Bacterial identification in three intravenous solutions over a 72 hour-period

• Angélica Díaz-Martínez Universidad Católica de Cuenca, Posgrado. Cuenca, Azuay, Ecuador
• Pablo Rubio-Arias Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Cuenca, Azuay, Ecuador https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9185-4823

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52973/rcfcv-e32155

Keywords: Intravenous solutions, contamination, nosocomial, fluid therapy

Abstract

Intravenous solutions are used in medical treatments for fluid replacement and drug administration. In 1971 the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention of the United States of America) established that intravenous solutions should be used within a period of 24 hours (h), and after this time they should be discarded, a recommendation that is not followed in all centers. In daily practice, contrary to adequate sanitary norms, it is common in local veterinary centers to reuse fluids for long periods of time, for reconstitution of injectable drugs, wound cleaning or administration to other patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the contamination rate of bags of three intravenous solutions (0.9 % sodium chloride, Ringer’s lactate and 50 % dextrose solution) over a 72 h period under clinical conditions in a veterinary environment. The solutions were analyzed at 0; 24; 48 and 72 h. There was no bacterial growth in any of the samples obtained, cultures were reported as negative after 72 h of not presenting bacterial growth in standard culture media. Studies after this period of time are necessary to determine if there is bacterial contamination after 72h.

References

ALI, A.; MAYSOON, A.; HUDA, J.; MOHAMMED, H. Microbial Contamination due to Malpractice during Administration of Intravenous Fluids in Baghdad Hospitals. Mustansiriyah J. Pharmaceutic. Sci. 9(1): 145-157. 2011. https://doi.org/hzhj.

BARONOS, S.; YARMUSH, J.; STEDMAN, J.; KAMATH, S.; XAVIER, C.; AHMED, K. Normal Saline and Dextrose 5 % in Water Do Not Support Bacterial Growth 24 Hours After Being Spiked in the Perioperative Environment. Anesth. Analg. 128(6): 1185-1187. 2019. https://doi.org/ggtrsc.

BARRETT, M.; CAMPBELL, V. Aerobic bacterial culture of used intravenous fluid bags intended for use as urine collection reservoirs. J. Amer. Anim. Hosp. Assoc. 44(1): 2-4. 2008. https://doi.org/hzhk.

BROCK-UTNE, J.; SMITH, S.; BANAEI, N.; CHANG, S.; ALEJANDRO-HARPER, D. Spiking of intravenous bags does not cause time-dependent microbial contamination: a preliminary report. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 1(2): 1029-1030. 2018. https://doi.org/hzhm.

CHAUDHARI, S.; FEAVER, S. Falling intravenous fluid container. Anaesth. 62: 850–862. 2007. https://doi.org/dxvhm3.

CHAVERI-FERNÁNDEZ, J.; DÍAZ-MADRID, J. Generalidades sobre fluidoterapia y desórdenes electrolíticos, enfoque en la farmacia hospitalaria: Primera Parte. Rev. Pharmaceut. Care. 1(2): 24-28. 2018.

GUILLAUMIN, J. Influence of hang time and location on bacterial contamination of intravenous bags in a veterinary emergency and critical care setting. J. Vet. Emerg. Crit. Care. 27(5): 548-554. 2017. https://doi.org/hzhn.

GUYNN, J.; PORETZ, D.; DUMA, R. Growth of various bacteria in a variety of intravenous fluids. Amer. J. Hosp. Pharm. 30: 321-325. 1973.

HAAG, A.; FITZGERALD, J.; PENADÉS, J. Staphylococcus aureus in Animals. Microbiol. Spectr. 7(3): 2019. https://doi.org/gg5pp3.

HAAS, R.; BEITZ, E; REED, A; BURTNETT, H; LOWE, J; CRIST, A; BIRENBERG, A. No bacterial growth found in spiked intravenous fluids over an 8-hour period. Am. J. Infec. Contr. 45(4): 448-450. 2017. https://doi.org/f97ch7.

HUGHSTON, L. The Basics of Fluid Therapy for Small Animal Veterinary Technicians. 2018. Today’s veterinary nurse. Today’s veterinary Technician. En línea: https://bit.ly/3tvBpHY. 08/01/2022.

LANGSTON, J.; MONAGHAN, W.; BUSH, M. The contamination of intravenous fluids by writing on the infusion bag: Fact or fiction? Internat. J. Advan. Nursing Stud. 3(1): 18-19. 2016. https://doi.org/hzhp.

MACIAS, A.; MUÑOZ, J.; ALBÁN, A.; RODRUÍGEZ, A.; GUERRERO, F. Parenteral infusions bacterial contamination in a multi-institutional survey in Mexico: considerations for nosocomial mortality. Am. J. Infect. Contr. 27(3): 285-290. 1999.

MATTHEWS, K.; TAYLOR, D. Assessment of sterility in fluid bags maintained for chronic use. J. Amer. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 50(2): 708-712. 2011.

MUDER, R. Frequency of intravenous administration set changes. Infect. Contr. Hosp. 22(3): 134-135. 2001.

RICKARD, C.; VANNAPRASEUTH, B.; MCGRAIL, M.; KEENE, L.; RAMBALDO, C.; SMITH, C. The relationship between intravenous infusate colonisation and fluid. J. Clin. Nursing. 18: 3022–3028. 2009. https://doi.org/dfr7m3.

SEGAL, S. Further confirmation that spiking of intravenous bags does not cause time-dependent microbial contamination. Infect. Contr. Hosp. Epidemiol. 40(1): 111-112. 2019. https://doi.org/hzhq.

SELF, W.; SEMLER, M.; WANDERER, J.; EHRENFELD, J.; BYRNE, D.; WANG, L.; ATCHISON, L. Saline versus balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid therapy in the emergency department: study protocol for a cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial. Trials. 18(1): 178. 2017. https://doi.org/f99bzj.

STEDMAN, J.; YARMUSH, J.; JOSHI, M.; KAMATH, S.; SCHIANODICOLA, J. How Long Is Too Long? The Prespiked Intravenous Debate. Anaesth. Analg. 124(5): 1564-1568. 2017. https://doi.org/f955pd.

WALTHER, B.; TEDIN, K.; LÜBKE-BECKER, A. Multidrug-resistant opportunistic pathogens challenging veterinary infection control. Vet. Microbiol. 200:71-78. 2019. https://doi.org/f9vxmw.