Severe Sepsis after Intravenous Injection of Contaminated Propofol

Veber, Benoît; Gachot, Bertrand; Bédos, Jean Pierre; Wolff, Marcos

doi:10.1097/00000542-199403000-00050

Cited by 72 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to previous reports 6 that the catheter utilization ratios significantly decreased from 0.14 to 0.09 (P ! .001), the catheter utilization ratio remained high and increased from 0.78 to 0.85 (P !…”

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…5 In the first observations made by Sakuragi et al 1 about bacterial growth on propofol alone, we might say that there were coherent results, according to several case reports of outbreak infections associated with propofol contamination. 6 figure 1. Results adapted from the study by Sakuragi et al, 1 which represents the bacterial growth in the mixture of 4% lidocaine with 1% propofol (dashed line) and in 4% lidocaine alone (solid line).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6,7 In other results, they described the growth behavior of E. coli, comparing the interaction of lidocaine from 1% to 4% concentrations plus 1% propofol and lidocaine alone, basically to determine the bacteriostatic efficacy of lidocaine in the function of concentrations able to counteract the probiotic properties of propofol. When the authors counted the progress of colonies in 4% lidocaine with 1% propofol and 4% lidocaine, surprisingly the growth rate reported in the mixture was less than in the lidocaine alone (Ϫ0.004 and ϩ0.01, respectively).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bacteriostatic Effect of Mixtures of 1% Propofol with 4% Lidocaine versus 4% Lidocaine Alone: Regards on Microbiologic Studies in the Field of Anesthesiology

Zorrilla-Vaca

Escandón-Vargas

2014

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

contrasting

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bacteriostatic Effect of Mixtures of 1% Propofol with 4% Lidocaine versus 4% Lidocaine Alone: Regards on Microbiologic Studies in the Field of Anesthesiology

Zorrilla-Vaca

Escandón-Vargas

2014

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1,5 The absence of preservatives in the propofol preparation may support microbial growth. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Admixture of thiopentone, 15 lidocaine [16][17][18][19] or disodium edetate 20 diminishes microbial growth in propofol, although microbial destruction is not achieved.…”

Section: [Le Maniement D'usage Du Propofol Prévient La Contamination mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groupe I et 13/160 (8,13 %) dans le Groupe II (P 2 = 0,074; P = 0,96). La fréquence de contamination ne diffère pas d'un groupe à l'autre, pour l'échantillon 1 prélevé au début de l'opération (Groupe I : 5/80 (6,25 %) vs Groupe II : 6/80 (7,5 %); P 2 = 0,098; P = 0,76) ou l'échantillon 2 à la fin (Groupe I : 9/80 (11,25 %)vs Groupe II : 7/80 (8,75 %); P 2 = 0,278; P = 0,598 …”

unclassified

Le maniement d’usage du propofol prévient la contamination aussi effectivement que la stricte adhésion aux recommandations du fabricant

Lorenz

Kolbitsch

Lass‐Flörl

et al. 2002

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

P Pu ur rp po os se e: : Propofol is a potential vector of infection, because it contains no preservative. Thus, the manufacturer's specific recommendations for preparing injections or infusions go beyond the guidelines commonly used in our operating rooms for preparing other iv drugs. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether in the daily routine of an operating theatre a modified propofol handling technique can prevent contamination as effectively as do the manufacturer's handling recommendations. M Me et th ho od ds s: : A total of 160 consecutive neurosurgical patients were allocated to either Group I (manufacturer's handling recommendations: i.e., 1) disinfecting propofol vials and ampoules before filling syringes; 2) replacing empty syringes; 3) discarding all material at the end of surgery); or Group II (modified propofol handling protocol: i.e., 1) refilling empty syringes; 2) renewing only the infusion line to the patient). R Re es su ul lt ts s: : Total contamination rates were comparable in both groups (Group I: 14/160 (8.75%), Group II: 13/160 (8.13%) (P 2 =0.074; P=0.96). Frequency of contamination was not different between groups; either in sample 1 taken at the beginning of the procedure, (Group I: 5/80 (6.25%) vs Group II: 6/80 (7.5%); P 2 =0.098; P=0.76) or in sample 2, taken at the end, (Group I: 9/80 (11.25%) vs Group II: 7/80 (8.75%); P 2 =0.278; P=0.598). C Co on nc cl lu us si io on n: : We conclude that in the daily routine of the operating theatre following a modified propofol handling protocol prevents contamination of propofol syringes as effectively as does adhering to the manufacturer's specific handling recommendations. However, neither of the tested guidelines completely prevented contamination. Groupe I et 13/160 (8,13 %) dans le Groupe II (P 2 = 0,074; P = 0,96). La fréquence de contamination ne diffère pas d'un groupe à l'autre, pour l'échantillon 1 prélevé au début de l'opération (Groupe I : 5/80 (6,25 %) vs Groupe II : 6/80 (7,5 %); P 2 = 0,098; P = 0,76) ou l'échantillon 2 à la fin (Groupe I : 9/80 (11,25 %)vs Groupe II : 7/80 (8,75 %); P 2 = 0,278; P = 0,598 Objectif : Le propofol, ne contenant aucun agent de conservation, est un vecteur potentiel d'infection. C'est pourquoi les recommandations spécifiques du fabricant au sujet de la préparation d'injections ou de perfusions vont au delà des directives habituellement suivies dans nos salles d'opération pour la préparation d'autres médicaments intraveineux. Nous avons voulu déterminer si, en modifiant le maniement du propofol en salle d'opération, nous pouvions prévenir la contamination aussi efficacement qu'en suivant à la lettre les recom

show abstract

Anesthesia

Tobias

Wall

2008

Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Severe Sepsis after Intravenous Injection of Contaminated Propofol

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

Bacteriostatic Effect of Mixtures of 1% Propofol with 4% Lidocaine versus 4% Lidocaine Alone: Regards on Microbiologic Studies in the Field of Anesthesiology

Bacteriostatic Effect of Mixtures of 1% Propofol with 4% Lidocaine versus 4% Lidocaine Alone: Regards on Microbiologic Studies in the Field of Anesthesiology

Le maniement d’usage du propofol prévient la contamination aussi effectivement que la stricte adhésion aux recommandations du fabricant

Anesthesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About