A study evaluated a closed sterile prefilled humidifier ("Aquapak 310") and a multiple-use humidifier ("Nebal 2") for bacterial contamination and cost. No bacterial contamination was found in 389 samples from the Aquapak 310, while 54 of 164 (32.9%) Nebal 2 samples were contaminated, most often by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A cost analysis found the Aquapak 310 resulted in a 51% financial saving in haemodialysis but a 2% loss in respiratory medicine due to differences in average use time between departments. Both departments saw similar staff time savings of 88-89% using Aquapak 310, but it resulted in a 26% saving in consumables for haemodialysis versus a
Original Description:
Original Title
Evaluation of Closed Sterile Prefilled Humidification 1991.docx
A study evaluated a closed sterile prefilled humidifier ("Aquapak 310") and a multiple-use humidifier ("Nebal 2") for bacterial contamination and cost. No bacterial contamination was found in 389 samples from the Aquapak 310, while 54 of 164 (32.9%) Nebal 2 samples were contaminated, most often by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A cost analysis found the Aquapak 310 resulted in a 51% financial saving in haemodialysis but a 2% loss in respiratory medicine due to differences in average use time between departments. Both departments saw similar staff time savings of 88-89% using Aquapak 310, but it resulted in a 26% saving in consumables for haemodialysis versus a
A study evaluated a closed sterile prefilled humidifier ("Aquapak 310") and a multiple-use humidifier ("Nebal 2") for bacterial contamination and cost. No bacterial contamination was found in 389 samples from the Aquapak 310, while 54 of 164 (32.9%) Nebal 2 samples were contaminated, most often by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. A cost analysis found the Aquapak 310 resulted in a 51% financial saving in haemodialysis but a 2% loss in respiratory medicine due to differences in average use time between departments. Both departments saw similar staff time savings of 88-89% using Aquapak 310, but it resulted in a 26% saving in consumables for haemodialysis versus a
Evaluation of closed sterile prefilled humidification.
Castel O1, Agius G, Grignon B, Magnan J, Rigondeau F, Patte F, Nolen X, de Rautlin de la Roy Y. Author information Abstract A closed sterile prefilled humidifier ('Aquapak 310') and a multiple-use humidifier ('Nebal 2') were evaluated in hospital departments to determine their susceptibility to bacterial contamination and cost. No bacterial contamination was found in the 389 samples of 'Aquapak 310' water. However, 54/164 (32.9%) samples of 'Nebal 2' water were found to be contaminated. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the bacterium most often isolated. The cost analysis was highly influenced by the average use time. In the haemodialysis and respiratory medicine departments the average use times for the 'Aquapak 310' +/- SD were 61.6 +/- 36.2 days and 4.1 +/- 1.7 days, respectively. Using the 'Aquapak 310' system, there was a 51% financial saving in the haemodialysis department but a 2% loss in the respiratory medicine department. In these two departments we found a similar cost saving as far as staff time was concerned (88% vs. 89%). The major difference came from the cost of consumables: 26% saving in the haemodialysis department vs. 70% loss in the respiratory medicine department. Use of the prefilled sterile humidifiers represents a three-fold benefit, a lower infection risk for the patient, an important financial saving in the haemodialysis department and a decreased staff work load.
Pathogenicity of Achlya Proliferoides and Saprolegnia Diclina (Saprolegniaceae) Associated With Saprolegniosis Outbreaks in Cultured Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus)