Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:51:28.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bacteriostatic Effect of Mixtures of 1% Propofol with 4% Lidocaine versus 4% Lidocaine Alone: Regards on Microbiologic Studies in the Field of Anesthesiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2016

Andrés Zorrilla-Vaca  and
Kevin Escandón-Vargas
Andrés Zorrilla-Vaca*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, University of Valle, Cali, Colombia
Kevin Escandón-Vargas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health, University of Valle, Cali, Colombia
*
Calle 4B No 36-00, Faculty of Health, University of Valle, Cali 760026, Colombia ([email protected]).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , 01 June 2014 , pp. 747 - 749
Copyright
© 2014 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.

References

1. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Durodie, J, Coleman, K, Simpson, IN, Loughborough, SH, Winstanley, DW. Rapid detection of antimicrobial activity using flow cytometry. Cytometry 1995;21:374–377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Pina-Vaz, C, Rodrigues, AG, Sansonetty, F, Martinez-De-Oliveira, J, Fonseca, AF, Mardh, PA. Antifungal activity of local anesthetics against Candida species. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 2000;8:124–137.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Hewitt, CJ, Nebe-Von-Caron, G. The application of multi-parameter flow cytometry to monitor individual microbial cell physiological state. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2004;89:197–223.Google Scholar
5. Postsurgical infections associated with an extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent—California, Illinois, Maine, and Michigan, 1990. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1990;39:426–427.Google Scholar
6. Veber, B, Gachot, B, Bedos, JP, Wolff, M. Severe sepsis after intravenous injection of contaminated propofol. Anesthesiology 1994;80:712–713.Google Scholar
7. Bennet, SN, McNeil, MM, Bland, LA, et al. Postoperative infections traced to contamination of an intravenous anaesthetic, propofol. N Engl J Med 1995;333:147–154.Google Scholar
8. Wachowski, I, Jolly, DT, Hrazdil, J, Galbraith, JC, Greacen, M, Clanachan, AS. The growth of microorganisms in propofol and mixtures of propofol and lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1999;88:209–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. O’Donnell, NG, McSharry, CP, Wilkinson, PC, Asbury, AJ. Comparison of the inhibitory effect of propofol, thiopentone and midazolam on neutrophil polarization in vitro in the presence or absence of human serum albumin. Br J Anaesth 1992;69:70–74.Google Scholar
10. El-Ebiary, M, Torres, A, Ramirez, J, Xaubet, A, Rodriguez-Roisin, R. Lipid deposition during the long-term infusion of propofol. Crit Care Med 1995;23:1928–1930.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed