| Title |
Invasive Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Infections among Cardiothoracic Surgical Patients Exposed to Heater–Cooler Devices1
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2305.161899 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meghan M. Lyman, Cheri Grigg, Cara Bicking Kinsey, M. Shannon Keckler, Heather Moulton-Meissner, Emily Cooper, Minn M. Soe, Judith Noble-Wang, Allison Longenberger, Shane R. Walker, Jeffrey R. Miller, Joseph F. Perz, Kiran M. Perkins |
| Abstract |
Invasive nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) infections may result from a previously unrecognized source of transmission, heater-cooler devices (HCDs) used during cardiac surgery. In July 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Health notified the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about a cluster of NTM infections among cardiothoracic surgical patients at 1 hospital. We conducted a case-control study to identify exposures causing infection, examining 11 case-patients and 48 control-patients. Eight (73%) case-patients had a clinical specimen identified as Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC). HCD exposure was associated with increased odds of invasive NTM infection; laboratory testing identified patient isolates and HCD samples as closely related strains of M. chimaera, a MAC species. This investigation confirmed a large US outbreak of invasive MAC infections in a previously unaffected patient population and suggested transmission occurred by aerosolization from HCDs. Recommendations have been issued for enhanced surveillance to identify potential infections associated with HCDs and measures to mitigate transmission risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 31% |
| France | 2 | 13% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Greece | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 38% |
| Scientists | 4 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,670,647
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#3,367
of 9,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,408
of 310,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#60
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,713 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.