Using isopropyl alcohol impregnated disinfection caps in the neonatal intensive care unit can cause isopropyl alcohol toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The safety of SwabCap alcohol impregnated disinfection caps was questioned in our unit because of malfunctions in luer access valves. We examined whether SwabCaps affected the integrity of two luer access valves and were associated with alcohol injected into the lines. METHODS: Our bench test study included seven circuits using SmartSite or CARESITE valves exposed to two environmental temperatures. Passive circuits consisted of a 96-hour contact system using SwabCap without other interventions. Active circuits consisted of nine sham injections during a 24-hour period, with the SwabCap replaced after each injection. The active control circuit used isopropyl alcohol impregnated pads to disinfect valves. Isopropyl alcohol was measured at the extremity of all active circuits by gas chromatography. RESULTS: The visual appearance of all SmartSite valves and 67% of the CARESITE valves was changed by SwabCap use. The mean isopropyl alcohol dosages were 52 mmol/L in the SmartSite and 8 mmol/L in the CARESITE at room temperature and 73 and 7 mmol/L, respectively, at 35°C. No alcohol was found in the control circuit. CONCLUSION: The SwabCap altered the valves' appearance and allowed significant amounts of isopropyl alcohol to be injected. It should not be used for neonates without further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".