Assessing maintenance of evaporative cooling systems in Legionellosis outbreaks

Evaporative cooling systems continue to be associated with outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease despite widely available maintenance guidelines intended to reduce these outbreaks. Yet, the guidelines vary widely regarding the recommendations that are made to maintain evaporative cooling systems and it is unclear whether guidelines were in place or, if they were, whether they were being followed when the outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease occurred. Thus, this study was designed to conduct two systematic reviews of (1) evaporative cooling system maintenance guidelines; and (2) published Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks. For each maintenance guideline identified in the systematic review, recommended maintenance practices were abstracted and similarities and/or differences in the reported recommendations were assessed. Following the systematic review of outbreak investigations that meet the inclusion criteria established for the study, information about the state of the evaporative cooling system during the outbreak investigation was abstracted to summarize, when reported, which maintenance practices were implemented. As expected, the recommended maintenance procedures varied greatly across the guidelines and were not always specific. Overall, the outbreak investigations tended to report similar maintenance issues that were unclear in the maintenance guidelines. Generally, these maintenance issues were biocide use, microbiological testing, frequency of general inspections, and protocols and frequency of total system cleanings. The role in which non-standardized and generalized maintenance guidelines plays in the continued association between Legionnaires’ disease and evaporative cooling systems is still not fully understood. However, this study suggests that more specific and standardized maintenance guidelines, that have been scientifically established to be effective in controlling Legionella bacteria, are needed and then these guidelines must be properly implemented in order to help reduce further Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks associated with evaporative cooling systems.^

Usage of Urinary Antigen Test for Legionella on diagnosed community-acquired pneumonia in San Antonio hospitals

Purpose. To evaluate the use of the Legionella Urine Antigen Test as a cost effective method for diagnosing Legionnaires’ disease in five San Antonio Hospitals from January 2007 to December 2009. ^ Methods. The data reported by five San Antonio hospitals to the San Antonio Metropolitan Health District during a 3-year retrospective study (January 2007 to December 2009) were evaluated for the frequency of non-specific pneumonia infections, the number of Legionella Urine Antigen Tests performed, and the percentage of positive cases of Legionnaires’ disease diagnosed by the Legionella Urine Antigen Test.^ Results. There were a total of 7,087 cases of non-specific pneumonias reported across the five San Antonio hospitals studied from 2007 to 2009. A total of 5,371 Legionella Urine Antigen Tests were performed from January, 2007 to December, 2009 across the five San Antonio hospitals in the study. A total of 38 positive cases of Legionnaires’ disease were identified by the use of Legionella Urinary Antigen Test from 2007-2009.^ Conclusions. In spite of the limitations of this study in obtaining sufficient relevant data to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Legionella Urinary Antigen Test in diagnosing Legionnaires’ disease, the Legionella Urinary Antigen Test is simple, accurate, faster, as results can be obtained within minutes to hours; and convenient because it can be performed in emergency room department to any patient who presents with the clinical signs or symptoms of pneumonia. Over the long run, it remains to be shown if this test may decrease mortality, lower total medical costs by decreasing the number of broad-spectrum antibiotics prescribed, shorten patient wait time/hospital stay, and decrease the need for unnecessary ancillary testing, and improve overall patient outcomes.^