The Experts below are selected from a list of 99 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Jennifer S Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices.
Digestive diseases and sciences, 2004Co-Authors: Frank M Moses, Jennifer S LeeAbstract:High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a Dry Container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for 40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and
-
Current GI Endoscope Disinfection and QA Practices
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2004Co-Authors: Frank M Moses, Jennifer S LeeAbstract:High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a Dry Container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for ≤10 min (8%), 10–20 min (35%), 20–30 min (38%), 30–40 min (7%), and >40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and ≤ biannually (6.5%) and performed by swabing the endoscope end (5%) or rinsing the biopsy channel (8%). If culture positive, most would remove the instrument from clinical use and reevaluate the protocol and personnel for technique lapses. Two respondents were aware of a procedure-related infection. Wide practice variations were noted in manual cleaning and in soaking time during automated HLD in this community. Fewer variations were noted in cleaning personnel and training, location and methods of cleaning, and presence of IC services and QA programs. Endoscope culturing was infrequently done and positive cultures were rare. While most units claim to have ongoing QA programs, few use objective criteria to monitor effective disinfection or lapses in technique. Iatrogenic infection is uncommonly recognized following GI endoscope procedures.
Frank M Moses - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices.
Digestive diseases and sciences, 2004Co-Authors: Frank M Moses, Jennifer S LeeAbstract:High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a Dry Container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for 40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and
-
Current GI Endoscope Disinfection and QA Practices
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 2004Co-Authors: Frank M Moses, Jennifer S LeeAbstract:High-level disinfection (HLD) of GI endoscopes is readily achieved when published guidelines are observed. Contamination is linked to breakdowns in accepted procedure. However, there is no recognized method of verifying adequacy of endoscope reprocessing in routine practice and no data regarding current quality assurance (QA) practice. Prior reports have demonstrated a wide variation in routine clinical practice of GI endoscopy HLD. The goal of this study was to determine current practice at regional endoscopy centers with regard to endoscope cleaning and HLD, maintenance, and QA practice. An anonymous multiple-choice questionnaire was mailed to 367 SGNA members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia and completed by 230 (63%). The majority of responders were hospital-based and 59% of the units performed over 3000 procedures per year. After use the endoscope was hand-carried or transported in a Dry Container (97%) to a separate cleaning room (85%) for HLD by technicians (40%). Wide variations existed in manual step procedures including use of disposable (50%) brushes and number of times channel brushed: once (21%), twice (35%), or three to five times (37%). Soaking duration in disinfectant (70% gluteraldehyde) was for ≤10 min (8%), 10–20 min (35%), 20–30 min (38%), 30–40 min (7%), and >40 min (3%). Sixty-seven percent had an active unit infection control (IC) service and 98% had a QA program. Monitoring of cleaning effectiveness was by visual inspection (50%) and culturing endoscopes (17%). Culture was done weekly (1%) and ≤ biannually (6.5%) and performed by swabing the endoscope end (5%) or rinsing the biopsy channel (8%). If culture positive, most would remove the instrument from clinical use and reevaluate the protocol and personnel for technique lapses. Two respondents were aware of a procedure-related infection. Wide practice variations were noted in manual cleaning and in soaking time during automated HLD in this community. Fewer variations were noted in cleaning personnel and training, location and methods of cleaning, and presence of IC services and QA programs. Endoscope culturing was infrequently done and positive cultures were rare. While most units claim to have ongoing QA programs, few use objective criteria to monitor effective disinfection or lapses in technique. Iatrogenic infection is uncommonly recognized following GI endoscope procedures.
A Archenti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
P2.064 Comparison of Urine Collected in Dry Container to Urine Collected, Transported and Preserved in the Copan Uriswab For the Detection of STDs with the Seeplex STD6 ACE Assay
Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2013Co-Authors: A ArchentiAbstract:Backgrounds Molecular urine devices are not compatible for all molecular assays and are not good bacteria culture. Copan produces the UriSwab (US), a LBM device used with the WASP automation. It’s a leak-proof screw-cap tube with 3 treated sponges on a plastic stick to absorb and retain urine during transport and prevent bacterial overgrowth. UriSwab can be used for urine self-collection for STD screening by culture and molecular assays. Urine collected in Dry Container (DC) were compared to US for detection of Trichomonas vaginalis (TV), Mycoplasma hominis (MH) , Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) , Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Ureaplasma urealyticum (UU). Methods Duplicate urines were collected to-date from 153 patients attending a Milan STD clinic. One urine was collected in DC and another in US. For the DC, 5 ml urine was placed in a tube, and both, DC tube and US were centrifuged at 3000 g/20 min. After discarding the supernatant, the cell pellets were eluted in PBS and nucleic acid was extracted with the QIAamp DNA Mini kit (Qiagen). 3 ul purified sample was tested with the Seeplex ® STD6 ACE assay (Seegene Inc). Results In the 153 urine, DC and US had 90 negative and 52 positive concordant (91.25%) and 9 discordant (9.75%) results; positive included 10 CT, 11 MH, 8 UU, 5 NG and 3 MG. In the discordant, DC had 3 positive missed by US while US had 4 positive missed by DC. No inhibition or TV was detected, the study is-ongoing. Conclusions Good agreement was found between the Copan US and the DC for storing urines for STIs with the Seeplex ® STD6 ACE. The US is leak-proof, easy-to-transport, store urines for STIs with molecular assays, prevents overgrowth, stabilises bacteria for culture and facilitates self-collection for STI screening.
S Razeti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
P2.063 Validation of Copan eNat, a Molecular Transport Medium, For the Collection and Preservation of Urine Specimens For the Detection of STI Infections with the Seegene Anyplex II STI-7 V1.1 Assay
Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2013Co-Authors: S RazetiAbstract:Backgrounds Urine is used for screening STI infections with molecular assays. Copan developed the eNat, a molecular medium that preserves and stabilises nucleic acid (NC), for collection, and storage of clinical specimens for microbial detection by real-time PCR. Seegene uses Dry Container (DC) for urine collection for detection of urogenital pathogens with the Anyplex II STI-7 (STI7). Study objective was to validate the eNat for nucleic acid preservation in urines for STDs detection with the STI7 assays. Methods In this study, 80 urines, collected in DC from patients attending a Milan STD clinic. Urines were tested as per current method and after adding urine to 1ml eNat. To find the urine volume with same sensitivity as urine in DC, 1, 2, and 3ml urine in 1 ml eNAT were tested. After vortexing the eNAT samples, NC was extracted from 350ul with the Automated Purification Systems (NIMBUS IVD) and eluted in 100ul buffer. Purified NCs were tested with the with the Seegene STI7 assay. Results In the 80 urine samples tested, 43 negative and 37 positive were detected with DC, while 1 ml, 2 ml and 3 ml urine in eNAT detected 45.40.40 negative or partial negative (1, 2, 3) and 35.40.40 positive (1, 2, 3) respectively. More co-infections were detected with eNAT 3 ml. Loss of sensitivity with 1 ml eNAT and inhibition with DC versus 3 ml in eNAT was detected in 7 samples. Conclusions Good agreement was found between Copan eNat-3 ml urine and urine in DC for the detection of 7 STI with the Seegene assay. Copan eNAT, is available in leak proof tube, easy to transport-store urines, prevents bacterial overgrowth, stabilises NC at RT and is compatible with the STI7 assay.
William S. Bechara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
e-EROS Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis - N,N‐Dimethyl‐N‐(methylsulfanylmethylene)ammonium Iodide
Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis, 2012Co-Authors: William S. BecharaAbstract:[29085-13-0] C4H10NSI (MW 231.10) InChI = 1S/C4H10NS.HI/c1-5(2)4-6-3;/h4H,1-3H3;1H/q+1;/p-1 InChIKey = BPBAGFOLLWBKGJ-UHFFFAOYSA-M (activating reagent; iodinating reagent; thioiminium salt; Vilsmeier reagent derivative) Physical Data: mp 119–123 °C, white solid.1 Solubility: not soluble in diethyl ether. Form Supplied in: white solid (95% purity). Analysis of Reagent Purity: 1H NMR (CDCl3, 600 MHz) δ 3.16 (3H, s), 3.40 (3H, s), 3.90 (3H, s), 11.14 (1H, s). 13C NMR (CDCl3, 150 MHz) δ 16.6, 42.7, 48.9, 183.5. FTIR (cm−1) (neat): 2983, 1639, 1619, 1442, 1408.2, 3 Preparative Methods: prepared from N,N-dimethylthioformamide and iodomethane. Purification: filtrated and washed with cold diethyl ether under argon. Handling, Storage, and Precautions: the salt is a stable reagent that can be stored for several months in a Dry Container and in a cool place.
-
e-EROS Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis - Diethyl 1,4‐Dihydro‐2,6‐dimethyl‐3,5‐pyridinedicarboxylate
Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis, 2011Co-Authors: William S. Bechara, André B. CharetteAbstract:[1149-23-1] C13H19NO4 (MW 253.29) InChI = 1S/C13H19NO4/c1-5-17-12(15)10-7-11(13(16)18-6-2)9(4)14-8(10)3/h14H,5-7H2,1-4H3 InChIKey = LJXTYJXBORAIHX-UHFFFAOYSA-N (reagent used as a source of hydride) Alternate Name: HEH; Hantzsch ester hydride; Hantzsch ester; Hantzsch dihydropyridine; 1,4-dihydropyridine. Physical Data: mp 175–180 °C, bright yellow solid.2 Large variations in the melting point have been reported depending on the method of synthesis and purification. Solubility: sol in most organic solvents. Form Supplied in: solid (95% purity). Analysis of Reagent Purity: 1H NMR (1:1 DMSO/CDCl3, 400 MHz); δ 7.99 (s, 1H), 4.04 (q, J = 6.8 Hz, 4H), 3.09 (s, 2H), 2.09 (s, 6H), 1.20 (t, J = 7.2 Hz, 6H).13C NMR (CHCl3, 100 MHz): δ 168.3, 145.1, 99.7, 59.9, 25.0, 19.3, 14.7. FTIR (cm−1) (neat): 3346, 3108, 2953, 2924, 2854, 1697, 1646, 1506. Preparative Method: the reagent is most often prepared by a multicomponent reaction involving formaldehyde, ethyl acetoacetate, and ammonium acetate or ammonia.2-6 Purification: recrystallization from EtOH or flash chromatography with petroleum/ethyl acetate (7:3).4, 5 Handling, Storage, and Precautions: wear suitable gloves. Store compound in a Dry Container and in a cool place. Avoid contact with eyes and skin. Do not breathe dust.
