If h e presence of odors is testified to before a magistrate and he finds the affiant qualified to know the odor, and it is one sufficiently distinctive to identify a forbidden substance, this Court has never held such a basis insufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant.
We chose to focus on ESBL-E presence or absence in respiratory samples and in previous rectal swabs, regardless of the Enterobacteriaceae species.
Indeed, the association of ESBL-E presence or absence in rectal swab and respiratory sample is relevant for the choice of empirical antimicrobial therapy, whatever the Enterobacteriaceae species.
The objective was to evaluate whether ESBL-E rectal colonisation was predictive of ESBL-E presence in the early (≤5 days) or late (>5 days) respiratory samples performed in the ICU.
Table 3 summarized the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios of ESBL-E digestive colonization as a predictor of ESBL-E presence or absence in respiratory samples performed early and late after ICU admission.
Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated for ESBL-E digestive colonization as a predictor of ESBL-E presence in respiratory samples.
The performance of rectal swab to predict EBSL-E presence or absence in respiratory samples was then investigated in early (≤5 days) and late (>5 days) period after ICU admission.
The objectives of this study were: (1) to test the performance of digestive colonization surveillance as a predictor of ESBL-E presence or absence in respiratory samples performed in ICU; (2) to evaluate the impact of time sampling (≤5 days or >5 days) on such prediction; (3) to verify the impact of a medical versus surgical population on the results.
To prevent the overuse of broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy, the main objective of this study was to test the performance of digestive colonization surveillance as a predictor of ESBL-E presence or absence in respiratory samples performed in ICU and to evaluate the impact of time sampling (≤5 days or >5 days) on such prediction.
Fig. 3 SEM images of carbon steel after exposition in a without exposure, b background aqueous saline solution, c, d presence of NaNO2 (30 mmol/l), e presence of Na2SiO3 (30 mmol/l), f presence NaNO2 (10 mmol/l) + Na2SiO3 (20 mmol/l).
