Points to consider for aseptic processing.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the viability of human pronuclear oocytes subjected to vitrification using cooling by direct submerging of open-pulled straws in liquid nitrogen versus vitrification by cooling of open-pulled straws located inside a closed 0.5 ml straw (aseptic system). METHODS: Two- and three-pronuclei stage oocytes (n=114) were cryopreserved in super-open-pulled straws by vitrification in 20% ethylene glycol +20% dimethylsulphoxide (DMSO) + osmotic active and neutral non-permeable cryoprotectants with a four-step exposure in 20, 33, 50 and 100% vitrification solution for 2, 1 and 1 min, and 30-50 s, respectively at room temperature, and plunging into liquid nitrogen. Oocytes of group 1 (n=42) were rapidly cooled at a speed of 20,000 degrees C/min by direct plunging of open-pulled straws into liquid nitrogen. Oocytes of group 2 (n=44) were first located in 0.5 ml straws, which were closed at both sides by metal balls, and then plunged into liquid nitrogen. This method resulted in a cooling speed of 200 degrees C/min. For both groups, oocytes were thawed rapidly at a speed of 20 000 degrees C/min using an identical protocol. Oocytes subsequently were expelled into a graded series of sucrose solutions (1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.12 mol/l) at 2.5 min intervals. RESULTS: Oocyte development up to expanded blastocyst stage after in vitro culture was 15% in group 1, 14% in group 2 and 29% in an untreated control group. CONCLUSION: The deposition of human pronuclear oocytes in open-pulled straws which are placed inside a hermetically closed container guarantees a complete isolation of oocytes from liquid nitrogen and avoids potential contamination by pathogenic microorganisms. The combination of direct plunging of this container into liquid nitrogen and rapid warming makes this process as efficient as conventional vitrification.

Asepsis↗

PubMed2004

[Survey on the measures of asepsis taken by general practitioners].

UNLABELLED: CURRENT STATE OF THE QUESTION: Many legislative and administrative texts rule asepsis and prophylaxis in health care centres. The deontological code provides the guidelines for medical corps. OBJECTIVE: To identify the measures set-up to prevent the transmission of infections in general practitioners' consulting rooms and to compare them with the data in the literature. METHOD: A postal survey using a questionnaire was sent to a representative sample of 119 general practitioners in the Loire-Atlantique area in France. RESULTS: The response rate was of 69%. The majority of physicians declared that had a wash basin in the consulting room, 43% declared that they did not systematically wash their hands between 2 patients in their consulting rooms and 78% during home visits, 23% used an ordinary soap, 49% a hydro-alcoholic solution, and 62% wiped their hands with a cotton towel. Blood interventions were performed with gloves by more than 80% of the participants, complete decontamination procedures of the material were performed by 6%, but more than 80% used single use material. Although 45% believed they had changed their habits, 23% remained wary of any eventual recommendations and 43% made no comments. DISCUSSION: This survey method collects declarative data and remains limited with regard to information. In-depth analysis of the daily activity of the participants would be useful for an approach of performance criteria, in view of the fact that some consultations do not include any, or even partial, clinical examination. The investments required for the purchase of the material compatible with the specifications applicable to health care centres may appear excessive for their current activity. The generalisation of the use of single use material represents a great progress in the field of prevention. Comparison with similar earlier studies shows the good progress made and the improvement in quality. Nevertheless, studies using a strict methodology are necessary to establish guidelines to be applied in general medical practice. The drawing-up of Referentials requires great rigour and the participation of the practitioners in their development and organisation would lead to substantial benefits.

Asepsis↗

PubMed2004

Hand hygiene and aseptic technique in the emergency department.

Hand hygiene and simple aseptic measures before invasive procedures are effective in reducing rates of healthcare-associated infection. The perceived urgency of a clinical situation in the emergency department, however, may influence medical staff's compliance with good practice in infection control. The aims of this prospective, single-blinded, observational study were twofold. First, to assess doctors' compliance with good practice in hand hygiene between patient episodes and asepsis during invasive procedures in the emergency department. Second, to assess the effect of clinical urgency on compliance with good practice in hand hygiene and asepsis during invasive procedures. Good practice standards for asepsis in invasive procedures and hand hygiene between patient episodes were compiled from a literature search. Doctors' compliance with these standards was observed in two emergency departments (UK and New Zealand). Observed clinical cases were classified as immediate, urgent and non-urgent based on the triage system. There was poor compliance with good practice guidelines for asepsis in invasive procedures in both centres. Staff achieved high compliance with the guidelines in only 27% of cases in the UK and 58% of cases in New Zealand. Clinical urgency did not appear to adversely affect compliance with aseptic good practice. Hand hygiene between patient consultations was very low at 14% in the UK and 12% in New Zealand. Asepsis and hand hygiene was poor in both the UK and New Zealand emergency departments. There may be a need for some compromise in standards of asepsis in very sick patients due to the urgency of the clinical situation. Compliance in all situations especially non-urgent procedures needs to be improved.

Asepsis↗