Back to Search Start Over

The EmulSiv™ filter removes microbial contamination from propofol but is not a substitute for aseptic technique

Authors :
Alexander S. Clanachan
Jiri Hrazdil
John Galbraith
Donald T. Jolly
Maria Greacen
Wendy C. E. Hall
Source :
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie. 50:541-546
Publication Year :
2003
Publisher :
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2003.

Abstract

To evaluate the ability of the EmulSiv™ filter (EF) to remove extrinsic microbial contaminants from propofol. Aliquots of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Candida albicans (C. albicans), Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae), Moraxella osloensis (M. osloensis), Enterobacter agglomerans (E. agglomerans), Escherichia coli (E. coli), Serratia marcescens (S. marcescens), Moraxella catarrhalis (M. catarrhalis), Haemophilus influenzae (H. influenzae) and Campylobacter jejuni (C. jejuni) were inoculated into vials containing 20 mL of sterile propofol. The unfiltered inoculated propofol solutions served as controls. Ten millilitres and 20 mL samples of the inoculated propofol were filtered through the EF. All solutions were then subplated onto three culture plates using a precision 1 μL calibrated platinum loop and incubated. The number of colony forming units (CFU) were counted. Data were analyzed using a one-sample t test, and a P value of less than 0.05 was selected as the level of statistical significance. The EF was able to completely remove CFU of S. aureus, C. albicans, K. pneumoniae, M. osloensis, E. agglomerans, E. coli, S. marcescens, and M. catarrhalis (P < 0.05). A small number of H. influenzae CFU were able to evade filtration in both the 10 mL and 20 mL samples. C. jejuni CFU were able to evade filtration in only the 10 mL sample. The EF removes the majority of microbial contaminates from propofol with the exception of H. influenzae and C. jejuni. Although the EF is capable of removing most of the microbial contamination produced by H. influenzae and C. jejuni, a few CFU are capable of evading filtration. Consequently, even the use of a filter capable of removing microbial contaminants is not a substitute for meticulous aseptic technique and prompt administration when propofol is used.

Details

ISSN :
14968975 and 0832610X
Volume :
50
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....0ff2e3d1bbfb862dca4538df73d30c43
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03018637