A National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering INTRODUCTION Peripheral IV Blood.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
To investigate the effects of non-thermal atmospheric plasma as a root canal disinfectant. Antimicrobial Effects of Non-thermal Atmospheric Plasma as a.
Advertisements

Chapter 24 Dental Unit Waterlines
A Review of Intravenous Blood-Sparing Systems and Techniques in Use Among NIH Harvard Catalyst Clinical Research Centers (HCCRC): Beth Israel Deaconess.
A National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering INTRODUCTION Evaluation of Fluid.
140 micro Lab 8 : Counting of bacteria in Milk
ENUMERATION OF MICROORGANISMS
Mammalian Cell Culture. What is cell culture, exactly?  Cells, previously growing in a human or animal modified to grow in plastic or glass In the body.
INTRODUCTION Center for Biofilm Engineering RESULTS (cont.)METHODS An in vitro Comparison of Intraluminal Biofilm Bacteria Transfer of Three Peripheral.
The Serial Dilution Method of Bacteria Enumeration
Eye Spy: Microbial Growth on Contact Lenses Theresa Edson and Kyle Hilsabeck Introduction: Biofilms are “organized microbial systems consisting of layers.
Experiment two Cultivation Techniques of microorganism
By Dr. Shahzadi Tayyaba Hashmi DNT 356. Infection control Infection control is a way to minimize the transmission of microbes in the dental office The.
PHT 381 Lab# 4. A Culture medium:- ❊ An artificial preparation which contains the essential elements and nutrients needed by the m.o to grow. (most.
What You’re Swimming With Matt Fox and Erin Wright Materials and Methods: Two- 20 ml samples were taken from the filter and wall of a hot tub. 2 ml of.
Pinning Wrestling Mat Microorganisms Alaina Goos and Ryan Sturm Figure 1a. 10x FITC Figure 1b. 10x TRITC Figure 3a. 40x FITC Figure 2a. 20x FITC Figure.
Center for Biofilm Engineering CBE workshop – July 2009 Al Parker Statistician and Research Engineer Montana State University Ruggedness Assessment and.
A National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering Effect of Power, Time, and Degassing.
PHT 381 Lab# 4. A Culture medium:- ❊ An artificial preparation which contains the essential elements and nutrients needed by the m.o to grow. (most.
Introduction to Lab Ex. 19: Enumeration of Bacteria
ANTIMICROBIAL EFFECTS OF CINNAMON OIL Michael DeSantis Grade 10 Central Catholic High School.
Vitamin D Effects on Microbial Flora
New York City Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Supply Water Quality Bio-Stability of New York City’s Distribution Water Authors:
K-3401 Suppression of Regrowth of Normal Skin Flora under Chlorhexidine Gluconate (CHG) Dressings Applied to CHG-Prepped Skin M. H. Bashir, MD, CCRP, 1.
A National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering Bias is defined as the systematic.
A National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering INTRODUCTION An in vitro Comparison.
Alex Senchak Grade 9 Central Catholic High School 1 Colloidal Silver Antibacterial Assessment.
2A: Microscopy. Post Lab 2 is assigned today and due by the time your lab meets next. Pre Lab 3 will be available on Wednesday at 5 PM and is also due.
Micro (2-1) TOTAL VIABLE COUNT Dr. Shahzad Ali Assistant Professor Department of Wildlife and Ecology UVAS, Ravi Campus, Pattoki.
Growth of bacteria in culture
LAB 4: ASEPTIC TECHNIQUE AND ISOLATION OF BACTERIA
Overnight growth of samples E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa and B. cereus Visual Density check Dilute samples to match turbidity of MacFarlane Standards.
INFECTION CONTROL IN DENTISTRY Dr. Shahzadi Tayyaba Hashmi
Practical Part Microscopic Examination of Microorganisms Experiments Identification of MOs Different Staining Techniques.
Microbial Count Aim: Count the number of bacterial cells in a provided sample Methods: Total count, Viable count I. Total count This technique involves.
Microbial Survivorship in River Water John Crelli Grade 10 Pittsburgh Central Catholic High School.
Biofilm Formation In Cochlear Implants With Cochlear Drug Delivery Channels In An In Vitro Model Trey A. Johnson, BS 1, Kimberly A. Loeffler, BS 1, Robert.
Isolation of Bacteriophages
SNO IMAFIDON E.O (Mrs) July, INTRODUCTION Health care institutions and their patients are familiar with the effects of nosocomial infections (NI).
Introduction Many studies require the quantitative determination of bacterial populations. The two most widely used methods for determining bacterial.
ISOLATION OF BACTERIOPHAGE CLERIGO, GEHAN ALYANNA V. DIMAANO, PETER BOB Z. DECIO, JOHN LAWRENCE GOCO, AMELIA BERNADETTE O.
 Many studies require the quantitative determination of bacterial populations. The two most widely used methods for determining bacterial numbers are:
Intravenous cannulation
Enumeration (determine the numbers of bacteria in a sample) Direct Measurement of Microbial Growth  Microscopic count - the microbes in a measured volume.
Microbial Biotechnology Reem Alsharief Lab 3. General Methods of Isolation and selection of Microorganism Microbial isolation: To separate (a pure strain)
Total bacterial number is an important indication for food quality
Microbial Growth Growth in Batch Culture
D value – The time requires to inactivate 1 log scale (90%) of bacterial population at a particular temperature. Z value – The difference of temperature.
Catheter Blockage Maggie Rew RN MBA.
Midline Catheters at Portsmouth Regional Hospital
Inoculation Incubation Isolation Inspection Identification 5/6/2018
Evaluation of chemical immersion treatments to reduce microbial counts in fresh beef Ahmed Kassem1, Joseph Meade1, Kevina McGill1, James Gibbons1, James.
Wafi Siala1,2, Françoise Van Bambeke1 , Thomas Vanzieleghem2
Figure 1. Onset of PIV catheter complications
Detection and resuscitation of viable but nonculturable bacteria in vaccines and other biomedical preparations L.P. Blinkova, Yu.D. Pakhomov, N.N. Skorlupkina.
D and Z values determination
Microbial Survivorship in River Water
Hydrogen Peroxide Anti-Microbial Effects
The Serial Dilution Method of Bacteria Enumeration
Effect of Environmental Conditions on Listeria monocytogenes Attachment and Biofilm Development on Food Plant Surfaces. Angie Rubi1, Ilan Arvelo2, and.
النمو والعد البكتيري Microbial growth النمو الجرثومي.
Introduction Many studies require the quantitative determination of bacterial populations. The two most widely used methods for determining bacterial.
Volume 199, Issue 1, Pages (January 2018)
Volume 115, Issue 5, Pages (November 1998)
E. Aguilera Xiol, G. Li Bassi, D. Wyncoll, G. Ntoumenopoulos, L
Richard J. Powers, MD, David W. Wirtschafter, MD 
Enhanced antimicrobial activity of peptide-cocktails against common bacterial contaminants of ex vivo stored platelets  K.V.K. Mohan, S. Sainath Rao,
Dinty J. Musk, David A. Banko, Paul J. Hergenrother 
Aseptic Technique & Streaking for Isolation
A, Phase-contrast and CSLM of Arabidopsis roots cocultured with the B
D and Z values determination
Presentation transcript:

a National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center in the MSU College of Engineering Center for Biofilm Engineering INTRODUCTION Peripheral IV Blood Control Catheter Design and Biofilm Formation Marcia Ryder 1, Elinor deLancey Pulcini 2, Albert Parker 2, and Garth James 2 (1) Ryder Science, Escondido, CA, (2) Center for Biofilm Engineering, Montana State University-Bozeman Figure 3. Scanning electron microscope image of the white arm within the flow path. The large aggregates of spherical objects Indicate biofilm formation by Staph aureus. Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopic image of the inside of a catheter hub. The small groups of spherical objects are S. aureus cells. The log sum CFU for biofilm formed on all internal fluid pathway surfaces within Smiths Medical ViaValve™ Safety I.V. catheter was 3.84, BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded I.V. Catheter was 4.02, and B.Braun Introcan Safety® 3 catheter was Biofilm was observed on SEM on internal component surfaces with higher CFU counts. When pooled across time points and all experiments, there were statistically significantly smaller bacterial mean log densities in Flush 1 and Flush 2 for the C1 catheter compared to the C2 (p-value = and respectively) or C3 catheters (p-value=0.014 and respectively). METHODS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS DISCUSSION RYDER SCIENCE, Inc. …..medical biofilm research PURPOSE The purpose of the this study is to compare biofilm formation on the various internal components of the catheter hub and bacterial transfer rate between three valved blood control PIVCs in a clinically simulated in vitro model. The insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) is the most common invasive procedure performed by nurses. This places healthcare personnel at risk for needlestick injury and infections related to blood exposure. Manufacturers have responded with a new generation of advanced technologies for PIVC insertion. Valved blood control PIVC (BC-PIVC) technology requires the addition of internal components within the hub to prevent blood exposure to clinicians. These components increase the internal surface area, dead space and volume within the catheter hub that is thought to increase biofilm formation and subsequent transfer of bacteria into the bloodstream. This raises concern for increased risk of bloodstream infection. Three PIVCs were tested: Smiths Medical ViaValve™ Safety I.V. catheter, BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded I.V. Catheter and the B. Braun Introcan Safety® 3 catheter. Six experiments were run with three time points measured within each run: 0, 72 and 96 hours. A needleless connector was attached to each catheter, inoculated by flushing with 0.5 ml of a 10 4 colony forming units per ml (CFU/ml) of S. aureus, and incubated at room temperature for 2 hours. The connectors were then replaced with new sterile connectors and unattached bacteria were rinsed from the fluid path using sterile Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS). Catheters were then either sampled or subjected to simulated clinical use by flushing 17 times daily with 0.5 ml sterile nutrient and 1 flush at the end of the day with normal saline for 72 and 96 hours. Catheters were sampled with a two-step procedure. First, each catheter was flushed to recover planktonic bacteria and plated to determine CFU/ml (Flush 1). The connector surface was disinfected, sonicated in PBS to remove firmly attached bacteria, and flushed a second time and plated (Flush 2). At Time 96 hours, one of each catheter type was destructively sampled (including all internal components; the hub, spike, septum, etc.). Each part was vortexed, sonicated, and vortexed again to detach and disaggregate the biofilm and form a bacterial suspension for viable plate counts (CFU/ml). One of each assembly type was formalin fixed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM), disassembled and imaged. RESULTS This project was funded by Smiths Medical Inc. This information was provided under a Montana State University Testing Services Agreement and is not intended to endorse or recommend any product or service May 2013 ViaValve™ Safety I.V. Catheter H G F E D C B A B.Braun Introcan Safety® 3 catheter E C B A D As shown in the illustrations and Table 1, the, BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded I.V. Catheter and the B.Braun Introcan Safety® 3 catheters have more complex flow paths than the ViaValve™ Safety I.V. catheter, as well as higher internal surface areas. Flow path irregularities, in particular areas that receive minimal fluid flow, are areas that promote bacterial attachment and biofilm formation. This is analogous to dead-legs and surface irregularities in high purity water systems, which serve as reservoirs for biofilm accumulation and contamination of the system. Introcan 3 luer fitting inserted.208” (halfway between ISO min & max) ViaValve Entire catheter length not shown BD BC entire tube lengths not shown B.Braun Introcan Safety® 3 catheter ViaValve™ Safety I.V. Catheter BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded I.V. Catheter Figure 1. A A A A. Cross-sectional schematic of the catheter hub accessed with syringe. B. Internal volume and surface area in contact with blood (in red). Blood locations used to calculate surface area and volume in Table 1. RESULTS Internal Volume and Surface Area in Contact with Blood Internal surface area (in 2 ) % (2.8 x more SA) ViaValve™ Introcan®3 % difference Internal volume (in 3 ) % (4.5 x more volume) Internal surface area (in 2 ) % (2.1 x more SA) Internal volume (in 3 ) % (2.2 x more volume) ViaValve ™ Autoguard BC™ % difference Table 1. Comparison of the internal volume and surface area of the Autoguard™ BC and the Introcan Safety®3 catheter hubs to the ViaValve™ There are differences in biofilm formation among the devices with higher internal surface areas, volume and dead space. These differences increase the potential risk for transfer of bacteria into the bloodstream among the different blood control valved PIVC designs. ViaValve™ Safety I.V. catheters had statistically significantly fewer bacteria in flush counts compared to both Autoguard™ BC and Introcan® Safety 3. It also had fewer bacteria on internal surfaces as well as a smaller internal surface area and less complex fluid path. These differences may reduce the potential risk for bacterial transfer and bloodstream infection. Figure 5. This three-dimensional reconstruction of confocal scanning laser microscope images shows biofilm growth on a catheter septum. The biofilm was stained with the LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kit (Life Technologies Corporation, Carlsbad, CA). Live bacteria appear green. Figure 4. Scanning electron microscopic image of the intraluminal surface of a catheter tubing. The small groups of spherical objects are S. aureus cells. in back of sealin actuator in hub in eyelet in tube (entire length not shown) In and around plunger Introcan 3 B BD BC in & around plunger in seal in hub in eyelet in tube (entire length not shown) B B ViaValve BD Insyte™ Autoguard™ BC Shielded I.V. Catheter Figure 6. Comparison for surface area (in 2 ) and biofilm count (CFU)