Microbiological Contamination of Drugs during Their Administration for Anesthesia in the Operating Room

Bacterial contamination and greenhouse gas emissions: A randomised study of reuse versus single-use of infusion-set components for intravenous anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Reusing anaesthesia infusion-set components may reduce the climate impact from plastic waste and discarded medications. Infusion-set contents can be shielded from patient contact by single use of an infusion line fitted with dual antireflux valves, preventing retrograde entry of microorganisms, and eliminating the risk for patient-to-patient cross-contamination. However, infusion-set contamination from compromised aseptic handling could affect quality of care.

INTERVENTIONS

To determine the prevalence of infusion-set bacterial contamination and compare the climate effects, we randomised operating rooms scheduled for total intravenous anaesthesia to handle procedures by infusion-set reuse or single-use. Both methods used dual single-use antireflux valves.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was infusion-set bacterial contamination assessed by aerobic culture of infusion-set fluid collected after each procedure. The secondary outcome was CO 2 emissions (CO 2 -eq) estimated by life cycle assessment of component and medication use. To assess feasibility of detecting an inter-method difference in bacterial contamination, an interim analysis was planned after including at least 150 procedures per group.

RESULTS

After allocating 54 operating rooms per method, 189 and 159 procedures of reuse and single use were included. Reuse permitted a median of three procedures per infusion set (range 1 to 8). Positive cultures occurred in two procedures per method [mean (95% CI)]; prevalence 1.15% (0.03 to 2.27); relative risk of reuse versus single use 0.84 (0.12 to 5.93), P  = 0.861. As prespecified, inclusion was stopped due to futility. The median (95% CI) per-procedure climate emissions were 0.43 (0.41 to 0.47) and 1.39 (1.37 to 1.40) kg CO 2 -eq for reuse and single-use respectively; difference -0.96 (-0.99 to -0.93), P  < 0.0005. The main sources for climate emissions were production of infusion-set components and waste handling.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the prevalence of bacterial contamination was low for both methods. A much larger study would be needed to detect an inter-method difference. Reuse of infusion-set components allowed significantly reduced intravenous anaesthesia climate emissions.

Transmission of Staphylococcus aureus in the anaesthesia work area has greater risk of association with development of surgical site infection when resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic administered for surgery

BACKGROUND

The extent to which the transmission of prophylactic-antibiotic-resistant bacteria from the anaesthesia work area increases the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) is unknown. It was hypothesized that the risk of SSI would increase progressively from no transmission to transmission of prophylactic-antibiotic-resistant isolates.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of archival samples collected in two previously published studies with similar inclusion criteria and sample collection methodology (observational study 2009-2010 and randomized trial 2018-2019). Archival isolates were linked by barcode to all patient demographic and procedural information, including the prophylactic antibiotic administered, transmission and development of SSI. For this study, all archival isolates underwent prophylactic antibiotic susceptibility testing, and the ordered association of transmission of Staphylococcus aureus (no transmission, transmission of prophylactic-antibiotic-susceptible isolates and transmission of prophylactic-antibiotic-resistant isolates) with SSI was assessed.

RESULTS

The risk of development of SSI was 2% (8/406) without S. aureus transmission, 11% (9/84) with transmission of S. aureus isolates that were susceptible to the prophylactic antibiotic used, and 18% (4/22) with transmission of prophylactic-antibiotic-resistant S. aureus isolates. The Cochrane-Armitage two-sided test for ordered association was P<0.0001. Treating these three groups as 0, 1 and 2, by exact logistic regression, the odds of SSI increased by 3.59 with each unit increase (95% confidence interval 1.92-6.64; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Transmission of S. aureus in the anaesthesia work area reliably increases the risk of SSI, especially when the isolates are resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic administered.

Staphylococcus capitis: Review of Its Role in Infections and Outbreaks

In June 2021, a national incident team was formed due to an increased detection of Staphylococcus capitis in samples from hospitalised infants. Staphylococcus capitis has been known to cause outbreaks in neonatal units across the globe, but the extent of the UK spread was unclear. A literature review was undertaken to support case identification, clinical management and environmental infection control. A literature search was undertaken on multiple databases from inception to 24 May 2021, using keywords such as “Staphylococcus capitis”, “NRCS-A”, “S. capitis”, “neonate”, “newborn” and “neonatal intensive care unit” (NICU). After screening, 223 articles of relevance were included. Results show incidences of S. capitis outbreaks have frequently been associated with the outbreak clone (NRCS-A) and environmental sources. The NRCS-A harbours a multidrug resistance profile that includes resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics and aminoglycosides, with several papers noting resistance or heteroresistance to vancomycin. The NRCS-A clone also harbours a novel SCCmec-SCCcad/ars/cop composite island and increased vancomycin resistance. The S. capitis NRCS-A clone has been detected for decades, but the reasons for the potentially increased frequency are unclear, as are the most effective interventions to manage outbreaks associated with this clone. This supports the need for improvements in environmental control and decontamination strategies to prevent transmission.

Analysis of medication errors during anaesthesia in the first 4000 incidents reported to webAIRS

Medication error is a well-recognised cause of harm to patients undergoing anaesthesia. From the first 4000 reports in the webAIRS anaesthetic incident reporting system, we identified 462 reports of medication errors. These reports were reviewed iteratively by several reviewers paying particular attention to their narratives. The commonest error category was incorrect dose (29.4%), followed by substitution (28.1%), incorrect route (7.6%), omission (6.5%), inappropriate choice (5.8%), repetition (5.4%), insertion (4.1%), wrong timing (3.5%), wrong patient (1.5%), wrong side (1.5%) and others (6.5%). Most (58.9%) of the errors resulted in at least some harm (20.8% mild, 31.0% moderate and 7.1% severe). Contributing factors to the medication errors included the presence of look-alike medications, storage of medications in the incorrect compartment, inadequate labelling of medications, pressure of time, anaesthetist fatigue, unfamiliarity with the medication, distraction, involvement of multiple people and poor communication. These data add to current evidence suggesting a persistent and concerning failure effectively to address medication safety in anaesthesia. The wide variation in the nature of the errors and contributing factors underline the need for increased systematic and multifaceted efforts underpinned by a strengthening of the current focus on safety culture to improve medication safety in anaesthesia. This will require the concerted and committed engagement of all concerned, from practitioners at the clinical workface, to those who fund and manage healthcare.

Challenges in reducing the risk of infection when accessing vascular catheters

Injection safety is essential to reduce the risk of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) when accessing vascular catheters. This general review evaluates the contamination of vascular catheter access ports and associated HAIs in acute care settings, focusing on open lumen stopcocks (OLSs) and disinfectable needleless closed connectors (DNCCs). PubMed was searched from January 2000 to February 2021. OLS intraluminal surfaces are frequently contaminated during patient care, increasing the risk of HAIs, and neither an isopropyl alcohol (IPA) pad nor a port-scrub device can reduce contamination effectively. In contrast, DNCCs can be disinfected, with most studies indicating less intraluminal contamination than OLSs and some studies showing decreased HAIs. While the optimal DNCC design to reduce HAIs needs to be determined, DNCCs alone or stopcocks with a DNCC bonded to the injection port should replace routine use of OLSs, with OLSs restricted to use in sterile fields. Compliance with disinfection is essential immediately before use of a DNCC as use of a non-disinfected DNCC can have equivalent or greater risk of HAIs compared with use of an OLS. The recommendations for access port disinfection in selected national and international guidelines vary. When comparing in-vitro studies, clinical studies and published guidelines, consensus is lacking; therefore, additional studies are needed, including large randomized controlled trials. IPA caps disinfect DNCCs passively, eliminate scrubbing and provide a contamination barrier; however, their use in neonates has been questioned. Further study is needed to determine whether IPA caps are more efficacious than scrubbing with disinfectant to decrease HAIs related to use of central venous, peripheral venous and arterial catheters.

Survey of the Preparation of Cardiovascular Emergency Medications for Adult Cardiovascular Anesthesia

OBJECTIVES

To describe current practices and safety concerns regarding cardiac emergency medications in cardiac anesthesia.

DESIGN

An anonymous survey with multiple-choice questions.

SETTINGS

Online survey using Opinio platform.

PARTICIPANTS

Cardiac anesthesiologists from United States and Canada.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Response rate was 12% (n = 320), with 78% of respondents from the United States and 22% from Canada. The majority of the respondents were experienced (66%), academic (60%), and worked in large cardiac institutions (81%). Most cardiac emergency medications were prepared in the operating room (53.4%), followed by the pharmacy (34%) and industry (8.2%). American respondents had more medications prepared by a pharmacy (53%) versus Canadian (10%, p < 0.001). The majority (85%) considered expiration time of cardiac medications prepared in the operating room to be more than 12 hours. Familiarity with the American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines on labeling was 58%, other medication safety guidelines 25%, and 34% were not familiar with any guidelines. The majority used color-coded labeling (95%), and a minority (11%) used bar-code systems. Most respondents (69%) agreed that lack of availability of preprepared medications could compromise patient safety. Having to prepare medications by themselves was a concern for respondents based on distractions (66%), lack of availability for emergencies (53%), labeling errors (41%), incorrect concentration (36%), sterility (33%), and stability (30%).

CONCLUSION

This survey found that cardiac emergency medications commonly are prepared in the operating room. The authors identified gaps in familiarity with parenteral medications safety guidelines. Most safety concerns could be addressed with the application of current medication safety guidelines.

Targeted Use of Alcohol-Based Hand Rub on Gloves During Task Dense Periods: One Step Closer to Pathogen Containment by Anesthesia Providers in the Operating Room

BACKGROUND

Anesthesia providers' hand hygiene practices in the operating room may contribute to the transmission of bacteria. There is a debate, however, over the best approaches for pathogen containment during task dense periods (induction and extubation) of anesthesia care. A novel approach to reducing pathogen spread during these task dense periods is the use of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves when it may be difficult to either change gloves or clean hands.

METHODS

To evaluate the impact of alcohol-based hand rub on gloves, we estimated perforation rates of 50 gloves that were worn as pairs by volunteers for 2 hours at a time applying alcohol-based hand rub every 15 minutes (total of 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications per pair of gloves). We also identified perforation rates of 50 new, unused gloves. To evaluate the ability to perform routine anesthesia functions, volunteers were asked to pick up a coin from a table top and document whether the gloves felt normal or sticky at each 15-minute period.

RESULTS

Fifty new gloves (not exposed to alcohol-based hand rub) were tested for integrity using the Food and Drug Administration-approved process, and one was found to have a microperforation. Of the 50 gloves that had been applied with alcohol-based hand rub 8 times, no microperforations were identified. All volunteers demonstrated tactile competence by picking up a coin from a table top after 8 alcohol-based hand rub applications; in addition, as the number of alcohol-based hand rub applications progressed, the volunteers reported increased stickiness.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that the use of alcohol-based hand rub on commonly used nitrile examination gloves does not compromise glove integrity or hamper the ability to safely perform routine anesthesia functions.

Anesthesia Workspace Cleanliness and Safety: Implementation of a Novel Syringe Bracket Using 3D Printing Techniques

Purpose

Wide variability persists in the preparation and storage of common anesthetic medications despite the recognition of anesthesia workspace standardization as a national quality improvement priority. Syringe contamination and medication swaps continue to pose significant hazards to patient safety.

Methods

We assessed differences in practice related to the availability of commonly prepared anesthetic medications. Using baseline provider surveys (n = 87) and anesthesia workspace audits (n = 80), we designed a custom syringe organization device using 3D printing techniques to serve as a cognitive aid and organizational tool. We iteratively tested and then deployed this device in all 60 operating rooms at a single institution, and then, repeated postintervention surveys (n = 79) and workspace audits (n = 75) one year after introduction.

Results

Implementation was associated with significant improvements in provider-reported medication availability during coverage and handoff situations (43.7% versus 76.2% reporting 95% confidence preintervention versus postintervention, p < 0.001). This was substantiated by audits of the anesthesia workspace which demonstrated reduced variability in the location (p < 0.001) and availability (p < 0.001) of key medications. Provider confidence in the cleanliness of syringes was also improved (p=0.01). A high degree of acceptance and compliance with the intervention was reported, with 80.4% of syringes observed to be stored in the device one year after implementation and approximately 95% of respondents reporting positive measures of usability and convenience.

Conclusion

Use of a simple organizational device for syringes in the anesthesia workspace has numerous safety benefits. 3D printing offers improvements in adaptability and affordability compared with prior approaches.

Spinal anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery correlates with fewer total medications and less frequent use of vasoactive agents: A single center experience

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Anesthesiologists at our hospital commonly administer spinal anesthesia for routine lumbar spine surgeries. Anecdotal impressions suggested that patients received fewer anesthesia-administered intravenous medications, including vasopressors, during spinal versus general anesthesia. We hypothesized that data review would confirm these impressions. The objective was to test this hypothesis by comparing specific elements of spinal versus general anesthesia for 1-2 level open lumbar spine procedures.

DESIGN

Retrospective single institutional study.

SETTING

Academic medical center, operating rooms.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients (144 spinal and 619 general anesthesia) identified by automatic structured query of our electronic anesthesia record undergoing lumbar decompression, foraminotomy or microdiscectomy by one surgeon under general or spinal anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Numbers of medications administered during the case.

MAIN RESULTS

Anesthesiologists administered in the operating room a total of 10 ± 2 intravenous medications for general anesthetics and 5 ± 2 medications for spinal anesthetics (-5, 95% CI -5 to -4, p<0.001, univariate analysis). Multivariable analysis supported this finding (spinal versus general anesthesia: -4, 95% CI -5 to -4, p<0.001). Spinal anesthesia patients were less likely to receive ephedrine, or phenylephrine (by bolus or by infusion) (all p<0.001, Chi-squared test). Spinal anesthesia patients were also less likely to receive labetolol or esmolol (both p = 0.002, Fishers' Exact test). No neurologic injuries were attributed to, or masked by, spinal anesthesia. Three spinal anesthetics failed.

CONCLUSIONS

For routine lumbar surgery in our cohort, spinal compared to general anesthesia was associated with significantly fewer drugs administered during a case and less frequent use of vasoactive agents. Safety implications include greater hemodynamic stability with spinal anesthesia along with reduced risks for medication error and transmission of pathogens associated with medication administration.

The effect of implementing an aseptic practice bundle for anaesthetists to reduce postoperative infections, the Anaesthetists Be Cleaner (ABC) study: protocol for a stepped wedge, cluster randomised, multi-site trial

Background

Postoperative infection is a serious problem in New Zealand and internationally with considerable human and financial costs. Also, in New Zealand, certain factors that contribute to postoperative infection are more common in Māori and Pacific populations. To date, most efforts to reduce postoperative infection have focussed on surgical aspects of care and on antibiotic prophylaxis, but recent research shows that anaesthesia providers may also have an impact on infection transmission. These providers sometimes exhibit imperfect hand hygiene and frequently transfer the blood or saliva of their patients to their work environment. In addition, intravenous medications may become contaminated whilst being drawn up and administered to patients. Working with relevant practitioners and other experts, we have developed an evidence-informed bundle to improve key aseptic practices by anaesthetists with the aim of reducing postoperative infection. The key elements of the bundle are the filtering of compatible drugs, context-relevant hand hygiene practices and enhanced maintenance of clean work surfaces.

Methods

We will seek support for implementation of the bundle from senior anaesthesia and hospital leadership and departmental “champions”. Anaesthetic teams and recovery room staff will be educated about the bundle and its potential benefits through presentations, written material and illustrative videos. We will implement the bundle in operating rooms where hip or knee arthroplasty or cardiac surgery procedures are undertaken in a five-site, stepped wedge, cluster randomised, quality improvement design. We will compare outcomes between approximately 5000 cases before and 5000 cases after implementation of our bundle. Outcome data will be collected from existing national and hospital databases. Our primary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital to 90 days, which is expected to reflect all serious postoperative infections. Our secondary outcome will be the rate of surgical site infection. Aseptic practice will be observed in sampled cases in each cluster before and after implementation of the bundle.

Discussion

If effective, our bundle may offer a practical clinical intervention to reduce postoperative infection and its associated substantial human and financial costs.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000407291. Registered on 21 March 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3402-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and Usability of a Novel Barrier Device for Preventing Injection Port Contamination: A Pilot Simulation Study

Contamination of intravenous (IV) ports and stopcocks has been associated with postoperative infections. We tested the usability and efficacy of a novel passive shielding device to prevent such contamination even in the absence of hand hygiene or port disinfection. In a desktop setting with deliberately contaminated hands, qualitative port contamination was detected after 5/60 (8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-18.4) control port injections versus 0/60 (0%; 95% CI, 0-6.0) shielded injections (P = .025). In clinical simulations with a quantitative bioburden assay (measured in relative light units [RLUs]), median (interquartile range [IQR]) postsimulation bioburden was 46 (32-53) vs 27 (21-42) RLU for the control versus intervention groups (P = .036), yielding a median shift of -13 RLU (95% CI, -2 to -26) in favor of the shielding. Usability of the device was acceptable to practitioners.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of microbial contamination of parenteral medication prepared in a clinical versus pharmacy environment

PURPOSE

Preparation of parenteral medication in hospitals is a complex process with a risk of microbial contamination of the product, especially when inappropriately prepared. Contaminated parenteral medications can cause severe complications to patients and increase morbidity in hospitals. The aim of this literature review is to systematically evaluate the contamination rate of parenteral medications in hospitals prepared in a pharmacy environment and a clinical environment.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE from 2000 to 2018 was performed. Two different environments where preparation may be carried out were defined. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for contamination rates were calculated for each environment of medication preparation. The meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

The contamination rates in the clinical environment (n = 13 studies) varied between 1.09 and 20.70%. In the pharmacy environment (n = 5), all contamination rates were 0.00% except for one study (0.66%). The point estimates (random effect model) for the overall contamination rate of doses prepared in the clinical environment was 7.47% (5.16-9.79%), and 0.08% for doses prepared in the pharmacy environment. The point estimates (random effect model) for the overall contamination rate of doses prepared by nursing/ medical staff was 7.85% (5.18-10.53%), and 0.08% for doses prepared by pharmacy staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly higher contamination rates were found for the preparation of parenteral medication in the clinical environment compared to pharmacy environment. In accordance with recent guidance, the almost 100-fold higher changes of contamination when reconstitution is performed in the clinical environment should urge hospitals to review their reconstitution process and apply risk-reducing measures to improve patient safety of parenteral therapy.

Microbial stability of syringes of anesthetic drugs prepared in the operating room

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether microbial contamination of anesthesia syringes prepared in the operating room (OR) become contaminated in a time-dependent fashion.

DESIGN

Observational.

SETTING

Operating suite in a major university hospital.

PATIENTS

None (in vitro study). 400 syringes were studied for microbial contamination.

INTERVENTIONS

Syringes prepared in the OR by anesthesia personnel were sampled at 1, 2, 3, or 4 h in a sterile fashion and sent to the microbiology laboratory for quantitative culture of any bacteria.

MEASUREMENTS

Colony forming units (CFU) per mL of drug were calculated and any identified positive cultures were identified by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry. Logistic regression was used to test the effect of time since preparation on prevalence of positive culture, as was the effect of number of accesses of the syringe and identity of the drug.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall, 9/400 (2.25%) syringes were positive for bacteria. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) concentration of bacteria among positive cultures was 100 (100,100) CFU. All cultured species were generally nonpathogenic common contaminants. There was no effect of time since preparation, number of accesses of the syringe at the time of sampling, or drug identity (propofol vs. other).

CONCLUSIONS

Contamination of anesthesia syringes is uncommon and occurs at a low overall concentration of bacteria. Contamination does not appear to be time related, and thus calls into question the reasonableness of USP Chapter 797's one-hour requirement.

Anesthesia in patients with infectious disease caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Up to 50% of specific bacterial strains in healthcare admission facilities are multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). Involvement of anesthesiologists in management of patients carrying/at risk of carrying MDROs may decrease transmission in the Operating Room (OR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Anesthesiologists, their work area and tools have all been implicated in MDRO outbreaks. Causes include contamination of external ventilation circuits and noncontribution of filters to prevention, inappropriate decontamination procedures for nondisposable equipment (e.g. laryngoscopes, bronchoscopes and stethoscopes) and the anesthesia workplace (e.g. external surfaces of cart and anesthesia machine, telephones and computer keyboards) during OR cleaning and lack of training in sterile drug management.

SUMMARY

Discussions regarding the management of potential MDRO carriers must include anesthesia providers to optimize infection control interventions as well as the anesthesia method, the location of surgery and recovery and the details of patient transport. Anesthesia staff must learn to identify patients at risk for MDRO infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis, although not evidence based, should adhere to known best practices. Adjuvant therapies (e.g. intranasal Mupirocin and bathing with antiseptics) should be considered. Addition of nonmanual OR cleaning methods such as ultraviolet irradiation or gaseous decontamination is encouraged. Anesthesiologists must undergo formal training in sterile drug preparation and administration.

Outbreak of bacterial endocarditis associated with an oral surgery practice: New Jersey public health surveillance, 2013 to 2014

BACKGROUND

In October and November 2014, the New Jersey Department of Health received reports of 3 patients who developed Enterococcus faecalis endocarditis after undergoing surgical procedures at the same oral surgery practice in New Jersey. Bacterial endocarditis is an uncommon but life-threatening condition; 3 patients with enterococcal endocarditis associated with a single oral surgery practice is unusual. An investigation was initiated because of the potential ongoing public health risk.

METHODS

Public health officials conducted retrospective surveillance to identify additional patients with endocarditis associated with the practice. They interviewed patients using a standardized questionnaire. An investigative public health team inspected the office environment, interviewed staff, and reviewed medical records.

RESULTS

Public health officials identified 15 confirmed patients with enterococcal endocarditis of those patients who underwent procedures from December 2012 through August 2014. Among these patients, 12 (80%) underwent cardiac surgery. One (7%) patient died from complications of endocarditis and subsequent cardiac surgery. Breaches of recommended infection prevention practices were identified that might have resulted in transmission of enterococci during the administration of intravenous sedation, including failure to perform hand hygiene and failure to maintain aseptic technique when performing procedures and handling medications.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation highlights the importance of adhering to infection prevention recommendations in dental care settings. No additional patients with endocarditis were identified after infection prevention and control recommendations were implemented.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Infection prevention training should be emphasized at all levels of professional dental training. All dental health care personnel establishing intravenous treatment and administering intravenous medications should be trained in safe injection practices.

Infection prevention in pediatric anesthesia practice

Healthcare-associated infections are an important source of morbidity and mortality in pediatric patients. Anesthesiologists have a unique role in infection prevention. Hand hygiene and anesthesia workspace decontamination decrease infection rates in surgical patients. Standard protocols exist for insertion and handling of central lines, arterial lines, and regional procedures, which should be strictly adhered to in order to prevent infectious complications. Temperature control and timely administration of antibiotics contribute to the prevention of surgical site infections. Education, culture shift, staff engagement, and effective change management are necessary for successful implementation of infection prevention strategies.

What are we injecting with our drugs?

In preparation for a case, an anaesthetist opened a 20 ml glass vial of propofol and aspirated the propofol into a syringe via a blunt drawing-up needle. Increased resistance was felt with aspiration. On inspection, a shard of glass was found at the tip of the drawing-up needle. The shard was presumed to be from the propofol ampoule, and to have fallen into the solution upon snapping open its glass tip. This illustrative case raises the issue of contamination of drugs by particles introduced during the drawing-up process. It also highlights the possibility that during the drawing-up process, intravenous drugs may become contaminated not just with particles, but with microorganisms on the surface of the particles. In this article, we discuss relevant recent research of the implications of this type of drug contamination. We draw attention to the need for meticulous care in drawing up and administering intravenous drugs during anaesthesia, particularly propofol.

Design and Preliminary Testing of Novel Injection Port Contamination Barrier Devices

Prior studies have linked microbial contamination of intravenous (IV) ports and stopcocks with postoperative infections. Existing technologies to address contamination are not consistently utilized because of the time and effort they require. Herein, novel barrier devices were created that form a protective shell to passively prevent contact between injection sites and practitioner hands or environmental surfaces while still allowing rapid connection of a syringe for injection of medications via an opening in the shell. Prototypes were tested using a grossly contaminated environment and adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-bioluminescence assay. For eight pairs of unshielded versus shielded IV ports/stopcocks, average contamination was 4102 versus 35 RLU (p < 0.02), respectively, indicating that the devices could significantly reduce IV port/stopcock contamination.