Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2016; 06(02): 051-056
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1708641
Original Article

Incidence and Pattern of Bacterial Growth in Propofol Vial - An In vitro Study

U. S. Raveendra
1   Professor, Department of Microbiology, Department of Anaesthesiology, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore
,
Rashmi Soori
2   Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore
,
Vimal Kumar Karnekar
3   Professor and Head, Department of Microbiology, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore
,
Swathi N. Nayak
4   Consultant, Department of Microbiology, Adarsha Hospital, Kundapur
,
Anand Bangera
5   Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesiology, K.S.Hegde Medical Academy, Mangalore
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction- Propofol vials are often used in parts or are opened and left unattended. This has lead to blood stream infections, surgical site infections and acute febrile episodes. A prospective observational study was undertaken to know the incidence and pattern of bacterial growth in samples of Propofol in tropical climate.

Materials and methods- Samples were collected from vials of propofol of different brands, both with and without edetate at different time intervals with relation to room temperature. Each sample of 1ml were inoculated in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) and incubated for 48hours. Presence of bacterial growth and their pattern were studied.

Statistical analysis used- Paired t test for categorical variables and for non categorical variables Levine's test and Pearson correlation. Results- Overall 42.26% of samples showed bacterial growth. The incidence was more in samples of propofol without edetate (43.75%) compared to samples with edetate (41.97 %). Most common organism was Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, Bacillus species, Pseudomonas and Staphylococcus citrus.

Conclusion- Propofol vial once opened favours bacterial colonisation and growth. Adding edetate to propofol has not shown much benefit in decreasing the incidence.

Keywords

Propofol - Contamination - Bacterial growth


Publication History

Received: 01 December 2015

Accepted: 14 May 2016

Article published online:
22 April 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Bennett SN, McNeil MM, Bland LA, Arduino MJ, Villarino ME, Perrotta DM et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, propofol. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995; 333:147-54.
  • 2 Vidovich MI, Peterson LR, Wong HY. The effect of lidocaine on bacterial growth in propofol. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 936-8.
  • 3 Postsurgical infections associated with an extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent—California, Illinois, Maine, and Michigan, 1990. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990; 39: 426-7,433.
  • 4 Kuehnert MJ, Webb RM, Jochimsen EM, Hancock GA, Arduino MJ, Hand S et al. Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections among patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy traced to breaks in infection control and possible extrinsic contamination by propofol. Anesth Analg 1997;85:420-5.
  • 5 McHugh GJ, Roper GM. Propofol emulsion and bacterial contamination.Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 801-4.
  • 6 Gordon RJ, Lowy FD. Pathogenesis of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clinical infectious diseases. 2008; 46(Supplement 5):S350-9.
  • 7 Wertheim HF, Melles DC, Vos MC, van Leeuwen W, van Belkum A, Verbrugh HA et al. The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2005; 5:751-62.
  • 8 Kluytmans J, Van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clinical microbiology reviews. 1997; 10:505-20.
  • 9 Logan NA. Bacillus species of medical and veterinary importance. Journal of medical microbiology. 1988; 25:157-65.
  • 10 Tessler M, Dascal A, Gioseffini S, Miller M, Mendelson J. Growth curves of Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, and Moraxella osloensis in propofol and other media. Canadian journal of anaesthesia. 1992; 39:509-11.
  • 11 Berry CB, Gillespie T, Hood J, Scott NB. Growth of micro-organisms in solutions of intravenous anaesthetic agents. Anaesthesia. 1993; 48:30-2.
  • 12 Crowther J, Hrazdil J, Jolly DT, Galbraith JC, Greacen M, Grace M. Growth of microorganisms in propofol, thiopental, and a 1: 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 1996; 82:475-8.
  • 13 McLeod GA, Pace N, Inglis MD. Bacterial growth in propofol. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 1991; 67:665-6.
  • 14 Sood S, Malhotra M, Das BK, Kapil A. Enterococcal infections & antimicrobial resistance. Indian J Med Res. 2008; 128:111-21.
  • 15 Edwards DD. Enterococci attract attention of concerned microbiologists. ASM News 2000; 66: 540-5.
  • 16 Low DE, Keller N, Barth A, Jones RN. Clinical prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility, and geographic resistance patterns of enterococci: results from the SENTRY Antimicrobial Surveillance Program, 1997-1999. Clin Infect Dis 2001; 32(Supply 2): S133-45.
  • 17 Schaberg DR, Culver DH, Gaynes RP. Major trends in the microbial etiology of nosocomial infection. Am J Med 1991; 91: 72S-75S.
  • 18 Murray BE. Diversity among multidrug-resistant enterococci. Emerg Infect Dis 1998; 4: 37-47.
  • 19 L. Silvia Munoz-Price, Robert A. Weinstein Acinetobacter Infection. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1271-1281
  • 20 Eliopoulos GM, Maragakis LL, Perl TM. Acinetobacter baumannii: epidemiology, antimicrobial resistance, and treatment options. Clinical infectious diseases. 2008; 46:1254-63.
  • 21 Fishbain J, Peleg AY. Treatment of Acinetobacter infections. Clinical infectious diseases. 2010; 51:79-84.
  • 22 Rossolini GM, Mantengoli E. Treatment and control of severe infections caused by multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2005; 11(s4):17-32.
  • 23 Morrison AJ, Wenzel RP. Epidemiology of infections due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Review of Infectious Diseases. 1984; 6(Supplement 3):S627-42.
  • 24 Pollack M. Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 2000; 5:1980-2003. 25. Shibley GS, Hanger FM, Dochez AR. Studies in the common cold: I. Observations of the normal bacterial flora of nose and throat with variations occurring during colds. The Journal of Experimental Medicine. 1926; 43(3):415.
  • 26 King CA, Ogg M. Safe injection practices for administration of propofol. AORN journal. 2012; 95:365-72.
  • 27 Fukada T, Ozaki M. Microbial growth in propofol formulations with disodium edetate and the influence of venous access system dead space*. Anaesthesia. 2007; 62:575-80.