Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Gomes, Giselle Pinheiro Lima Aires
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Souza, Adenícia Custódia Silva
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Souza, Adenícia Custódia Silva
,
Oliveira, Adriana Cristina,
Tipple, Anaclara Ferreira Veiga,
Leão, Lara Stefânia Netto de Oliveira,
Brasil, Virginia Visconde |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Federal de Goiás
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-graduação em Enfermagem (FEN)
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Enfermagem - FEN (RG)
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/6497
|
Resumo: |
INTRODUCTION: The manual resuscitator is a widely used respiratory assist device that has been reported to be a reservoir and a source of contamination from various microorganisms. At present, there is no criteria to replacement of manual resuscitator when it is in successive use in the same patient. AIM: To evaluate the safest amount of time the manual resuscitator can be successively used in the same patient. METHODS: An open, prospective cohort study was conducted from October to November, 2014 using 30 patient connector valves from manual resuscitator devices obtained from Intensive Care Units of a general hospital located in a region north of Brazil. The samples were collected through swab friction on the manual resuscitator that was used by the same patient, at zero (ready use), 24 and 48 hours. Bacterial identification and antibiotic susceptibility were performed automatically (Vitek 2 Compact®). RESULTS: Of the 30 resuscitators evaluated, 20 (66.6%) were found to be contaminated. There was a significant difference between the microbial load on the manual resuscitators in use at zero and 24 hours (p = 0.03). Associated risk factors for the contamination of manual resuscitators identified were frequency and time of use. The presence of visible soil was not detected on 19 manual resuscitators in use, however, 95.0% were contaminated. The number of microorganisms isolated at zero, 24 and 48 hours were five, 11 and 24, respectively. Thirteen devices were contaminated with two or more bacterial species. Of the Gram-positive cocci, 38.9% (n = 18) were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and 11.1% were methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, all were constitutive MLSB resistant. Of the Gram-negative rods (n = 36), Acinetobacter baumannii (36.1%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19.4%), Serratia marcescens (22.2%) and Proteus spp. (8.3%) dominated. Over 50% of these were resistant to carbapenems, second, third and fourth cephalosporins generations, and ampicillin/sulbactam. CONCLUSION: Manual resuscitators in successive use in the same patient were contaminated even in the absence of visible dirt. Multi- and extensively-resistant bacteria of clinical importance were also detected. Frequency and time of use were identified as risk factors in the contamination of manual resuscitators. The longer the time of use, the greater the number of contaminated resuscitators and bacterial species isolated. These results point to failures in reprocessing, and therefore highlights the importance of having thorough discussions among regulators about the recommendations for the reprocessing of semi-critical medical devices, especially, those for ventilatory assistance. Furthermore, the results highlight the need to replace manual resuscitators every 24 hours after use as a strategy for infection control and to minimize the risk of re-colonization or -infection of the respiratory tract. |
