Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T04:47:06.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Endotoxin Contamination of Foley Catheters Associated With Fevers Following Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

J.F. Gephart
J.F. Gephart*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Committee, Marquette General Hospital Inc., Marquette, Michigan
*
Marquette General Hospital Inc., 420 Magnetic Street, Marquette, MI 49855
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1980 an investigation was conducted due to an apparent cluster of fevers following transurethral resections of the prostate (TURP), where the presence of prostatitis or urinary tract infections (UTIs) could not account for most cases, and the usage of antimicrobials did not prevent them. When unused, prepackaged, sterilized samples from 13 lots of triple lumen catheters were analyzed, four were found to contain high levels of endotoxin (ET), with a range of 49,150-≥ 6.25 ng/catheter. Additionally, these lots were highly pyrogenic to rabbits. The maximum incidence of febrile patients (42%) correlated with usage of catheters from the lot where ET levels were the highest. The febrile rate for a second urologist, who used single lumen catheters, was less (12/33 v 0/12). Further consideration should be given to sterile operative equipment which may still be pyrogenic.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 5 , Issue 5 , May 1984 , pp. 231 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Stratte, PB, Water: A safe irrigating medium in transurethral resection of the prostate gland. J Urol 1960;83:721–723.Google Scholar
2.Meburst, WK, Foret, JD, Valle, WL, Transurethral surgery, in Harrison, JH, Gittes, RF, Perlmutter, AD, et al (eds): Cambell's Urology, ed 4. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1979, pp 2361–2381.Google Scholar
3.Everett, ED, Hirschmann, JV, Transient bacteremia and endocarditis prophylaxis. A review. Medicine 1977;56:61–77.Google Scholar
4.Sullivan, NM, Sutter, VL, Mims, MM, et al: Clinical aspects of bacteremia after manipulation of the genitourinary tract. J Infect Dh 1973;127:49–55.Google Scholar
5.Sim, AJW, McCartney, AC, The appearance of endotoxin following urethral instrumentation. Br J Surg 1980;67:443–445.Google Scholar
6.Greisman, SE, Hornick, RB, Comparative pyrogenic reactivity of rabbit and man to bacterial endotoxin. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1969;131:1154–1158.Google Scholar
7.Plorde, JJ, Kennedy, RP, Bourne, HH, et al: Course and prognosis of prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 1965;272:269–277.Google Scholar
8.Simon, HB, Jeremias, MT, Greene, LF, et al: Antibiotic prophylaxis in transurethral prostatic resection: A clinical study. J Urol 1955;74:123–128.Google Scholar
9.Wear, JB Jr, Haley, P, Transurethral prostatectomy without antibiotics. J Urol 1973;110:436–440.Google Scholar
10.Appleton, DM, Waisbren, BA, The prophylactic use of chloramphenicol in transurethral resections of the prostate gland. J Urol 1956;75:304–313.Google Scholar
11.Herr, HW, Use of prophylactic antibiotics in the high-risk patient undergoing prostatectomy: Effect on morbidity. J Urol 1973;109:686–688.Google Scholar
12.Reyes, MP, Ganguly, S, Fowler, M, et al: Pyrogenic reactions after inadvertent infusion of endotoxin during cardiac catheterizations. Ann Intern Med 1980;93(part 1):32–35.Google Scholar
13.Trapana, Y, Ho, JL, Endotoxic reactions following hepatic catheterization. Crit Care Med 1981;9:202.Google Scholar