CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Résumé de cet Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Lorenz, I. H.
Right arrow Articles by Benzer, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lorenz, I. H.
Right arrow Articles by Benzer, A.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 49:347-352 (2002)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2002

General Anesthesia

Routine handling of propofol prevents contamination as effectively as does strict adherence to the manufacturer's recommendations

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

Ingo H. Lorenz, MD*, Christian Kolbitsch, MD DEAA*, Cornelia Lass-Flörl, MD{dagger}, Irene Gritznig, MD*, Burkard Vollert, MD*, Werner Lingnau*, Patrizia L Moser, MD{ddagger} and Arnulf Benzer, MD DEAA*

* From the Departments of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine,
{dagger} Hygiene and Social Medicine, and
{ddagger} Pathology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.

Dr. Christian Kolbitsch, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Innsbruck, Anichstr. 35, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Phone: +43-(0) 512-504-2400; Fax: +43-(0) 512-504-2450; E-mail: christian.kolbitsch{at}uibk.ac.at

Purpose: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: Total contamination rates were comparable in both groups (Group I: 14/160 (8.75%), Group II: 13/160 (8.13%) ({chi}2P=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%); {chi}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%); {chi}2=0.278; P=0.598).

Conclusion: 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.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
B. B. Abdelmalak, C. A. Bashour, and J. P. Yared
Skin infection and necrosis after subcutaneous infiltration of propofol in the intensive care unit
Can J Anesth, July 1, 2008; 55(7): 471 - 473.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
C. A. Trepanier and M. R. Lessard
Propofol and the risk of transmission of infection/Le propofol et le risque de transmission d'infection
Can J Anesth, June 1, 2003; 50(6): 533 - 537.
[Full Text] [PDF]


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
M. B. Sosis
On the proper sterile technique for handling of propofol
Can J Anesth, November 1, 2002; 49(9): 1000 - 1000.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
T. Hackmann, C. S. Soder, and C. Kolbitsch
Preventing contamination of propofol infusions
Can J Anesth, October 1, 2002; 49(8): 886 - 886.
[Full Text]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.