Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology (2019), 40, 111–124 doi:10.1017/ice.2018.282
Letter to the Editor
Further confirmation that spiking of intravenous bags does not cause time-dependent microbial contamination
Scott Segal MD, MHCM Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
To the Editor—I read with interest the paper by Brock-Utne et al1 on the microbial stability of spiked bags of intravenous fluid without the use of International Standards Organization level 5 (ISO-5) conditions, in contradistinction to one interpretation of the requirements of United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Chapter 797. It was certainly encouraging to see that bags prepared in an ordinary anesthesia workroom did not show microbial con- tamination in their hands. I present here related data from a study in which anesthesia technicians prepared IV fluid bags either in the open anesthesia workroom or under an ISO-5 hood.
Methods
In this study, 1-L bags of lactated Ringer’s(N=80) were spiked by anesthesia technicians with conventional intravenous tubing sets used in the operating suite. The anesthesia workroom was located in the semirestricted area of the suite, and accordingly, caps andmasks were worn during bag preparation. Sterile gloves and gowns were not worn. In total, 40 bags were prepared in the open workroom, and 40 bags were prepared under an ISO-5 hood located in the work- room. Fluid was run through the tubing set, the roller clamp was actuated to stop flow, and the sterile end cap of the tubing set was replaced. Ten bags in each group were sampled at time zero (immediately after preparation), and at 1 hour, 12 hours, and 24 hours after preparation. Sampleswereobtainedbyremovingthe sterile end cap and extracting 5 mL into a sterile container, which was then drawn into a sterile syringe and injected into standard blood culture bottles for automated detection of microbial growth (Versa- TREK, TREK Diagnostics, Cleveland,OH).Cultureswere incubated for up to 5 days, and any detectable growth underwent Gram staining and subculturing to identify the organism.2 Each bag was sampled at only 1 time point to avoid contamination during the fluid extraction. Positive controls were samples deliberately contaminated with hand flora during sampling, and all demonstrated positive growth.
Results
The culture results are shown in Table 1 as the number of con- taminated bags (n) divided by the total number of samples (N). One bag from each group was positive (P>>.05). Both
Author for correspondence: Scott Segal,MD,MHCM, Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC. E-mail:
bsegal@wakehealth.edu Cite this article: Segal S. (2019) Further confirmation that spiking of intravenous bags
does not cause time-dependent microbial contamination. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 111–112. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.282
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.
contaminants were normal, generally nonpathogenic con- taminants—most likely skin flora.
Discussion
Our results are consistent with those of Brock-Utne et al in that contamination did not clearly vary with time since preparation and was rare overall. In addition, there was no discernable effect of using an ISO-5 hood on rates of contamination. Notably, the only con- taminated bag in the control (workroom) condition was detected 1 hour after preparation, which would have been compatible with administration under USP 797 regulations.3 We detected a low but nonzero rate of contamination, in contrast to Brock-Utne et al, who found none. However, it is likely that the absolute concentration of bacteria was very low and probably not pathogenic. Other work from our department has demonstrated that contamination of anesthesia syringes is rare, and when it occurs it is of vary low intensity, typically 100 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL (data not shown). This rate is at least several orders of magnitude less than that observed almost universally during dental procedures, which almost never produce clinically important bacteremia.4,5 Similarly, dialysis patients are exposed to ~100L of dialysate solution per session, which may contain up to 100 CFU/mL.6 In summary, I agree that strict adherence to the 1-hour requirement
in USP 797 regarding preparation of IV fluid infusion bags for anesthesia care is not supported by data demonstrating risk of bacterial infection. Furthermore, the use of laminar flow hoods does not appear to materially affect the rate of contamination.
Acknowledgments. The author wishes to express gratitude to the anesthesia technicians and microbiology laboratory personnel who assisted with this study.
Financial support. No financial support was provided relevant to this article. Table 1. Culture Results
Time of Sampling (Preparation Time)
0 1 h
12 h 24 h
Control
(Workroom) 0/10
1/10 Propionibacterium acnes
0/10 0/10
ISO-5 Hood 0/10 0/10
0/10 1/10 Coagulase negative Staphylococcus sp
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
