Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:11:59.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The preventive effect of diphenhydramine on bacterial growth in propofol: a laboratory study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2008

A. Güzelant ,
S. Apiliogullari ,
I. Kara ,
V. Turhan ,
B. Apiliogullari ,
H. Yilmaz ,
M. Balasar  and
A. Duman
A. Güzelant
Affiliation:
Meram Teaching & Research Hospital, Department of Microbiology, Konya, Turkey
S. Apiliogullari*
Affiliation:
Ozel Konya Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Konya, Turkey
I. Kara
Affiliation:
Meram Teaching & Research Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Konya, Turkey
V. Turhan
Affiliation:
GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Konya, Turkey
B. Apiliogullari
Affiliation:
Meram Teaching & Research Hospital, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Konya, Turkey
H. Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Ozel Konya Hospital, Department of General Surgery, Konya, Turkey
M. Balasar
Affiliation:
Ozel Konya Hospital, Department of Urology, Konya, Turkey
A. Duman
Affiliation:
Selcuk University, Medical Faculty, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Konya, Turkey
*
Correspondence to: S. Apiliogullari, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Ozel Konya Hospital, Konya, Turkey. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +90 505 488 70 14; Fax: +90 332 2366066
Get access

Summary

Background and objective

Diphenhydramine has local anaesthetic and antimicrobial activity and may be used to prevent intravenous propofol injection pain. We studied the effect of adding diphenhydramine to propofol emulsions for preventing bacterial growth.

Methods

Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans cultures were inoculated into the following solutions: 1% propofol, 0.05% diphenhydramine + 1% propofol, 0.1% diphenhydramine + 1% propofol, 0.2% diphenhydramine + 1% propofol, 0.3% diphenhydramine + 1% propofol, 1% diphenhydramine and 0.1% lidocaine + 1% propofol. A 100-μL of inoculum suspension adjusted for each of the micro-organisms was added separately to each tube and left at 20°C. A 10-μL aliquot of each mixture was inoculated onto blood agar medium at 5 and 24 h. These plates were incubated at 35°C for 24 h. Each plated medium was read, and the number of colony-forming units were counted and recorded (n = 2). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a post hoc Tukey HSD test and paired t-tests were used for data analysis. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

Diphenhydramine inhibited bacterial growth in propofol solutions in a dose-dependent manner. It was more effective than 0.1% lidocaine at similar concentrations in preventing bacterial growth for all organisms.

Conclusion

Diphenhydramine had a significant inhibitory effect on bacterial growth in propofol.

Keywords

DIPHENHYDRAMINELIDOCAINEPROPOFOLINFECTION POSTOPERATIVEDRUG CONTAMINATION, bacterial
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 25 , Issue 9 , September 2008 , pp. 737 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008

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.Angelini, G, Ketzler, JT, Coursin, DB. Use of propofol and other nonbenzodiazepine sedatives in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin 2001; 17: 863–880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Paul, EM. Propofol: therapeutic indications and side-effects. Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10: 3639–3649.Google Scholar
3.McNeil, MM, Lasker, BA, Lott, TJ, Jarvis, WR. Postsurgical Candida albicans infections associated with an extrinsically contaminated intravenous anesthetic agent. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 1398–1403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Bennett, SN, McNeil, MM, Bland, LA et al. Postoperative infection traced to contamination of an intravenous anesthetic, Propofol. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 147–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Kuehnert, MJ, Webb, RM, Jochimsen, EM et al. Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections among patients undergoing electroconvulsive therapy traced to breaks in infection control and possible extrinsic contamination by Propofol. Anesth Analg 1997; 85: 420–425.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Diprivan injection (package insert). Wilmington, DE: Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, 1996.Google Scholar
7.Vidovich, MI, Peterson, LR, Wong, HY. The effect of lidocaine on bacterial growth in propofol. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 936–938.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Jansson, JR, Fukada, T, Ozaki, M, Kimura, S. Propofol EDTA and reduced incidence of infection. Anaesth Intensive Care 2006; 34: 362–368. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Nathanson, MH, Gajraj, NM, Russell, JA. Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of lidocaine with alfentanil. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 469–471.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Apiliogullari, S, Keles, B, Apiliogullari, B, Balasar, M, Yilmaz, H, Duman, A. Comparison of diphenhydramine and lidocaine in preventing injection pain of propofol: a double blind, placebo controlled randomised study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24: 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Weinstein, MP, Moderazo, E, Tilton, R, Maggini, G, Qintiliani, R. Further observations on the antimicrobial effects of local anesthetics agents. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 1975; 17: 369–374.Google Scholar
12.Semenitz, E. The antibacterial activity of diphenhydramine [author’s translation]. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1978; 90: 710–714. German.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Wachowski, I, Jolly, DT, Hrazdil, J, Galbraith, JC, Greacen, M, Clanachan, AS. The growth of microorganisms in propofol and mixtures of propofol and lidocaine. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 209–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Apan, TZ, Apan, A, Sahin, S, Cakirca, M. Antibacterial activity of remifentanil and mixtures of remifentanil and propofol. J Clin Anesth 2007; 19: 346–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Winn, JR, Allen, S, Janda, W et al. Koneman’s Colour Atlas and Text Book Of Diagnostic Microbiolgy, 6th edn. Baltimore, Philadelphia: Lippincott, William-Wilkins, 2006: p. 1162.Google Scholar
16.Walfson, JS, Swartz, MN. Serum bactericidal activity as a monitor of antibiotic therapy. N Engl J Med 1985; 312: 968–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Harrison, CA, Rogers, DW, Rosen, M. Blood contamination of anaesthetic and related staff. Anaesthesia 1990; 45: 831–833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Henry, B, Plante-Jenkins, C, Ostrowska, K. An outbreak of Serratia marcescens associated with the anesthetic agent propofol. Am J Infect Control 2001; 29: 312–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Picard, P, Tra`mer, MR. Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2000; 90: 963–969.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Ozer, Z, Ozturk, C, Altunkan, AA, Cinel, I, Oral, U. Inhibition of bacterial growth by lignocaine in propofol emulsion. Anaesth Intensive Care 2002; 30: 179–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Meyer, RA, Jakubowski, W. Use of tripelennamine and diphenhydramine as local anesthetics. J Am Dent Assoc 1964; 69: 112–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Dastidar, SG, Jairaj, J, Mookerjee, M, Chakrabarty, AN. Studies on antimicrobial effect of the antihistaminic phenothiazine trimeprazine tartrate. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung 1997; 44: 241–247.Google ScholarPubMed