ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The risk of occupational transmission of bloodborne pathogens to health care workers is primarily associated with needlestick and sharps injuries (NSIs). However, most NSIs are not reported, and most health care workers are not aware of postexposure procedures. METHODS: Data for NSIs reported in our hospital between 2008 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 546 staff members reported NSIs. Of these, 376 (68.9%) were women. NSIs were more commonly reported by trainee nurses (243 [44.5%]), followed by nurses (121 [22.2%]), cleaning staff (108 [19.8%]), and doctors (49 [9%]). The rate of postexposure interventions was 13% in 2008 and 92.6% in 2016 (P < .0001; χ2â¯=â¯82.866). NSI rates also show that the number of applications with NSIs increased over the years. When occupational blood exposure was examined, the number of bloodborne pathogens was 50 (9.3%) cases of hepatitis B virus, 30 (5.6%) cases of hepatitis C virus, 3 cases of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, 1 case of HIV, and 2 cases of hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus coinfection. DISCUSSION: Over the years, the increase in both the appropriate intervention rate and the number of reports to the hospital infection control committee after NSIs shows that regular training regarding NSIs is effective. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital infection control committees may play a more active role in raising awareness in this regard and thus reducing the rate of unreported NSIs.
Subject(s)
Coinfection/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Needlestick Injuries/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/statistics & numerical data , Adolescent , Adult , Blood-Borne Pathogens/classification , Blood-Borne Pathogens/isolation & purification , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Procedures and Techniques Utilization/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) infection occurs worldwide and can be reactivated from latency during periods of immunosuppression, especially after organ transplantation. No previous study has evaluated the influence of dialysis type on HHV-6 infection. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of HHV-6 antibodies in hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. METHODS: We studied 36 PD patients, 35 HD patients, and 20 healthy subjects, all with no history of organ transplantation. After systematic inquiries and a physical examination, blood was drawn for determination of biochemical parameters, cytomegalovirus immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG), hepatitis B surface antigen, and the hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Titers of HHV-6 IgM and IgG antibodies were determined by ELISA. RESULTS: Titers for HHV-6 IgM antibody were positive in 9 HD patients (25.7%), 8 PD patients (22.2%), and 2 control subjects (10.0%, p > 0.05). More HD patients (20.0%) than PD patients (5.6%, p = 0.07) or control subjects (0.0%, p = 0.03) were positive for HHV-6 IgG antibody. In HD patients, HHV-6 IgG seropositivity and duration of dialysis were positively correlated (R = 0.33, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Infection with HHV-6 is not rare in PD and HD patients. In addition, HHV-6 IgG seropositivity was significantly higher in HD patients than in control subjects and approached significance when compared with seropositivity in PD patients. Moreover, in HD patients, HHV-6 IgG seropositivity correlated with duration on HD. These preliminary findings provide insight into the pre-transplantation period for patients and may aid our understanding of how to best protect patients against HHV-6 after transplantation.
