Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Would it be safe to have a dog in the MRI scanner before your own examination? A multicenter study to establish hygiene facts related to dogs and men

  • Experimental
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether it would be hygienic to evaluate dogs and humans in the same MRI scanner.

Methods

We compared the bacterial load in colony-forming units (CFU) of human-pathogenic microorganisms in specimens taken from 18 men and 30 dogs. In addition, we compared the extent of bacterial contamination of an MRI scanner shared by dogs and humans with two other MRI scanners used exclusively by humans.

Results

Our study shows a significantly higher bacterial load in specimens taken from men’s beards compared with dogs’ fur (p = 0.036). All of the men (18/18) showed high microbial counts, whereas only 23/30 dogs had high microbial counts and 7 dogs moderate microbial counts. Furthermore, human-pathogenic microorganisms were more frequently found in human beards (7/18) than in dog fur (4/30), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.074). More microbes were found in human oral cavities than in dog oral cavities (p < 0.001). After MRI of dogs, routine scanner disinfection was undertaken and the CFU found in specimens isolated from the MRI scanning table and receiver coils showed significantly lower bacteria count compared with “human” MRI scanners (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our study shows that bearded men harbour significantly higher burden of microbes and more human-pathogenic strains than dogs. As the MRI scanner used for both dogs and humans was routinely cleaned after animal scanning, there was substantially lower bacterial load compared with scanners used exclusively for humans.

Key points

• Bearded men harbour significantly more microbes than dogs.

• Dogs are no risk to humans if they use the same MRI.

• Deficits in hospital hygiene are a relevant risk for patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Udell M, Wynne CA (2008) Review of domestic dogs' (Canis familiaris) human-like behaviors: or why behavior analysts should stop worrying and love their dogs. J Exp Anal Behav 89:247–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eurostat (2018) Population and population change statistics. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_and_population_change_statistics. Accessed 28 Mar 2018

  3. Statista (2018) Number of dogs in the European Union in 2017, by country (in 1000s). https://www.statista.com/statistics/414956/dog-population-european-union-eu-by-country/. Accessed 28 Mar 2018

  4. Destatis (2017) Bevölkerung, Familien, Lebensformen. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/StatistischesJahrbuch/Bevoelkerung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Accessed 28 Mar 2018

  5. Klopfenstein M, Howard J, Rossetti M, Geissbühler U (2016) Life expectancy and causes of death in Bernese mountain dogs in Switzerland. BMC Vet Re 12:153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cozzi B, Ballarin C, Mantovani R, Rota A (2017) Aging and veterinary care of cats, dogs, and horses through the records of three university veterinary hospitals. Front Vet Sci 4:14

  7. AnimalScan (2013) Understanding MR imaging for your pet. http://animalscan.com/understanding-mr-imaging-for-your-pet/. Accessed 28 Mar 2018

  8. Torres S, Clayton JB, Danzeisen JL et al (2017) Diverse bacterial communities exist on canine skin and are impacted by cohabitation and time. Peer J 5:e3075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sartoretti T, Sartoretti E, Bucher C et al (2017) Bacterial contamination of ultrasound probes in different radiological institutions before and after specific hygiene training: do we have a general hygienical problem? Eur Radiol 27:4181–4187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nyhsen CM, Humphreys H, Koerner RJ et al (2017) Infection prevention and control in ultrasound - best practice recommendations from the European Society of Radiology Ultrasound Working Group. Insights Imaging 8:523–535

  11. Murphy RA, Chua AC (2016) Prevention of common healthcare-associated infections in humanitarian hospitals. Curr Opin Infect Dis 29:381–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klevens M, Edwards JR, Richards CL Jr et al (2007) Estimating health care-associated infections and deaths in U.S. hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rep 122:160–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stone PW (2009) Economic burden of healthcare-associated infections: an American perspective. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 9:417–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gerlich MG, Piegsa J, Schäfer C et al (2015) Improving hospital hygiene to reduce the impact of multidrug-resistant organisms in health care–a prospective controlled multicenter study. BMC Infect Dis 15:441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève (2017) Point prevalence survey 2017 of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial use in Swiss acute care hospitals. https://www.swissnoso.ch/fileadmin/swissnoso/Dokumente/5_Forschung_und_Entwicklung/2_Punktpraevalenzstudie/Report_Point_Prevalence_Survey_2017_of_HAI_and_antimicrobial_use_in_Swiss_acute_care_hospitals.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2018

  16. [No authors listed] (2015) Health care-associated infections in the USA. Lancet 385:304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60101-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shen DT, Crawford TB, Gorham JR, McGuire TC (1977) Inactivation of equine infectious anemia virus by chemical disinfectants. Am J Vet Res 38:1217–1219

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Scott FW (1980) Virucidal disinfectants and feline viruses. Am J Vet Res 41:410–414

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Brown TT Jr (1981) Laboratory evaluation of selected disinfectants as virucidal agents against porcine parvovirus, pseudorabies virus, and transmissible gastroenteritis virus. Am J Vet Res 42:1033–1036

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our radiologic technologists Anke Gölz, Bea Keller and Susanne Weidmann, who try to make every day the best day possible both for our human patients and for our sick dogs. We also want to thank Nicole Graf, our professional statistician, who provided valuable support during the statistical evaluation of our results (graf@biostatistics.ch).

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Andreas Gutzeit

  2. Institute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna-Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Andreas Gutzeit, Juri Gutzeit, Junus Gutzeit, Sebastian Kos, Stephan Pfister, Matthias Anderegg, Carolin Reischauer & Johannes M. Froehlich

  3. Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, ETH Zurich, Vladimir-Prelog-Weg 1-5 / 10, 8093, Zurich, Switzerland

    Andreas Gutzeit & Johannes M. Froehlich

  4. Section of Small Animal Surgery/Neurology, Tierklinik Obergrund, Luzern, Switzerland

    Frank Steffen

  5. Microbiology Laboratory, Bioanalytica and Bioexam AG, Maihofstrasse 95A, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Livia Berlinger

  6. Head of General Management Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Ilona Funke

  7. Department of Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital, Sutton, Surrey, UK

    Dow-Mu Koh

  8. Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, Hirslanden Klinik St. Anna, St. Anna Strasse 32, 6006, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Christina Orasch

Authors
  1. Andreas Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Steffen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juri Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junus Gutzeit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sebastian Kos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephan Pfister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Livia Berlinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Matthias Anderegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Carolin Reischauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ilona Funke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Johannes M. Froehlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Dow-Mu Koh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Christina Orasch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Gutzeit.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Andreas Gutzeit.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Nicole Graf kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Approval from the institutional animal care committee was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• experimental

• multicenter study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gutzeit, A., Steffen, F., Gutzeit, J. et al. Would it be safe to have a dog in the MRI scanner before your own examination? A multicenter study to establish hygiene facts related to dogs and men. Eur Radiol 29, 527–534 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5648-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5648-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation