4.1 Article

Evaluation of microbial contamination associated with different preparation methods for neonatal intravenous fat emulsion infusion

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY
卷 67, 期 11, 页码 914-918

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.2146/ajhp090199

关键词

Compounding; Contamination; Fat emulsions; Injections; Packaging; Pediatrics; Stability; Sterile products; Storage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose. Microbial contamination associated with different methods of neonatal intravenous fat emulsion (IVFE) preparation and delivery was evaluated. Methods. Sterility testing was performed on IVFE dispensed via three different methods: (1) in the original container (n = 60), (2) repackaged into a syringe (n = 90), and (3) drawdown of the original container (n = 60). At the end of each infusion (24 hours for methods 1 and 3, 12 hours for method 2), a sample of the IVFE was withdrawn from the container using a sterile syringe in an International Organization for Standardization class 5 hood and sent to the hospital microbiology laboratory, where the samples were introduced into blood culture bottles and incubated for five days. Each sample was then subcultured on a blood agar plate with olive oil and left for an additional two days in a carbon dioxide incubator to assess for Malassezia fur fur. Results. None of the samples from the original containers showed bacterial or fungal growth. Three of the samples from syringes had bacterial growth (two samples contained coagulase-negative staphylococcus and one contained both Klebsiella oxytoca and Citrobacter freundii), yielding a contamination rate of 3.3%. The number of contaminated samples did not significantly differ among the three preparation methods (p = 0.13). Conclusion. Repackaging IVFE into sterile syringes resulted in bacterial contamination and should be avoided in clinical practice. IVFE samples obtained using the drawdown procedure under sterile conditions for infusion over 24 hours revealed no microbial contamination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据