-0396-4.
[h=1]A novel sampling method to detect airborne influenza and other respiratory viruses in mechanically ventilated patients: a feasibility study.[/h] Mitchell AB[SUP]1[/SUP], Tang B[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3,[/SUP][SUP]4[/SUP], Shojaei M[SUP]2,[/SUP][SUP]3[/SUP], Barnes LS[SUP]5[/SUP], Nalos M[SUP]2[/SUP], Oliver BG[SUP]6[/SUP], McLean AS[SUP]2[/SUP].
[h=3]Author information[/h]

[h=3]Abstract[/h] [h=4]BACKGROUND:[/h] Respiratory viruses circulate constantly in the ambient air. The risk of opportunistic infection from these viruses can be increased in mechanically ventilated patients. The present study evaluates the feasibility of detecting airborne respiratory viruses in mechanically ventilated patients using a novel sample collection method involving ventilator filters.
[h=4]METHODS:[/h] We collected inspiratory and expiratory filters from the ventilator circuits of mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care unit over a 14-month period. To evaluate whether we could detect respiratory viruses collected in these filters, we performed a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction on the extracted filter membrane with primers specific for rhinovirus, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza virus A and B, parainfluenza virus (type 1, 2 and 3) and human metapneumovirus. For each patient, we also performed a full virology screen (virus particles, antibody titres and virus-induced biomarkers) on respiratory samples (nasopharyngeal swab, tracheal aspirate or bronchoalveolar fluid) and blood samples.
[h=4]RESULTS:[/h] Respiratory viruses were detected in the ventilator filters of nearly half the patients in the study cohort (n = 33/70). The most common virus detected was influenza A virus (n = 29). There were more viruses detected in the inspiratory filters (n = 18) than in the expiratory filters (n = 15). A third of the patients with a positive virus detection in the ventilator filters had a hospital laboratory confirmed viral infection. In the remaining cases, the detected viruses were different from viruses already identified in the same patient, suggesting that these additional viruses come from the ambient air or from cross-contamination (staff or visitors). In patients in whom new viruses were detected in the ventilator filters, there was no evidence of clinical signs of an active viral infection. Additionally, the levels of virus-induced biomarker in these patients were not statistically different from those of non-infected patients (p = 0.33).
[h=4]CONCLUSIONS:[/h] Respiratory viruses were present within the ventilator circuits of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Although no adverse clinical effect was evident in these patients, further studies are warranted, given the small sample size of the study and the recognition that ventilated patients are potentially susceptible to opportunistic infection from airborne respiratory viruses.


[h=4]KEYWORDS:[/h] Airborne; Influenza; Intensive care unit; Ventilator; Virus

PMID: 29666961 DOI: 10.1186/s13613-018-0396-4
 
Back
Top Bottom