			Home About us Contact

Universal Precautions (universal + precaution)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Chronic viral hepatitis in hemodialysis patients

HEMODIALYSIS INTERNATIONAL, Issue 2 2005
Sydney Tang
Abstract Ever since the first outbreaks of hepatitis in hemodialysis units in the late 1960s, a number of hepatotropic viruses transmitted by blood and other body fluids have been identified. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge regarding these blood-borne agents from an epidemiologic and preventive perspective. Data source and study selection were obtained from research and review articles related to the epidemiology of viral hepatitis in hemodialysis and indexed on Medline and Embase from 1965 to 2004. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) was the first significant hepatotropic virus to be identified in hemodialysis centers. HBV infection has been effectively controlled by active vaccination, screening of blood donors, the use of erythropoietin, and segregation of HBV carriers. To date, HBV remains an important cause of morbidity in endemic areas. Hepatitis delta virus is a defective virus that can only infect HBV-positive individuals. Hepatitis C virus is the most significant cause of non-A, non-B hepatitis and is mainly transmitted by blood transfusion. The introduction in 1990 of routine screening of blood donors for HCV contributed significantly to the control of HCV transmission. An effective HCV vaccine remains an unsolved challenge, however. Pegylation of interferon-, has made it possible to treat HCV-positive dialysis patients. Unexplained sporadic outbreaks of hepatitis by the mid-1990s prompted the discovery of hepatitis G virus and hepatitis GB virus C in 1995 and the TT virus in 1997. Although epidemiologic analyses revealed high prevalence rates of both viruses in the hemodialysis population, their exact role in liver disease has yet to be determined. The vigilant observation of guidelines on universal precaution and regular virologic testing are the cornerstones of the effective control of chronic hepatitis in the setting of hemodialysis. [source]

Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among health care workers in a general hospital, China

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL MEDICINE, Issue 2 2009
Min Zhang BM
Abstract Objectives To understand current status of occupational exposure to blood and body fluids (BBF), and awareness of knowledge about occupational bloodborne pathogen exposures and universal precaution among hospital-based health care workers (HCWs). Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted during April to May 2004 to study incidence of occupational exposure to BBF among 1,144 hospital-based HCWs. Results The total incidence and the average number of episodes exposure to BBF was 66.3/100 HCWs per year and 7.5 per person per year in the past year, respectively. The incidence (per 100/HCWs per year) and the average number of episodes (per HCW per year) of percutaneous injury (PCI), mucous-membrane exposure (MME), and exposure to BBF by damaged skin was 50.3 and 1.8; 34.4 and 1.7; and 37.9 and 4.0, respectively. The leading incidence and the average number of episodes of PCI occurred in delivery room (82.6 and 1.8). The highest percentage of PCI's that occurred during the previous 2 weeks occurred during a surgical operation (22.8%). Of all sharp instruments, the suture needle contributed the highest percentage of PCI's (24.7%) among HCWs in the last 2 weeks. Over two-thirds (68.3%) of respondents were immunized with Hepatitis B vaccine; less than one-half (47%) of HCWs wore gloves while doing procedures on patients. The respondents demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding transmission of bloodborne diseases and universal precautions. Conclusions Risk for potential exposure to BBF appears high in HCWs, and almost all of episodes are not reported. It is urgent to establish the Guideline for Prevention and Control of Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens among HCWs. Am. J. Ind. Med. 52:89,98, 2009. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

The Surgical Looking Glass: A Readily Available Safeguard Against Eye Splash Injury/Contamination During Infiltration of Anesthesia for Cysts and Other "Porous" Lesions of the Skin

DERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 4 2002
Patrick R. Carrington MD
Background. "Breaks" in barrier precautions are a definite abrogating influence on the effectiveness of "universal precautions." Dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons are exposed to significant infectious agents on a daily basis, especially due to the high number of minor surgical procedures performed. Backsplash, spray, and eye splash of bodily fluids during these procedures place the surgeon at a high risk of contamination/infection via the conjunctival membranes. The surgical looking glass is a simple utility based on inexpensive equipment already in place in the physician's office which protects the eyes and face during infiltrative anesthesia or incision of cysts and other lesions. Objective. To offer a simple and inexpensive utility to assist with protection from and reduction of contamination/infection of the ocular mucous membranes during surgical procedures. Methods. Utilizing one or two readily available microscope slides overlying the injection site during local infiltrative anesthesia, backsplash or spray can be contained. Results. This utility is effective in containment of backsplash or spray of anesthesia or bodily fluids during even minor surgical procedures. Conclusion. The surgical looking glass can enhance safety and promote "universal precautions" during even minor surgical procedures or infiltration of anesthesia into more porous areas or lesions for the practicing dermatologist or dermatologic surgeon. The pragmatic, practical, and inexpensive nature of the surgical looking glass invites its use on a daily basis by the practicing dermatologist. [source]

Emergency department personal protective equipment requirements following out-of-hospital chemical biological or radiological events in Australasia

EMERGENCY MEDICINE AUSTRALASIA, Issue 2 2007
Guy W Sansom
Abstract Recent events have led to a revision in ED equipment, preparedness and training for disasters. However, clinicians must still decide when, and what level of personal protection is required when a toxic threat exists. If possible, clear, simple and achievable protocols are required in such situations. Following an off-site Australasian chemical biological or radiological incident, current evidence indicates that the initial receiving ED staff will be adequately protected from all known chemical biological and radiological inhalational threats by wearing a properly fitted P2 (N95) mask, or its equivalent. Protection from serious contact injury is offered by wearing double gloves, disposable fluid-repellent coveralls or gown, eye protection, surgical mask, and ideally, a cap and shoe covers; in conjunction with universal precautions and procedures. [source]

Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic hepatitis C

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, Issue 4 2009
Yoshiyuki Ueno
Abstract Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection accounts for most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Japan and is the second major cause in many other countries. Development of HCC takes a considerable time after onset of HCV infection, between 20,40 years in most cases, and usually develops after cirrhosis is established. Although only a minority of HCV infections reach this stage, the high prevalence of chronic HCV infection in many countries (1,3%) is such that HCC related to HCV infection poses a significant public health issue 20,50 years after the onset of HCV epidemics. Due to advances in testing, and accessibility of clean, disposable medical apparatus including syringes and needles, and particularly screening of donor blood for anti-HCV and by nucleic acid testing, new cases of HCV infection have decreased in most countries, except for continued transmission by injection drug users (IDU). A key difference between HBV and HCV infection is that HCV can be eradicated by effective antiviral treatment. Sustained eradication of HCV reverses hepatic fibrosis, thereby preventing progression to cirrhosis and risk of HCC. Further, it has been well demonstrated that interferon-based antiviral therapy suppresses development of HCC in high-risk patients, particularly when sustained viral response (SVR) is obtained. In summary, the two key approaches to prevent development of HCV-related HCC are primary prevention of HCV infection (adequate programs to screen donor blood, universal precautions to stop medical transmission of blood-borne viruses, curbing transmission by IDU) and potent antiviral therapy of chronic HCV infection. [source]

Hepatitis infection in haemodialysis patients

NEPHROLOGY, Issue 3 2002
Chiu-Ching HUANG
SUMMARY: Known hepatitis infections among haemodialysis patients include hepatitis B, hepatitis C, hepatitis G and TT virus. Haemodialysis patients with hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C infection may progress to develop significant morbidity, such as cirrhosis, hepatitic failure or hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatitis B infection may be treated with ,-interferon or lamivudine. Hepatitis C infection may be treated with ,-interferon, but frequent severe adverse effects were observed, while ribavirin is contraindicated for patients with renal failure. Treatment for hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C are costly, and the risk of post-transplant reactivation of hepatitis has been reported. Prevention of nosocomial transmission of hepatitis infection with strict infection control and universal precautions is more important. Accumulating evidence suggests that both hepatitis G virus and TT virus (TTV) are not significant causes of liver disease. Routine screening for hepatitis G or TTV viraemia in haemodialysis patients is not indicated at present. [source]