Microbial Load in Septic and Aseptic Procedure Rooms.

BACKGROUND: Highly effective measures to prevent surgical wound infections have been established over the last two decades. We studied whether the strict separation of septic and aseptic procedure rooms is still necessary. METHODS: In an exploratory, prospective observational study, the microbial concentration in an operating room without a room ventilating system (RVS) was analyzed during 16 septic and 14 aseptic operations with the aid of an air sampler (50 cm and 1 m from the operative field) and sedimentation plates (1 m from the operative field, and contact culture on the walls). The means and standard deviations of the microbial loads were compared with the aid of GEE models (generalized estimation equations). RESULTS: In the comparison of septic and aseptic operations, no relevant differences were found with respect to the overall microbial concentration in the room air (401.7 ± 176.3 versus 388.2 ± 178.3 CFU/m3; p = 0.692 [CFU, colony-forming units]) or sedimentation 1 m from the operative field (45.3 ± 22.0 versus 48.7 ± 18.5 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.603) and on the walls (35.7 ± 43.7 versus 29.0 ± 49.4 CFU/m2/min; p = 0.685). The only relevant differences between the microbial spectra associated with the two types of procedure were a small amount of sedimentation of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis in septic operations, and of staphylococcus aureus and pseudomonas stutzeri in aseptic operations, up to 30 minutes after the end of the procedure. CONCLUSION: These data do not suggest that septic and aseptic procedure rooms need to be separated. In interpreting the findings, one should recall that the study was not planned as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Wherever patient safety is concerned, high-level safety concepts should only be demoted to lower levels if new and convincing evidence becomes available.

Ethanol and ethyl glucuronide urine concentrations after ethanol-based hand antisepsis with and without permitted alcohol consumption.

BACKGROUND: During hand antisepsis, health care workers (HCWs) are exposed to alcohol by dermal contact and by inhalation. Concerns have been raised that high alcohol absorptions may adversely affect HCWs, particularly certain vulnerable individuals such as pregnant women or individuals with genetic deficiencies of aldehyde dehydrogenase. METHODS: We investigated the kinetics of HCWs' urinary concentrations of ethanol and its metabolite ethyl glucuronide (EtG) during clinical work with and without previous consumption of alcoholic beverages by HCWs. RESULTS: The median ethanol concentration was 0.7 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 0.5-1.9 mg/L; maximum, 9.2 mg/L) during abstinence and 12.2 mg/L (IQR, 1.5-139.6 mg/L; maximum, 1,020.1 mg/L) during alcohol consumption. During abstinence, EtG reached concentrations of up to 958 ng/mL. When alcohol consumption was permitted, the median EtG concentration of all samples was 2,593 ng/mL (IQR, 890.8-3,576 ng/mL; maximum, 5,043 ng/mL). Although alcohol consumption was strongly correlated with both EtG and ethanol in urine, no significant correlation for the frequency of alcoholic hand antisepsis was observed in the linear mixed models. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ethanol-based handrub induces measurable ethanol and EtG concentrations in urine. Compared with consumption of alcoholic beverages or use of consumer products containing ethanol, the amount of ethanol absorption resulting from handrub applications is negligible. In practice, there is no evidence of any harmful effect of using ethanol-based handrubs as much as it is clinically necessary.

Prospective pilot study on the incidence of infections caused by peripheral venous catheters at a general surgical ward.

Device-associated infections comprise a significant proportion of all nosocomial infections. In this prospective, observational pilot study the incidence of infections in 89 peripheral venous catheters (PVCs) was documented on a general surgical ward employing an infection data sheet developed by the Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Greifswald in adherence to CDC standards for infections. 16 of 20 infections were documented during a four-week time period when medical students in the first four months of their practical year performed their compulsory rotation on the general surgical ward. Insufficient knowledge of adequate hygienic measures as well as non-compliance to aseptical procedural measures prior to and following insertion of a peripheral venous catheter are the assumed instigators of these infections. In order to ensure a uniform hygienic standard in the performance of applied procedures, it is essential that medical students during this practical year receive not only theoretical, but also hands-on schooling prior to initiation of their subsequent official residency.

Is routine replacement of i.v. administration sets required after each change of intermittently administrated antibiotic infusions?

AIM: Manufacturers' instructions recommend changing the infusion line together with the infusion bottle after each administration. We investigated if the complete infusion line may be microbiologically contaminated after short-time antibiotic and rinse-solution application. METHOD: Immediately after the change of an infusion administration set after 72 hours the remaining antibiotic solution was inactivated with yolk and cultured on blood agar for 48 hours at 36°C to detect possible contaminants. RESULTS: Among 87 investigated samples no microbial growth was detected. One sample which hadn't any contact to antibiotics yielded 1 colony forming unit (cfu) of coagulase-negative staphylococci. These results suggest that in case of consecutive antibiotic-short- and rinse-infusions the infusion line may be in place up to 72 hours without contamination. This, however, may be only the case for infusion sets, which are in contact with antibiotics. If no antibiotic is administered, the infusion bottle and the infusion line must be renewed together for every change. To clarify this question into more detail, a larger consecutive study is required. CONCLUSION: I.v. administration sets without any contact to antibiotics must be changed together with their infusion bottle after administration. In case of consecutive antibiotic-short- and rinse-infusions our pilot study suggests using the i.v. administration sets for up to 72 hours without renewing it at every infusion-set exchange.