Safety issue of re-sterilization of polyurethane electrophysiology catheters: a cytotoxicity study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reuse of electrophysiology catheters could result in significant cost savings. However, re-sterilization of catheters could lead to several adverse consequences, including toxicity related to potential chemical reactions that occur during sterilization due to toxic residues remaining on the surface of catheters. The objective of this study was to investigate in vitro cytotoxicity of polyurethane (PU)-based catheter extracts on macrophages after their re-sterilization. We have compared three sterilization methods: steam autoclave, ethylene oxide (EtO) and hydrogen peroxide plasma (Sterrad system). Our results showed that the viability of cells varied from 90% to 99% as a function of incubation time and number of sterilization cycle. While there was no statistical difference based on the sterilization procedure, the number of sterilization cycles (up to 10 cycles) presents a statistically significant effect on the viability of J774 macrophages. However, extract obtained after resterilization of PU-based catheters had a low cytotoxic effect on J774 macrophages, since the overall cell mortality remained under 10%. An inhibitory effect on cell growth was also observed, which was not significant either as a function of incubation time, sterilization technique or the number of sterilization cycles. Finally, extracts of PU-based catheters had no statistically significant effect on TNF-alpha release by J774 macrophage. Even though there were some statistically significant differences between the control and processed samples, and among processed samples, our data suggest that one single reprocessing of PU-based catheters may not induce clinically significant changes in their cytotoxicity behaviour.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".