Reprocessing of electrophysiology material in EHRA countries: an EHRA Young EP survey.

Data on reprocessing of electrophysiology (EP) materials are sparse. Reprocessing of catheters and other materials in daily routine varies through countries and may depend on specific material characteristics, supplier, or federal law. The aim of this study was to collect data on reprocessing usage through EHRA countries. An online survey consisting of 27 questions was distributed to EHRA Young EP members and members of national EP working groups. Two hundred and two participants from 34 EHRA countries completed the survey. One hundred and seven respondents (53.0%) reported having used and using reprocessed EP material, 30 (14.9%) respondents have used reprocessed EP material in the past but not at the time of the survey, 65 (32.2%) had never used reprocessed EP material. The most reprocessed EP materials include cables (70%), diagnostic EP catheters with deflectable (64%) or fixed curve (63%), non-irrigated ablation catheters (51%), and other conventional diagnostic catheters (41%). The most durable material was diagnostic EP catheters with a fixed curve (61%), the most sensitive material was ablation catheters with contact force sensors (21%). Important benefits were seen in reducing costs for the providing hospital (65%) and the healthcare provider (42%) and making EP procedures available for a greater number of patients (42%). Main concerns were on quality aspects (58%), contamination (52%), and loss of precision (47%). Reprocessing of EP materials is heterogeneously managed among EHRA countries. The present survey shows that European electrophysiologists consider the use of reprocessed EP material as generally safe and cost-effective.

Basic Principles of Disinfection and Sterilization in Intensive Care and Anesthesia and Their Applications during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Understanding the concepts of disinfection, sterilization, cleaning and asepsis is of prime importance to prevent transmission of infection to patients and to protect healthcare workers (HCWs). Proper disinfection of surfaces after cleaning, an important consideration at all times, has assumed special significance during the current pandemic. The global shortage of disposable equipment such as personal protective equipment (PPE), specifically N95 masks and surgical 3 ply masks, and other items makes the HCWs vulnerable to transmission of infection while caring for these patients. Therefore, resterilization of such items has assumed equal importance. Cleaning, the first step in the process of sterilization, is of vital importance to reduce bioburden. The type of disinfection required depends on the nature of the equipment and its intended use. For example, critical items need high-level decontamination. In this narrative review, we elaborate on the methods of decontamination and sterilization. Many chemicals can be used for both sterilization and disinfection, and the difference lies in the concentration of the chemical and exposure time. We have also summarized strategies which can be used for resterilization of single-use items, in view of the shortages caused by the current pandemic. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Kothekar AT, Kulkarni AP. Basic Principles of Disinfection and Sterilization in Intensive Care and Anesthesia and Their Applications during COVID-19 Pandemic. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(11):1114-1124.

Assessing the safety of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator reuse-A retrospective case-control study.

AIMS: The safety of pacemaker reuse has been proven by numerous studies in the last two decades. With the exception of one research paper, the safety of reuse of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators has not been properly investigated. Our aim was to establish whether resterilized implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are as safe as new devices in relation to functionality and infection rates. METHODS: All the patients (n = 271) implanted with a new or a donated, used implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) at the Institute of Cardiovascular Disease Timisoara Romania between January 2001 and December 2012 were included in the study. The patients had class I indication for ICD implantation. One hundred fifty-seven patients received reused ICDs and 114 patients received new ICDs. Complications were defined as infections that required reintervention, device malfunction, and replacements due to untimely or unexpected battery depletion. RESULTS: Complications occurred in 4.38% of the patients in the new ICD group and in 1.91% of the reused ICD group. The difference was not considered statistically significant (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.04-1.82, P = .18). CONCLUSION: According to our data, properly verified and resterilized ICDs are as safe as new devices, when risk of infection or malfunction rates are assessed. Due to the high costs of new ICDs, their safe reuse has profound humanitarian and financial implications.

Reuse of infected cardiac rhythm management devices in the same patients: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: In developing countries, patients with a cardiac rhythm management device (CRMD) that has become infected cannot always afford a new device, and reuse of the infected CRMD may be appropriate. To evaluate the safety of this practice, a cohort of consecutive patients with reused pacemakers was compared with a control group. METHODS: A single-center cohort of consecutive patients treated from 2007 to 2012 was analyzed in a two-way noninferiority study. Patients who had infected CRMDs removed at the Cardiovascular Center of The Peking University People's Hospital were enrolled, including those who had the same CRMD reimplanted and those who had a new CRMD implanted. RESULTS: This study included 212 patients, of who 99 (study group) had the same CRMD reimplanted, and 113 (control group) had a new CRMD implanted. During a mean follow-up period of 3.52 years (interquartile range: 2.1-4.7 years), 10 patients reached the primary end point of the study (infection, unexpected battery depletion, or device malfunction), including five (5%) in the study group and five (4.3%) in the control group. Recurrent infection occurred in three patients in the study group and two patients in the control group (3.0% vs 1.7%, relative risk: 1.29, 95% confidence interval: 0.62-2.29, P = 0.561). There were no cases of unexpected battery depletion in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Reuse of infected CRMDs in the same patients is noninferior to the implantation of new devices. In developing countries without full medical coverage, careful reuse of infected CRMDs can be considered.

Comparison of two advanced bipolar tissue sealer/dividers for laparoscopic ovariectomy in dogs: articulating enseal G2 versus Ligasure Maryland device.

BACKGROUND: Advanced bipolar tissue sealer/dividers provide the most reliable and efficient means of tissue dissection and blood vessel sealing in laparoscopic surgery and the techniques are continuously improved. In veterinary practice, cost-effectiveness is of major impact, leading to re-use of instruments designed and sold for single use. Two high-end devices were evaluated and compared in a highly standardized laparoscopic ovariectomy procedure in dogs: The new generation Ligasure Maryland Sealer/Divider (LMSD) with improved atraumatic curved jaw shape for delicate tissue handling and dissection and non-stick nanocoating, and the new-generation Articulating Enseal G2 (AENG2) with several proclaimed features improving surgical performance, including articulation of the forceps tip; improved tissue compression during sealing; unique offset electrode configuration; and specific nanoparticle coating minimizing thermal spread and tissue sticking. Twenty-one client-owned dogs admitted for elective laparoscopic ovariectomy were randomly assigned to one of two groups: ovariectomy using AENG2 on the left ovary and LMSD in the right ovary or vice-versa. Procedural video recordings were used to assess ovarian ligament fat score, smoke formation, occurrence of bleeding, and excision duration. Excised tissues were examined histopathologically and collateral thermal damage was scored in three anatomic zones: suspensory ligament, vascular pedicle, and uterine junction. Tissue sealers were used repeatedly following standardized cleaning protocol with instrument washing machine and ethylene oxide gas sterilization and the number of uses until device failure was recorded. RESULTS: Excision times were significantly increased for AENG2 (median 01:35 min) compared to LMSD (median 01:00 min). Minor hemorrhage from incomplete sealing occurred in 3 sites in 2 patients (2x AENG2, 1x LMSD) and was not significantly different between groups. Smoke production as scored on videos and thermal tissue damage scores on histopathology also did not differ between AENG2 and LMSD. Both vessel sealers could be re-used repeatedly. CONCLUSION: AENG2 provides a good alternative to LMSD in laparoscopic ovariectomy, with only minor differences in measured variables. Subjectively, the articulating feature of AENG2 did not improve surgical performance in laparoscopic ovariectomy and the use of LMSD appeared more straight-forward for this specific procedure. However, differences in operating these devices may be subject to personal preference.

Contemporary Sterilization Protocols of Healing Abutments for Reusability: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Although healing abutments are designated for single use by most implant manufacturers, it is common practice for clinicians to reuse healing abutments. However, there is a lack of adequate references that describe detailed sterilization protocols for reuse of healing abutments. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review was to compile, organize, and describe the most common techniques for the sterilization of healing abutments and their efficiency in eliminating traces of microorganisms. METHODS: An electronic search in 5 different databases was performed, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2000 to December 2020. Search variables included were dental implant, healing abutment, contaminate, contamination, reuse, and sterilization. Studies reporting with a minimum sample size of 10 healing abutments (5 per group) published in the English language were evaluated. Risk of bias assessment was elaborated for included investigations. RESULTS: In total, 812 articles were identified, of which 8 were included in the analysis. Steam autoclave was the most widely used form of resterilization. Not a single protocol, however, was able to achieve 100% virgin surface of the healing abutments. CONCLUSION: Although reuse of dental implant healing abutments is a cost-effective measure in dental practice, thorough surface decontamination followed by resterilization is highly recommended before reuse. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT: With consideration of cost and patient preference, results of this review would be useful in knowing various sterilization protocols for reusing healing abutments that could lead to more appropriate therapeutic decisions.

Sterilization of N95 respirators: The time for action is upon us!

Re-processing of primary protective equipment is the need of the hour with healthcare systems all over the world strained due to the shortage precipitated by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The common methods of re-sterilization do not hold well for filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) as they affect their structure and function. We propose the validation and eventual use of gamma irradiation, an already existing method of re-sterilization, to disinfect FFRs in bulk.

Effects of resterilization and storage time on sterility of paper/plastic pouches.

OBJECTIVES: Paper/plastic pouches are widely used packaging materials for autoclaving medical and dental equipment. Although these pouches are recommended for single use, they are generally reused in Thailand. This study aimed to determine the ability of paper/plastic pouches to maintain sterility after multiple sterilization processes and stored in a closed environment for up to 6 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 6720 paper/plastic pouches were divided into four experimental groups: new pouches, 1 time, 3 times, and 5 times resterilized pouches. A piece of filter paper was placed inside each pouch, and the pouch was sealed, sterilized, and stored for up to 6 months. At the end of each storage period, the pouch was opened, and the filter paper was transferred to culture broth for microbial cultivation to determine sterility. Negative and positive controls were also used to validate the procedures. RESULTS: All filter papers in the experimental groups, as well as the negative control group, remained sterile for up to 6 months of storage in a closed environment. On the contrary, all filter papers in the positive control group showed microbial contamination. CONCLUSIONS: In a closed storage condition, the paper/plastic pouches that passed multiple sterilization processes (up to 5 times resterilization) still maintained good barrier efficacy and remained sterile for up to 6 months.