Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:01:10.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of antimicrobial effects of dexmedetomidine and etomidate-lipuro with those of propofol and midazolam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2006

G. T. Keleş ,
S. Kurutepe ,
D. Tok ,
H. Gazi  and
G. Dinç
G. T. Keleş
Affiliation:
University of Celal Bayar, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Manisa, Turkey
S. Kurutepe
Affiliation:
University of Celal Bayar, Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Manisa, Turkey
D. Tok
Affiliation:
University of Celal Bayar, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Manisa, Turkey
H. Gazi
Affiliation:
University of Celal Bayar, Department of Microbiology and Clinical Microbiology, Manisa, Turkey
G. Dinç
Affiliation:
University of Celal Bayar, Department of Public Health, Manisa, Turkey
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objectives: The aim of our study was to investigate the antimicrobial effects of dexmedetomidine and etomidate-lipuro, and to compare these effects with those of midazolam and propofol on Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeroginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase Escherichia coli ( E. coli ESBL). Methods: All hypnotic dilutions were exposed to micro-organisms for 0, 30, 60, 120 and 240 min at room temperature in vitro. The inoculums taken from diluted suspensions were re-inoculated on blood agar and incubated for 18–24 h at 35°C after which a count of the colonies was compared. Results: Midazolam reduced the viable cells of S. aureus at 30, 60, 120 and 240 min, and also completely inhibited the growth of E. coli, P. aeroginosa, A. baumannii and E. coli ESBL. Dexmedetomidine, etomidate-lipuro and propofol, however, did not inhibit any of the micro-organisms tested. Conclusion:In vitro, midazolam had an antimicrobial effect on E. coli, P. aeroginosa, A. baumannii and E. coli ESBL. Like propofol and dexmedetomidine, etomidate-lipuro had no antimicrobial effect on any of the micro-organisms tested.

Keywords

ANAESTHETICS INTRAVENOUS, etomidate, midazolam, propofolADRENERGIC ALPHA AGONISTS, dexmedetomidineAGENTS ANTIMICROBIALANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 23 , Issue 12 , December 2006 , pp. 1037 - 1040
Copyright
2006 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry CB, Gillespie T, Hood J, Scott NB. Growth of micro organisms in solutions of intravenous anaesthetic agents. Anaesthesia 1993; 48: 30–32.Google Scholar
Sosis MB, Braverman B. Growth of Staphylococcus aureus in four intravenous anesthetics. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 766–768.Google Scholar
Bhana N, Goa KL, McClellan KJ. Dexmedetomidine. Drugs 2000; 59: 263–268.Google Scholar
Doenicke AW, Roizen MF, Hoernecke R, Lorenz W, Ostwald P. Solvent for etomidate may cause pain and adverse effects. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 464–466.Google Scholar
Arduino MJ, Bland LA, McAllister SKet al. Microbial growth and endotoxin production in the intravenous anaesthetic propofol. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1991; 12: 535–539.Google Scholar
Tessler M, Dascal A, Gioseffini S, Miller M, Mendelson J. Growth curves of Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, and Moraxella osloensis in propofol and other media. Can J Anaesth 1992; 39: 509–511.Google Scholar
Farrington M, McGinnes J, Matthews I, Park GR. Do infusions of midazolam and propofol pose an infection risk to critically ill patients? Br J Anaesth 1994; 72: 415–417.Google Scholar
Graystone S, Wells MF, Farrell DJ. Do intensive care drug infusions support microbial growth? Anaesth Intens Care 1997; 25: 640–642.Google Scholar
Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Tests for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically, Approved Standard 6th edn.National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards2003; M7-A6, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sakuragi T, Yanagisawa K, Shirai Y, Dan K. Growth of Escherichia coli in propofol, lidocaine, and mixtures of propofol and lidocaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1999; 43: 476–479.Google Scholar
Thomas DV. Propofol supports bacterial growth. Br J Anaesth 1991; 66: 274.Google Scholar
Harvey BR, Ganzberg S. Growth of micro organisms in propofol and methohexital mixtures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 818–823.Google Scholar
Magee L, Godsiff L, Matthews I, Farrington M, Park GR. Anaesthetic drugs and bacterial contamination. Eur J Anaesthesiol Suppl 1995; 12: 41–43.Google Scholar
Crowther J, Hrazdil J, Jolly DT, Galbraith JC, Greacen M, Grace M. Growth of micro organisms in propofol, thiopental, and a 1:1 mixture of propofol and thiopental. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 475–478.Google Scholar
Gudmundsson A, Erlendsdottir H, Gottfredsson M, Gudmundsson S. Impact of pH and cationic supplementation on in vitro postantibiotic effect. Antimicrob Agent Chemother 1991; 35: 2617–2624.Google Scholar
Langevin PB, Gravenstein N, Doyle TJet al. Growth of Staphylococcus aureus in diprivan and intralipid: implications on the pathogenesis of infections. Anesthesiology 1999; 91: 1394–1400.Google Scholar