ArticlePloS one2023
Comparative growth dynamics of bacterial and fungal contaminants in bupivacaine liposomal injectable suspension, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing Ethiqa XR Sterility Past the "Beyond-Discard Date" Under Conditions of Maximum Usage.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2026Article
- Contamination of liposomal bupivacaine during multi-dose usage in a clinical setting evaluated by culture and PCR.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether bupivacaine liposomal injectable suspension (BLIS) supports microbial growth when artificially inoculated and to evaluate liposomal stability in the face of this extrinsic contamination as evidenced by changes in free bupivacaine concentrations. STUDY
designA randomized, prospective in vitro study in which three vials of each BLIS, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol were individually inoculated with known concentrations of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Candida albicans (n = 36) to quantify bacterial and fungal growth was conducted. Over 120 hours, aliquots from contaminated vials were withdrawn, plated, and incubated to determine microbial concentrations. High-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used to evaluate free bupivacaine concentrations over time in BLIS. Data were analyzed using a mixed effects model with multiple comparisons. SAMPLE POPULATION: Twelve vials of each BLIS, bupivacaine 0.5%, and propofol.
resultsBLIS did not support significant growth of Staphylococcus aureus or Candida albicans at any time. BLIS supported significant growth of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa beginning at the 24 hour time point. Bupivacaine 0.5% did not support significant growth of any organisms. Propofol supported significant growth of all organisms. Free bupivacaine concentrations changed minimally over time.
conclusionBacterial and fungal contaminant growth in artificially inoculated BLIS is organism dependent. BLIS supports significant growth of Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Extra-label handling of BLIS should only be undertaken with caution and with adherence to strict aseptic technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.