Evaluation of the relationship between monocyte to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio and thrombus burden in patients with deep vein thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate monocyte count and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and their ratio (monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio) in patients with deep venous thrombosis as well as to determine whether this ratio at the time of diagnosis can be an indicator of thrombus burden in terms of thrombus location in deep venous thrombosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the patient's diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis confirmed with venous Doppler ultrasound, using a database query for outpatients between 2018 and 2022. Of 378 patients included, blood count results at the time of diagnosis were available for 356. We recruited 300 age- and sex-matched patients with appropriate blood counts, without a diagnosis of deep venous thrombosis, as the control group, by querying the outpatient clinic database. The monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio was computed from the ratio of monocyte count to high-density lipoprotein-C. Patients were categorized based on the level of thrombus and the number of vein segments involved as evidenced by Doppler ultrasound findings. RESULTS: The serum level of monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio was significantly higher in the patient group compared to the control group (p<0.01). Patients with proximal deep venous thrombosis had a higher mean monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio (19.6±5.1 vs. 17.1±5.5; p<0.01) than patients with distal deep venous thrombosis. Monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio increased with the number of vein segments involved (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio is significantly elevated in patients with deep venous thrombosis when compared to the control group. Monocyte/high-density lipoprotein ratio levels were correlated with disease burden reflected by thrombus location and the number of vein segments involved in deep venous thrombosis patients.

Crescimento de bactérias em agentes de infusão: propofol 2% sustenta o crescimento, enquanto remifentanil e pantoprazol não / The growth of bacteria in infusion drugs: propofol 2% supports growth when remifentanil and pantoprazole do not / Crecimiento de bacterias en agentes de infusión: el propofol al 2% sustenta el crecimiento, mientras que el remifentanilo y el pantoprazol no

EXPERIÊNCIA E OBJETIVOS: Foram avaliados os riscos da contaminação de propofol 2%, remifentanil e pantoprazol e os efeitos desses agentes in vitro no crescimento de agentes infecciosos comuns em unidades de terapia intensiva. MÉTODOS: Para a detecção do risco de contaminação, foram testados agentes preparados para uso imediato em condições de unidade de terapia intensiva. Também foram investigados os efeitos desses três agentes no crescimento bacteriano. Os agentes foram preparados nas concentrações utilizadas na unidade de terapia intensiva e inoculados com patógenos comuns; em seguida, foram incubados a 4ºC, 22ºC e 36ºC. Foram obtidas subculturas a 0, 2, 4 e 8 h e avaliadas as contagens de colônias. Foram determinados os valores de concentração inibitória mínima para todos os agentes a 4ºC, 22ºC e 36ºC. RESULTADOS: Não foi observado crescimento nos agentes preparados na unidade de terapia intensiva. Propofol tendeu a suportar o crescimento, enquanto que remifentanil inibiu o crescimento bacteriano. O efeito de pantoprazol foi variável, dependendo com a bactéria testada. Nenhum dos agentes demonstrou atividade antibacteriana nas concentrações máximas que podem ser alcançadas no sangue dos pacientes. CONCLUSÃO: Propofol sustenta vigorosamente o crescimento dos microrganismos testados, o que não ocorre com remifentanil e pantoprazol. Portanto, é importante que sejam praticadas técnicas assépticas rígidas na preparação de propofol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contamination risks of propofol 2%, remifentanil, and pantoprazole; and in vitro effects of these drugs on the growth of common infective agents in intensive care units were evaluated. METHODS: For detection of contamination risk, drugs were prepared ready to use under intensive care unit conditions, were tested. Effects of these three drugs on bacterial growth were also investigated. Drugs were prepared at the concentrations used in the intensive care unit and inoculated with common pathogens after which they were incubated at 4ºC, 22ºC and 36ºC. Subcultures were made at 0, 2, 4 and 8 h and colony counts were evaluated. Minimum inhibitory concentration values were determined for all drugs at 4ºC, 22ºC and 36ºC. RESULTS: o growth was observed in the drugs prepared in the intensive care unit. Propofol tended to support while remifentanil inhibited bacterial growth. Effect of pantoprozole differed according to the bacteria tested. None of the drugs showed antibacterial activity at the maximum concentrations which may be achieved in blood of the patients. CONCLUSION: Propofol strongly supports the growth of the microorganisms tested, although remifentanil and pantoprazole do not. Therefore, it is important to follow the strict aseptic techniques for the preparation of propofol.

EXPERIENCIA Y OBJETIVOS: Fueron evaluados los riesgos de la contaminación de propofol al 2%, remifentanilo y pantoprazol y los efectos de esos agentes in vitro en el crecimiento de agentes infecciosos comunes en las unidades de cuidados intensivos. MÉTODOS: Para la detección del riesgo de contaminación, fueron testados agentes preparados para el uso inmediato bajo condiciones de la unidad de cuidados intensivos. También se investigaron los efectos de esos tres agentes en el crecimiento bacteriano. Los agentes fueron preparados en las concentraciones utilizadas en la unidad de cuidados intensivos e inoculados con patógenos comunes; enseguida fueron incubados a 4ºC, 22ºC y 36ºC. Fueron obtenidos subcultivos a 0, 2, 4 y 8 h y se evaluaron los conteos de las colonias. Fueron determinados los valores de concentración inhibitoria mínima para todos los agentes a 4ºC, 22ºC y 36ºC. RESULTADOS: No se observó el crecimiento en los agentes preparados en la unidad de cuidados intensivos. El Propofol soportó el crecimiento, mientras que el remifentanilo inhibió el crecimiento bacteriano. El efecto de pantoprazol varió dependiendo de la bacteria testada. Ninguno de los agentes demostró actividad antibacteriana en las concentraciones máximas que pueden ser alcanzadas en la sangre de los pacientes. CONCLUSIONES: El Propofol sustenta vigorosamente el crecimiento de los microrganismos testados, lo que no ocurre con el remifentanilo y el pantoprazol. Por tanto, es importante que se practiquen técnicas asépticas rígidas en la preparación del propofol.

The growth of bacteria in infusion drugs: propofol 2% supports growth when remifentanil and pantoprazole do not.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contamination risks of propofol 2%, remifentanil, and pantoprazole; and in vitro effects of these drugs on the growth of common infective agents in intensive care units were evaluated. METHODS: For detection of contamination risk, drugs were prepared ready to use under intensive care unit conditions, were tested. Effects of these three drugs on bacterial growth were also investigated. Drugs were prepared at the concentrations used in the intensive care unit and inoculated with common pathogens after which they were incubated at 4°C, 22°C and 36°C. Subcultures were made at 0, 2, 4 and 8h and colony counts were evaluated. Minimum inhibitory concentration values were determined for all drugs at 4°C, 22°C and 36°C. RESULTS: No growth was observed in the drugs prepared in the intensive care unit. Propofol tended to support while remifentanil inhibited bacterial growth. Effect of pantoprozole differed according to the bacteria tested. None of the drugs showed antibacterial activity at the maximum concentrations which may be achieved in blood of the patients. CONCLUSION: Propofol strongly supports the growth of the microorganisms tested, although remifentanil and pantoprazole do not. Therefore, it is important to follow the strict aseptic techniques for the preparation of propofol.