ARTICLE |
a Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
b Department of Infectious Diseases, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
c Acute Communicable Diseases and Emerging Infections, Philadelphia Department of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
d Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan
e Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, St Louis Children's Hospital/Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri
f Methodist Children's Hospital of South Texas, San Antonio, Texas
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
PATIENTS AND METHODS. We performed a case-control study at 1 hospital and conducted national case findings to obtain clinical and environmental samples for laboratory analysis. Case-patients had health care–acquired Ralstonia colonization or infection. Isolates were compared by using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. We tested manufacturer-recommended disinfection protocols for the Vapotherm 2000i under simulated-use conditions.
RESULTS. Case-patients at the hospital (n = 5) were more likely to have received Vapotherm therapy than controls. Nationally, Ralstonia mannitolilytica was confirmed in 38 patients (aged 5 days to 7 years); 35 (92%) of the patients were exposed to the Vapotherm 2000i before recovery of the organism. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis showed related R mannitolilytica strains from isolates sent from 18 hospitals in 12 states. A Vapotherm machine reprocessed with a protocol proposed by the manufacturer grew Ralstonia spp after 7 days of simulated use. In December 2005, Vapotherm recalled the 2000i.
CONCLUSIONS. Our findings suggest intrinsic contamination of Vapotherm devices with Ralstonia spp. New medical devices may provide therapy equivalent to current devices yet pose novel reprocessing challenges.
Key Words: Ralstonia oxygen inhalation therapy infant equipment contamination infection control intrinsic contamination
Abbreviations: FDA—Food and Drug Administration PMA—premarket approval CDC—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention OR—odds ratio PFGE—pulsed-field gel electrophoresis ClO2—chlorine dioxide
Ralstonia species are Gram-negative bacilli that are commonly found in moist environments, such as water and soil, or on plants. They were implicated previously in health care-associated outbreaks, primarily because of contamination of patient care solutions.1–3 Ralstonia are opportunistic human pathogens, particularly among immunocompromised patients,4–6 and are an infrequent cause of infection. From January through April 2005, Ralstonia spp were recovered from respiratory cultures taken from 5 patients at hospital A, a pediatric hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. No Ralstonia spp had been recovered from patients at this hospital in the previous 2 years. Before culture, 4 of 5 patients were treated with the Vapotherm 2000i (Vapotherm, Inc, Stevensville, MD), a device that delivers humidified, warmed oxygen via nasal cannula. This portable oxygen-delivery device uses a 0.01-µm reusable filter cartridge to separate its air and water compartments and was used widely by neonatal clinicians, with
5000 units used in >900 hospitals in the United States in 2005. A diagram of the Vapotherm device is shown in Fig 1.
|
In August 2005, hospital A and the Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Departments of Health invited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to assist in an investigation.
| PATIENTS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
1 Ralstonia culture was recovered from a clinical specimen between December 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005. Patients in whom Ralstonia was believed to be present before hospitalization were excluded. Four controls were selected for each case. Cases and controls were individually matched on length of hospitalization. To ensure that patients with unrecognized Ralstonia colonization were not selected as controls, we limited control selection to patients who had chart documentation of a respiratory culture that did not grow Ralstonia. Information on potential risk factors for respiratory infection was abstracted from medical charts.
Assessment of the association between case status and categorical exposure variables was determined using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic, with strata defined by match group. An adjusted odds ratio (OR) for each exposure was derived via the logit estimate9; 0.5 was added to each cell because of small stratum-specific sample size,10 and tables with a 0 sum row or column were not included in the computation. Statistical analyses were performed by using SAS 9.1 (Statistical Analysis System, Cary, NC).
On the basis of observations of infection control practices at hospital A, environmental samples of potential sources of Ralstonia spp were obtained and sent to the CDC. These included hospital potable water, ice from ice machines, sterile water, condensate from 2 mechanical ventilators, sterile respiratory solutions, used and unused Vapotherm filter cartridges, and surface swabs from 4 Vapotherm devices.
National Investigation
Because the Vapotherm 2000i is used in hospitals throughout the country, we conducted national case-finding via respiratory therapy, infectious disease, infection control, and public health communication networks to identify additional patients with Ralstonia spp colonization or infection. Institutions were asked to submit patient information and clinical and environmental isolates for identification and molecular testing. Probable cases were those in which Ralstonia was reported between January 1, 2005, and March 1, 2006, but no isolate was available for testing at the CDC. Confirmed cases had clinical isolates that were identified as Ralstonia spp in CDC laboratories. Differences between infected and colonized patients were measured by using the Mann-Whitney test statistic for continuous variables and the
2 test statistic for categorical variables.
Microbiology
Vapotherm filter cartridges were flushed with 45 mL of sterile water, phosphate-buffered saline, or Dey-Engley neutralizing broth (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ). The resulting eluent was processed by membrane filtration through a 0.45-µm pore size, 47-mm mixed cellulose ester membrane filter (Millipore Corporation, Bellerica, MA) or by centrifugation at 3500g for 15 minutes. Surface swabs of Vapotherm devices were obtained from air ports on the filter cartridge, air connections on the Vapotherm machine, and the machine port delivering humidified oxygen to the patient. Vapor samples were obtained from operating devices by connecting the oxygen-delivery tube to a sealed, sterile container and collecting the resulting condensate.
The CDC also cultured tap water used during the calibration step of new Vapotherm devices manufactured in Ireland. Environmental water and ice samples were collected with sodium thiosulfate to neutralize residual chlorine.
All samples were cultured on Trypticase soy agar with 5% sheep blood (Becton Dickinson), MacConkey II agar (Becton Dickinson), and R2A agar. Identification of isolate species was performed by using the Vitek 2 automated instrument (bioMérieux, Durham, NC) in combination with a series of standard biochemical tests.11
Molecular Typing
After digestion of chromosomal DNA with Spe1, molecular typing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was performed as described previously.12 PFGE patterns were compared by using Bionumerics 3.5 software (Applied Maths, Austin, TX), and isolates were considered related if Dice coefficients were >80% similar. For comparison, we obtained isolates of Ralstonia mannitolilytica, collected several years before the start of the current outbreak, from the Burkholderia cepacia Research Laboratory and Repository (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI). PFGE analysis was also used to confirm species identification, demonstrating that Ralstonia pickettii isolates were genetically distinguishable from R mannitolilytica isolates.
Testing of New Reprocessing Protocols
During the investigation, Vapotherm proposed 2 new disinfection protocols for its machines and cartridges. The CDC assessed the efficacy of each protocol on a machine that was known to be contaminated with Ralstonia. One protocol recommended circulating 200 ppm chlorine dioxide (ClO2) in the device fluid path for 10 minutes with the filter cartridge in place. To test this protocol, vapor samples were obtained at 3 time points: before reprocessing, immediately after reprocessing, and after 7 days of continuous device operation outside of patient care areas.
The second protocol recommended circulating 1000 ppm ClO2 in the device fluid path for 1 hour without a filter cartridge. This protocol was performed on a contaminated machine by Vapotherm personnel in Stevensville, MD; the machine was then shipped to the CDC. Vapor samples were obtained at 6 time points: before reprocessing, immediately after reprocessing, every 7 days for 21 days, and on day 30. During this period, the machine was run continuously in a CDC laboratory.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
For patients exposed to Vapotherm, median exposure time was 9 days (range: 1–121 days), and median duration between last Vapotherm exposure and first positive culture was 4 days (range: 0–38 days). In 8 cases (21%), the reporting clinician indicated that Ralstonia had caused an infection, whereas the remaining cases were believed to represent colonization. Infected patients were significantly younger (P = .002) than colonized patients and were more likely to have fever >38°C (P = .031), develop leukocytosis according to the treating clinician (P < .001), display evidence of pneumonia on chest radiography (P = .034), and receive antibiotic therapy to treat Ralstonia (Table 2). One infection (3%) was reported by the treating physician to have complicated the course of an infant's underlying lung disease, possibly contributing to the patient's death. Confirmed cases were identified from January 2005 to January 2006, and 24 (63%) of 38 were reported after the field investigation at hospital A (Fig 2).
|
|
Microbiologic analysis of samples taken from the Ireland facility where Vapotherm machines were calibrated yielded Sphingomonas paucimobilus from cultures of tap water and B cepacia from swabs of the tap from which the water was drawn.
Molecular Typing
Dice coefficients generated from analysis of the PFGE data for 111 isolates of R mannitolilytica ranged from 100% to <59% relatedness. Clinical and environmental isolates from 18 (82%) of 22 hospitals in 12 noncontiguous states (Fig 3) were related, including isolates from 31 confirmed cases (82%). None of the 9 reference R mannitolytica isolates obtained before the outbreak began was related to these isolates. Hospitals from 10 additional states reported recovery of Ralstonia spp but either did not submit an isolate for confirmation or submitted isolates that were not related.
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Intermittent cartridge contamination is 1 possibility. Although the CDC did not recover organisms from the unopened cartridges it tested, 2 hospitals reported recovery of Ralstonia spp from unopened filter cartridges. However, cartridges are manufactured by using deionized water subject to reverse osmosis and subsequently undergo high temperature drying and annealing (150°F for 4 hours, followed by 250°F for 40 minutes), which makes introduction and survival of organisms unlikely.
Another explanation for the outbreak is the introduction of R mannitolilytica into Vapotherm components during device calibration. Before the investigation, tap water was used to calibrate devices during manufacturing, and they were packaged for distribution before drying completely. Organisms in residual water in the machines could have formed biofilms in device tubing during shipping and storage,15 rendering them less susceptible to disinfection.16 Ralstonia spp are known to exhibit biofilm formation in plastic water piping.17 Once present in the devices, Ralstonia may have persisted because of a combination of factors, including warm and moist operating conditions that would promote bacterial growth, failure of end users to reprocess the devices on a consistent basis, and inability of the manufacturer's original disinfection process to eradicate biofilms.
The results of this investigation are subject to several limitations. First, the source of Vapotherm device contamination was not identified. The CDC was unable to recover organisms from unopened cartridges, and Ralstonia spp were not recovered from water samples taken from the manufacturing plant. However, other waterborne microorganisms, including S paucimobilus and B cepacia, were found in the water source used for calibration. Water samples sent to the CDC were collected several months after the proposed inoculation had occurred, long enough for the microbial flora of the water to have changed,18 obscuring evidence of Ralstonia contamination at an earlier time point.
A second limitation stems from the limited information describing the genetic diversity of R mannitolilytica in the United States. If R mannitolilytica has only marginal diversity, then the finding of genetically related strains in several states may not imply intrinsic contamination of the Vapotherm device. Because Ralstonia spp are ubiquitous environmental organisms,17,19 the outbreak could have resulted from concomitant but unconnected contamination with apparently related strains. However, our investigation helps show that such genetic uniformity is unlikely. Twenty-two percent of tested R mannitolilytica isolates showed PFGE patterns that were <80% related to the predominant strain. Furthermore, comparison isolates of R mannitolilytica obtained before the start of the outbreak were not related to isolates collected during the investigation.
The Vapotherm 2000i was cleared for marketing through the premarket-notification 510(k) process with the indication, "To add moisture to, and to warm breathing gases for administration to patients."20 Unlike PMA submissions, which require data that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of devices, manufacturers of devices submitted for 510(k) review are generally not required to submit design and manufacturing test data to the FDA.21 Instead, a 510(k) submission relies on demonstration of "substantial equivalence" to a "predicate device" that has already been cleared for marketing. A new device is considered substantially equivalent if it has the same intended use and technologic characteristics as the predicate device and does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness.7 Device manufacturers seeking to market through the 510(k) process can claim reprocessing efficacy if their products are "virtually identical from an infection control perspective to a predicate device for which disinfection has been validated."21 The FDA granted the Vapotherm 2000i clearance on the basis of a comparison to other marketed respiratory gas humidifiers. There are, however, unique aspects of the Vapotherm 2000i that distinguish it from other gas humidifiers from an infection control perspective. Respiratory therapy devices like the Vapotherm 2000i, are generally considered semi-critical medical devices, whose reusable components minimally require high-level disinfection between patients.22 However, reprocessing instructions for reusable components of the Vapotherm device recommended use of a low-level disinfectant between patients. Furthermore, because the Vapotherm 2000i used a reusable 0.01-µm filter cartridge as a "biological barrier" between air and water compartments, tap water was permitted in the device. In its 510(k) Indication for Use Statement, the company stated, "under normal working conditions, there was essentially no risk of bacterial contamination of nasal air flow."23
On the basis of the results of this investigation, the FDA issued a Preliminary Public Health Notification on December 20, 2005, advising health care providers to use alternate devices. On December 22, 2005, Vapotherm recalled the 2000i device. This action was classified by the FDA as a Class I recall, which is reserved for products that have a reasonable chance of causing serious health problems or death.
In response to the outbreak and investigation, Vapotherm introduced changes to their manufacturing process and disinfection and use parameters to address potential sources of device contamination (Table 3). In January 2007, the FDA determined that these modifications satisfied requirements for a 510(k) submission, and the Vapotherm device was reintroduced for use. The CDC and FDA recommend that clinicians intending to use the Vapotherm device follow the latest instructions for the device and its components, which can be obtained by contacting Vapotherm.
|
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
Address correspondence to Michael A. Jhung, MD, MPH, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, NE MS A-24, Atlanta, GA 30333. E-mail: mjhung{at}cdc.gov
The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
The views in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
P. K. Kutty, B. Moody, J. S. Gullion, M. Zervos, M. Ajluni, R. Washburn, R. Sanderson, M. A. Kainer, T. A. Powell, C. F. Clarke, et al. Multistate Outbreak of Burkholderia cenocepacia Colonization and Infection Associated With the Use of Intrinsically Contaminated Alcohol-Free Mouthwash Chest, December 1, 2007; 132(6): 1825 - 1831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Saiman Providing a Safety Net for Children: Investigating a Multistate Outbreak of Ralstonia mannitolilytica Related to a Contaminated Reusable Device Pediatrics, June 1, 2007; 119(6): 1207 - 1209. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||