CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McHugh, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Roper, G. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McHugh, G. J.
Right arrow Articles by Roper, G. M.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 42, 801-804, Copyright © 1995 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Propofol emulsion and bacterial contamination

GJ McHugh and GM Roper
Department of Anaesthesia, Memorial Hospital, Hastings, New Zealand.

Package insert information provided with propofol advises prompt administration following its drawing-up. This study has examined the delays which occur between drawing-up and administration of propofol in clinical practice and the incidence of bacterial contamination occurring under such conditions. Two hundred and fifty-four clinical uses of propofol were examined. Mean elapsed times (range) from drawing-up to induction were 28.8 min (1-172), and 11.6 min (1-65) from induction to culture inoculation. The delay to induction exceeded ten minutes in 68.5% of propofol uses. Sixteen cultures (6.3%) grew bacteria. Delay to induction was not associated with increased chances of bacterial growth in any of the samples. Increasing delay between induction and culture inoculation was associated with greater odds of bacterial growth, which is consistent with contamination occurring at or after induction. Whilst the manufacturers advise prompt administration, our findings show that when inadvertent delays occur, propofol remains bacteriologically safe to use under standard clinical conditions. Microbial contamination can occur at any stage, thus attention to asepsis remains important throughout the administration period.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
W. C. E. Hall, D. T. Jolly, J. Hrazdil, J. C. Galbraith, M. Greacen, and A. S. Clanachan
The EmulSivTM filter removes microbial contamination from propofol but is not a substitute for aseptic technique: [Le filtre EmulSivTM elimine la contamination microbienne du propofol, mais ne remplace pas l'asepsie]
Can J Anesth, June 1, 2003; 50(6): 541 - 546.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
I. H. Lorenz, C. Kolbitsch, C. Lass-Florl, I. Gritznig, B. Vollert, W. Lingnau, P. L Moser, and A. Benzer
Routine handling of propofol prevents contamination as effectively as does strict adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations: [Le maniement d'usage du propofol previent la contamination aussi effectivement que la stricte adhesion aux recommandations du fabricant]
Can J Anesth, April 1, 2002; 49(4): 347 - 352.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. I. Vidovich, L. R. Peterson, and H. Y. Wong
The Effect of Lidocaine on Bacterial Growth in Propofol
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 1999; 88(4): 936 - 936.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.