4.3 Article

Early Gut Colonization of Preterm Infants: Effect of Enteral Feeding Tubes

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001104

关键词

biofilms; hospital-associated bacteria; intestinal microbiota

资金

  1. FUN-C-FOOD [CSD2007-00063]
  2. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad (Spain) [AGL2013-41980-P]
  3. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo, Spain [FIS PS09/00040]
  4. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte
  5. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the potential colonization of nosocomial bacteria in enteral feeding systems and its effect on early gut colonization of preterm neonates. Methods: Mother's own milk, donor milk, and preterm formula samples obtained after passing through the external part of the enteral feeding tubes were cultured. In addition, meconium and fecal samples from 26 preterm infants collected at different time points until discharge were cultured. Random amplification polymorphism DNA and pulse field gel electrophoresis were performed to confirm the presence of specific bacterial strains in milk and infant fecal samples. Results: Approximately 4000 bacterial isolates were identified at the species level. The dominant species in both feces from preterm infants and milk samples were Staphylococcus epidermidis, S aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, E faecium, Serratia marcescens, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Escherichia coli. All of them were present at high concentrations independently of the feeding mode. Random amplification polymorphism DNA and pulse field gel electrophoresis techniques showed that several bacteria strains were found in both type of samples. Furthermore, scanning electron microscopy revealed the presence of a dense bacterial biofilm in several parts of the feeding tubes and the tube connectors. Conclusions: There is a sharing of bacterial strains between the neonates' gastrointestinal microbiota and the feeding tubes used to feed them.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据