Back

Using breathing systems in anaesthesia for up to 7 days instead of 24 hours: a comparative microbial safety study

Haanappel, C. P.; Rieff, E. A.; Pavkovic, L.; van Holst-Raaphorst, M. N.; de Groot, W.; van der Marel, C. D.; Voor in 't holt, A. F.; Severin, J. A.

2024-07-11 microbiology
10.1101/2024.07.11.603054 bioRxiv
Show abstract

SummaryThe replacement frequency of mechanical ventilators breathing systems used in operating rooms (ORs) currently varies between hospitals. In light of evidence-based decision-making and sustainability efforts, we aim to determine whether 7-day use of breathing systems instead of 24 hours is microbial safe. In this prospective single-centre explorative study, 30mm UniflowTM breathing systems used in eight ORs were included. In four ORs, breathing systems were replaced daily following standard practice. In the remaining four ORs, they were intended for a 7-day use. Breathing systems were sampled daily on three locations of the exterior surface and cultured for the presence of microorganisms. A total of 128 breathing systems were included, 99 from an OR with daily replacement and 29 from an OR with weekly replacement. A total of 604 samples were cultured, of which the majority, 549 (90.9%) cultures were negative. From the 55 (9.1%) positive cultures, the majority (n=49, 70%) were coagulase-negative staphylococci. None of the identified microorganisms were found in consecutive cultures. Cultures from day 2 to 7 did not show a statistically significant increased positivity rate compared to cultures from day 1, respectively 22.9% vs. 24.1%. The weekly replacement regimen, furthermore, decreased the number of breathing systems used with 71%. Our data indicates that use of breathing systems up to seven days remains microbial safe. Additionally, only a minimal number of pathogenic microorganisms were detected, and these were not persistent on the breathing systems. Transitioning from 24-hours to intended 7-day use could significantly reduce costs and CO2 emissions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Hospital Infection
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.5%
2
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
15.4%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 29%
4.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.7%
6
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.2%
7
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.9%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.2%
9
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
10
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
11
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
12
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
13
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
14
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
167 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
15
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
19
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
21
Pediatric Pulmonology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
23
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
24
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
25
British Journal of Anaesthesia
14 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
26
Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
15 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
27
Access Microbiology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%