MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3119512109 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.1026

837. Contamination of Hospital Drains by Carbapenemase-Producing Enterobacterales (CPE) in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3119512109 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alainna Jamal, Laura Mataseje, Kevin A. Brown, Kevin Katz, Jennie Johnstone, Matthew Muller, Vanessa Allen, Sergio Borgia, David A. Boyd, William Ciccotelli, Kornelija Delibasic, David N. Fisman, Jerome A. Leis, Angel Li, Mamta Mehta, Wil Ng, Rajni Pantelidis, Aimee Paterson, Gordana Pikula, R.D. Marjorie Sawicki, Shelley Schmidt, Renata Carneiro Ferreira Souto, Lin Tang, Cameron Thomas, Allison McGeer, Michael R. Mulvey

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAntibiotic Resistance in Bacteria
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CentreHealth Sciences CentreMarkham Stouffville HospitalGrand River HospitalWilliam Osler Health SystemPublic Health OntarioSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreSinai Health SystemNorth York General HospitalPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineShowerKlebsiella oxytocaOutbreakContaminationMinionTransmission (telecommunications)Emergency medicineVeterinary medicineMicrobiologyKlebsiella pneumoniaeBiologyNanopore sequencingVirologyDNA sequencingGeneEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The hospital water environment is a CPE reservoir, and transmission of CPE from drains to patients is a risk. Methods We cultured sink and shower drains in patient rooms and communal shower rooms that were exposed to inpatients with CPE colonization/infection from October 2007 to December 2017 at 10 hospitals. We compared patient room drain CPE to prior room occupant CPE using Illumina and MinION whole-genome sequencing. Results Three-hundred and ten inpatients exposed 1,209 drains, of which 53 (4%) yielded 62 CPE isolates at 7 (70%) hospitals. Compared to room occupant CPE isolates, drain CPE isolates were more likely Enterobacter spp. (6, 10% vs. 25, 51%, p< 0.0001) or KPC-producers (9, 15% vs. 23, 47%, p=0.0002). Of the 49 CPE isolates in patient room drains, 4 (8%) were linked to a prior room occupant (Table), 24 (49%) had the same carbapenemase as a prior room occupant but isolates/carbapenemase gene-containing plasmids that were unrelated, and 21 (43%) did not share a carbapenemase with a prior room occupant. The 4 drains linked to prior room occupants were likely contaminated by these room occupants, who were CPE-colonized prior to drain exposure. Despite few links between drain and room occupant CPE, there were 10 isolates harbouring related blaNDM-1-containing IncHI2A/HI2-type plasmids in 8 rooms on two units at one hospital. Nine of these were Enterobacter hormaechei ST66 isolates that were 0 to 6 SNVs apart and one was a Klebsiella oxytoca STnovel isolate. Table. Four patient room drain CPE isolates (D1b, D4, D5, D12) and isolates from prior room occupants that they were related to by whole-genome sequencing. Conclusion It was uncommon for drain CPE to be linked to prior patient exposure. This suggests contamination of most drains by undetected colonized patients and a need for more aggressive patient screening in our hospitals. This may also suggest retrograde (drain-to-drain) transmission, especially considering the 10 isolate drain cluster at one hospital. Reasons for the preponderance of Enterobacter spp. in drains requires further study. Disclosures Allison McGeer, MD, FRCPC, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Pfizer (Research Grant or Support)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntibiotic Resistance in BacteriaFrench-language works237,207