Search

Background: Knowledge about air as pool of pathogens and multidrug resistance (MDR) in healthcare units apart from hospitals is scarce., Aim: Current study aimed to portray these features in a Portuguese long-term healthcare unit (LTHU) and a central hospital (CH)., Methods: Air samples were collected and their microbial load (bacteria and fungi) determined. Bacterial isolates were randomly selected for further characterization, particularly identification by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and PCR-screening of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases, carbapenemase genes and mecA gene, with RAPD profile assessment of positive results of the latter., Findings: A total of 192 samples were collected (LTHU: n=86; CH: n=106). LTHU showed a statistically significant higher bacterial load. CH bacteria and fungi loads in inpatient sites were statistically significantly lower than in outpatients or non-patient sites. A total of 164 bacterial isolates were identified (MALDI-TOF: n=78; presumptively: n=86), the majority belonging to Staphylococcus genus (LTHU: n=42; CH: n=57). The highest antimicrobial resistance rate was to erythromycin and vancomycin the least, in both settings. 18 isolates (11%) were classified as MDR (LTHU: n=9; CH: n=9), with 7 MDR Staphylococcus isolates (LTHU: n=4; CH: n=3) presenting mecA. Of note, 9 non-MDR Staphylococcus (LTHU: n=5; CH: n=4) also presented mecA., Conclusion: Current study highlights that healthcare unit indoor air can be an important pool of MDR pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes. Also, LTHU appear to have poorer air quality than hospitals, as well as supportive areas compared to curative care areas. This may suggest possible yet unknown routes of infection that need to be explored., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the intraocular pressure (IOP) reference values in healthy male camels using two rebound tonometers: TonoVet (TV) and TonoVet Plus (TV+), and to compare measurements between both devices and in different body positions., Animals' Studied: Thirty-four healthy, captive, adult (8-24 years and a median age of 14), male camels belonging to a zoological collection in Fuerteventura, Spain., Methods: All camels underwent general physical examination, slit lamp biomicroscopy, and tonometry, under minimal physical restraint (headstall and chute). Three consecutive readings were acquired with TV and/or TV+ in the right and/or left eyes in standing and/or sitting positions, whenever possible. Comparisons between groups were made when paired data for the test variable was available for the same eye (for tonometer and body position) or for the same animal (for left and right eyes) using paired t-tests., Results: The mean IOP (± standard error and range) in standing position was 18.51 mmHg (0.52, 10.33-24.33 mmHg) for TV and 19.53 mmHg (0.50, 12.33-26.33 mmHg) for TV+. In sitting position, the IOP was 14.70 mmHg (0.49, 11.33-18.33 mmHg) for TV and 16.28 mmHg (0.47, 13-19.66 mmHg) for TV+. Measurements for both TV and TV+ were significantly higher (p = 0.003 and p = 0.011, respectively) in standing position. Recordings with TV+ were significantly higher than with TV, in any body position (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between right and left eyes, except for TV+ in standing position, with the IOP in the left eye being significantly higher (20.58 mmHg versus 18.51 mmHg, p = 0.004)., Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report estimating the IOP reference values in male camels comparing two different rebound tonometers. Measurements for both TV and TV+ were significantly higher in the standing position. Recordings with TV+ were significantly higher than with TV (in any body position). Further studies with female individuals and different age groups are warranted., (© 2025 American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists.)