ArticlePloS one2024
Bacterial contamination of sterile angiographic work environments during animal studies.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bacterial contamination of angiographic materials and fluids has been shown to occur during human angiographic procedures. Angiographic examinations and experiments must be performed under sterile conditions to avoid complications due to contamination and possible subsequent infections. However, data regarding the frequency and the clinical consequences are limited. Our aim was to investigate the incidence of bacterial contamination during experimental angiographies. We tested angiographic fluids, syringes and endovascular materials from the angiographic supply tables for bacterial contamination, collecting 252 samples during 18 experimental angiographies in pigs. After sterile filtration, samples were cultured on media, and individual colony-forming units were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry. Contamination was detected in the majority of samples (60%). There was no angiography in which all samples remained sterile. The highest contamination rates (94%) were found in fluids from the working bowls and on the outer surface of syringes (85%) at the end of angiography. At this time, working bowls were significantly more frequently and extensively contaminated than the control bowls. Among the samples, the frequency and extent of contamination increased with the duration of the experimental angiographic procedures. Our findings show that bacterial contamination during angiography is common and the manipulation of endovascular working materials as well as the duration of angiographic procedures both increase bacterial contamination. While the clinical impact on the laboratory animal remains unclear, the quality of biomedical research mandates that efforts to minimize bacterial contamination should be taken as far as possible.
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.