"please keep me updated about oximeters "
Sleep Apnea Forum Bringing Power to the Patient
New? Free Sign Up
Then check our Welcome Center to a Community Caring about Sleep Apnea diagnosis and Sleep Apnea treatment:
CPAP machines, Sleep Apnea surgery and dental appliances.
CPAP Supplies
Latest Activity
Bacteria on Old CPAP Masks
Another reason to replace your existing CPAP mask with a new one from time to time (thanks to Ed Grandi, executive director of the American Sleep Apnea Association for bringing this to my attention):
"There is a lot of good research going on in the world sleep apnea medicine as evidenced by the "posters" or abstracts of research presented at the 2009 Associated Professional Sleep Societies meeting in Seattle Washington.
The one that really struck my eye is the following:
Sleep and Breathing: Care of CPAP Equipment a Factor of Compliance and Hygiene.
Quoting from the abstract...
This study was designed to test wheter patients have difficulty adequately cleaning CPAP interfaces and if contaminated equipment increases problems and eventual abandonment. Regular washingt of equipment should be an effectivemeans of controlling bacterial and fungal growth with older interfaces morelikely to be contaminated.
30 patients on CPAP for more than one month were studied. Baterical and fungal cultures were taken from the interfaces and humidifiers. Cultures were classified, photographed, and colonies counted. Culture growth was so significant on the first 20 patients, that a secondary trial of mask washing and repeat culture was added.
Although the cultures grew mostly normal flora, the colony counts were high: 21% of the patients had 100-500 colonies and 48% grew >2000 colonies per plate. There was no correlation of severity or cleaning frequency with colony counts. Mask age was important: with fungal growth from 100% > 1 year old, and only 25% aged 1-3 months. Gram negative bacteria increased almost linearly with mask age. In the secondary trial, interfaces were rewashed, resulting in 90% lower colony counts, unless they were > 1 year old when washing was ineffective,
Conclusion: This pilot study suggests there are high counts of bacterial and fungal flora on CPAP interfaces, despite routine washing, with the older interfaces, more contaminated and resistant to cleaning. Furhter research willbe required to determine wheter increasing frequnecy of mask replacement is effective at reducing bacterial contamination, and ultimely improve patient outcome by influencing CPAP adherence or infection risk."
"There is a lot of good research going on in the world sleep apnea medicine as evidenced by the "posters" or abstracts of research presented at the 2009 Associated Professional Sleep Societies meeting in Seattle Washington.
The one that really struck my eye is the following:
Sleep and Breathing: Care of CPAP Equipment a Factor of Compliance and Hygiene.
Quoting from the abstract...
This study was designed to test wheter patients have difficulty adequately cleaning CPAP interfaces and if contaminated equipment increases problems and eventual abandonment. Regular washingt of equipment should be an effectivemeans of controlling bacterial and fungal growth with older interfaces morelikely to be contaminated.
30 patients on CPAP for more than one month were studied. Baterical and fungal cultures were taken from the interfaces and humidifiers. Cultures were classified, photographed, and colonies counted. Culture growth was so significant on the first 20 patients, that a secondary trial of mask washing and repeat culture was added.
Although the cultures grew mostly normal flora, the colony counts were high: 21% of the patients had 100-500 colonies and 48% grew >2000 colonies per plate. There was no correlation of severity or cleaning frequency with colony counts. Mask age was important: with fungal growth from 100% > 1 year old, and only 25% aged 1-3 months. Gram negative bacteria increased almost linearly with mask age. In the secondary trial, interfaces were rewashed, resulting in 90% lower colony counts, unless they were > 1 year old when washing was ineffective,
Conclusion: This pilot study suggests there are high counts of bacterial and fungal flora on CPAP interfaces, despite routine washing, with the older interfaces, more contaminated and resistant to cleaning. Furhter research willbe required to determine wheter increasing frequnecy of mask replacement is effective at reducing bacterial contamination, and ultimely improve patient outcome by influencing CPAP adherence or infection risk."
Views: 2498
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by RockRpsgt on
-
Cavecide is a great product for cleaning your masks and humidifiers
http://www.safety.vanderbilt.edu/pdf/hcs_msds/cavicide_01_05.pdf
http://www.qualitymedicalinc.com/disinfectants_sanitizers.htm?gclid...
-
Permalink Reply by Mike on
-
thanks, Rock. are you familiar with Control III and how would you compare its efficacy with Cavecide? No worries if you don't know.
-
Permalink Reply by Edward Grandi on
-
I viewed the poster and there was no statement indicating that study underwritten by industry.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Lyons on
-
Someone paid for this study to be conducted. I find it quite interesting that the study did not indicate who the underwriter(s) is. As a result, I am a skeptical of the validity of the result statement.
One way for a business to remain viable is to develop methods of re-occurring revenue. So if the industry scares the market place into their regimen, they preserve a steady income source.
One way to accomplish this is by basically placing information like this theoretical “basic study” into public circulation. They play on the phobias of certain individuals.
Edward Grandi said:I viewed the poster and there was no statement indicating that study underwritten by industry.
-
Permalink Reply by sleepycarol on
-
Okay here is my take on this --
As many of you know I am not a stickler for cleaniness. I am a product of the 50/60's having been born in 1954. This was way before the advent of all the disinfecting products. We played outside and if I remember correctly ate our share of dirt and grime. Not that mom didn't try to keep us clean but we didn't have computers, game systems, the array of tv shows (TV actually went off the air during the night and came back on with the American Anthem in the mornings). We played outdoors when it was nice enough. We caught every bug you can imagine (even those that bite and sting), dug our way to "China", and other games that involved germs. We swam in one of the local creeks or lakes. We ate picnic lunches with the flies and ants. I think you get the picture.
Our immune system is probably stronger for it. Today's kids have the Germ-X following them, anti-bacterial soaps, cleaners, etc. They play on their games and watch television and work on the computers. Ask them to go outside and they look at you like you have developed a second head. Our homes are kept spotless with all sorts of chemicals -- many of which are toxic, yet we use them anyway.
I learned that my house is lived in -- I keep it neat and tidy -- but seldom "deep" clean with many of the chemicals found on the store shelves finding it unnecessary to put myself in the path of these so called "healthy, germ free" products. I use plain old soap and water, and a good scrubbing.
I wash my mask when I feel it needs it -- no more or less -- and I sure am not going to worry about MY germs being on MY mask. For the most part we should be immune to most of our germs.
This is just my take on this situation.
-
-
As I said earlier, I'm skeptical of this type of study. This type of “hip shot” hype has almost destroyed the effectiveness of antibiotics.
Here some interesting data to support my position.
"In a healthy animal, the internal tissues, e.g. blood, brain, muscle, etc., are normally free of microorganisms. However, the surface tissues, i.e., skin and mucous membranes, are constantly in contact with environmental organisms and become readily colonized by various microbial species. The mixture of organisms regularly found at any anatomical site is referred to as the normal flora, except by researchers in the field who prefer the term "indigenous microbiota". The normal flora of humans consists of a few eucaryotic fungi and protists, but bacteria are the most numerous and obvious microbial components of the normal flora."
(Full article text from Textbook of Bacteriology)
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
Your toothbrush will get you before that mask will.
"In his book, Why Your Toothbrush May Be Killing You Slowly, James Song, a biochemist from Wisconsin University, suggests that a range of serious health problems, including heart disease, stroke, arthritis and chronic infections, could be linked to unhygienic toothbrushes. Further research by Manchester University found that the average toothbrush contained around ten million germs, including a high percentage of potentially fatal bacteria such as staphylococci, streptococcus, E. coli and candida. Other studies have shown that over time, a single toothbrush can be the breeding ground for trillions of bacteria specimen."
(Full article link on WebMD)
http://www.drmoorhead.com/2008/08/is-there-bacteria-on-your-toothbr...
-
-
without having read this source, i would imagine a toothbrush would get more bacteria (especially fecal bacteria) than a mask because many people keep their toothbrushes in the bathroom, in close proximity to the toilet. i actually do myself. yuck.
Dan Lyons said:As I said earlier, I'm skeptical of this type of study. This type of “hip shot” hype has almost destroyed the effectiveness of antibiotics.
Here some interesting data to support my position.
"In a healthy animal, the internal tissues, e.g. blood, brain, muscle, etc., are normally free of microorganisms. However, the surface tissues, i.e., skin and mucous membranes, are constantly in contact with environmental organisms and become readily colonized by various microbial species. The mixture of organisms regularly found at any anatomical site is referred to as the normal flora, except by researchers in the field who prefer the term "indigenous microbiota". The normal flora of humans consists of a few eucaryotic fungi and protists, but bacteria are the most numerous and obvious microbial components of the normal flora."
(Full article text from Textbook of Bacteriology)
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
Your toothbrush will get you before that mask will.
"In his book, Why Your Toothbrush May Be Killing You Slowly, James Song, a biochemist from Wisconsin University, suggests that a range of serious health problems, including heart disease, stroke, arthritis and chronic infections, could be linked to unhygienic toothbrushes. Further research by Manchester University found that the average toothbrush contained around ten million germs, including a high percentage of potentially fatal bacteria such as staphylococci, streptococcus, E. coli and candida. Other studies have shown that over time, a single toothbrush can be the breeding ground for trillions of bacteria specimen."
(Full article link on WebMD)
http://www.drmoorhead.com/2008/08/is-there-bacteria-on-your-toothbr...
-
-
I bet your right Mike. For years I brushed my teeth at the kitchen sink since our bathroom sink didn't have running water in (long story as hubby "tried" to fix it since it was running slow and ended up actually doing the opposite and couldn't get it going.) Last summer we paid to have our bathroom gutted down to bare studs and down to dirt removing all the floor joist and completely rebuilding it. Now I brush my teeth in the bathroom. Probably should have kept brushing them in the kitchen.
-
-
I don't know Mike. I have used dispatch and cavecide. i prefer the cavecide. I will ask around though see if anyone else has an opinion on it. Disenfectents are a big part of the test.
Mike said:thanks, Rock. are you familiar with Control III and how would you compare its efficacy with Cavecide? No worries if you don't know.
-
-
I agree with Rock in that in a hospital or clinic setting one must be very careful to disinfect items that are used with multiple patients, even down to wiping down the beds, tables, etc. I do not want to share with other patients.
Of course, how many of us eat out and have watched the waitress wash the table down with a wet cloth? Where did the wet cloth go prior to cleaning our table? How sanitary is the dishes that are used. We recently went to a chain brand name restraurant here in town. It is a buffet type sit down place and when my son picked up his plate it was spackled with dried flakes of food. He waited until our waitress came over and told her, he needed a new plate and she stated "oh, but that one is clean there isn't anything wrong with it;" to which he replied "well, it maybe clean, but I am not using it with dried stuck on food -- bring me another plate." I work at a school that l uses an industrial dishwasher -- I know how they wash dishes and probably the same method many restraurants use == stuff can and does get left behind at times. Nothing is perfect.
-
-
I don't know Mike the discovery channel has done many different things proving that a bathroom might actually be the cleanest room in your house, and that your kitchen is probably the worst. Food contaminates produce more bacteria than anything else. You usually don't spend enough time in your bathroom to contaminate it the way you might think. I don't know anyone that eats in the bathroom. Also people are usually a little more methodical when it comes to cleaning their bathrooms. The mythbusters (one of my favorite shows) actually did a show based on the 5 second eating rule. This is the myth that when you drop food you have 5 seconds to pick it up and eating it before it is contaminated. They took culture samples from all of the surface ares in a normal household. The results were very surprising. The kitchen floor was actually worse than a toilet seat.
Mike said:without having read this source, i would imagine a toothbrush would get more bacteria (especially fecal bacteria) than a mask because many people keep their toothbrushes in the bathroom, in close proximity to the toilet. i actually do myself. yuck.
Dan Lyons said:As I said earlier, I'm skeptical of this type of study. This type of “hip shot” hype has almost destroyed the effectiveness of antibiotics.
Here some interesting data to support my position.
"In a healthy animal, the internal tissues, e.g. blood, brain, muscle, etc., are normally free of microorganisms. However, the surface tissues, i.e., skin and mucous membranes, are constantly in contact with environmental organisms and become readily colonized by various microbial species. The mixture of organisms regularly found at any anatomical site is referred to as the normal flora, except by researchers in the field who prefer the term "indigenous microbiota". The normal flora of humans consists of a few eucaryotic fungi and protists, but bacteria are the most numerous and obvious microbial components of the normal flora."
(Full article text from Textbook of Bacteriology)
http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html
Your toothbrush will get you before that mask will.
"In his book, Why Your Toothbrush May Be Killing You Slowly, James Song, a biochemist from Wisconsin University, suggests that a range of serious health problems, including heart disease, stroke, arthritis and chronic infections, could be linked to unhygienic toothbrushes. Further research by Manchester University found that the average toothbrush contained around ten million germs, including a high percentage of potentially fatal bacteria such as staphylococci, streptococcus, E. coli and candida. Other studies have shown that over time, a single toothbrush can be the breeding ground for trillions of bacteria specimen."
(Full article link on WebMD)
http://www.drmoorhead.com/2008/08/is-there-bacteria-on-your-toothbr...
© 2024 Created by The SleepGuide Crew.
Powered by
