We find reasonable most of the comments and suggestions from Dr. Ortolano and colleagues concerning the article by Bononi et al. (1). In reply to the first comment, we wish to point out that the reduced number of words, no more than 50, published in the abstract of the short-form paper did not allow us to be completely specific in the sentence “A filter introduced into an intravenous line prevents microbiological contamination, but to date no filters have retained bacterial endotoxins,” which should be followed by “with an efficiency of 100%.” Indeed, in our assays, both Pall and GVS positively charged filters were able to retain bacterial lipopolysaccharide. However, the analysis carried out by the Limulus amoebocyte lysate test does not allow the challenge of positively charged filters for their absolute efficiency in retaining the bacterial lipopolysaccharide (1). The second comment is correct. Nonetheless, in our experience, GVS positively charged filters performed well in clinical settings. No complaints came to our attention from different hospitals which were GVS customers (our unpublished data). We agree with the final suggestion to carry out additional experiments with “more clinically relevant salt-containing intravenous solutions.” This analysis is feasible, and it will be part of our next study.
Bacterial Lipopolysaccharide Retention by a Positively Charged Filter. Letter to the Editor, Authors' Reply
BONONI, Ilaria;BALATTI, Veronica;TOGNON, Mauro
2009
Abstract
We find reasonable most of the comments and suggestions from Dr. Ortolano and colleagues concerning the article by Bononi et al. (1). In reply to the first comment, we wish to point out that the reduced number of words, no more than 50, published in the abstract of the short-form paper did not allow us to be completely specific in the sentence “A filter introduced into an intravenous line prevents microbiological contamination, but to date no filters have retained bacterial endotoxins,” which should be followed by “with an efficiency of 100%.” Indeed, in our assays, both Pall and GVS positively charged filters were able to retain bacterial lipopolysaccharide. However, the analysis carried out by the Limulus amoebocyte lysate test does not allow the challenge of positively charged filters for their absolute efficiency in retaining the bacterial lipopolysaccharide (1). The second comment is correct. Nonetheless, in our experience, GVS positively charged filters performed well in clinical settings. No complaints came to our attention from different hospitals which were GVS customers (our unpublished data). We agree with the final suggestion to carry out additional experiments with “more clinically relevant salt-containing intravenous solutions.” This analysis is feasible, and it will be part of our next study.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
