| Skeptic 2006-06-26, 9:27 pm |
|
"BrentB" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151359022.820335.139850@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Skeptic wrote:
> "BrentB" <borgersbrent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1151350846.584528.78020@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skeptic wrote:
>
> No...coated catheters do NOT emit silver ions while the AgION catheter
> DO.
> do ya got it yet?
>
> REPLY:
> Until a functional difference is demonstrated, it's a semantics issue.
What? you need pictures?
REPLY:
Not pictures - data. You've given none. None.
> Besides, at the end as your "data" you give a source that refers to
> URINARY
> catheters, not venous catheters.... strong work. Urine, blood, it's all
> the
> same, right? No.
They all get infected? yes.
REPLY:
So you think there are no meaninful differences between blood and urine? If
you needed a transfusion, would accept someone's piss?
>
>
> You assume ALL infections of catheters are started from outside the
> host. Not always.
>
> REPLY:
> Not the issue. True that most infections do work their way in from the
> outside world, but where they come from is of no significance.
or is it?
If the pathogen originates from the host then latches onto the catheter
(forming the biofilms) then the silver ion emiting catheter should have
a much better effect than silver alloys and such. From the pubmeds it
seams this is so.
"the pubmeds"... lol. Like your post of a pubmed article that talked about
urinary catheters in defense of venous catheters? You don't seem to know
what to look for.
>
> This sentence is crap...Is "the antibiotic" your talking about silver
> ions? Do they only work on the catheter then become useless?
>
> Did you just ask if silver is an antibiotic? If so, then no, not in the
> traditional usage of the word.
It's a non toxic disinfectant, I agree. The real question is this, does
it only work when attached to the catheter?
REPLY:
The question is does it work. We don't yet know. Then we need to know - is
it safe. Then we need to know if it works better or worse than currently
available antibiotic catheters. Long way to go.
>
> Semantics huh.
> Regardless of how you phrase it the new AgION catheters "lead to a
> marked reduction in catheter-associated infections of the bloodstream."
>
> REPLY:
> reduced compared to WHAT? Compared to uncoated catheters? Perhaps.
> Compared to antibiotic coated ones? Very unlikely. But of course there
> is
> no data to show this one way or the other.
>
WHAT? I could have sworn I was posting pubmed articles?
REPLY:
Yes, pubmed article about UTI's to support silver coated venous catheters.
I have an article about Cable vs. DSL, but I don't think that has any more
(or less) relevance than yours.
> Other silver coated cathters do NOT have this overall systemic effect
> from what I've read. Whats the difference? Perhaps this...
> "Over a period of one year, silver ions are released slowly from the
> catheter's inner and outer surfaces" which leads to a "marked reduction
> in catheter-associated infections of the bloodstream."
>
> A routine catheter is left in for a period of days, not a year. No one
> has
> a catheter for that period of time - no one. If long term usage is
> needed,
> there are alternatives, such as the placement of an infusaport for
> chemotherapy. There is no systemic effect of a silver catheter - coated
> or
> impregnated.
I've had mine in many, many, months. No idea if it was a year but it's
nice to know these catheters can last that long if needed. Both mine
were quickly infected by strep.
REPLY:
If you had a catheter in for that long it was not a routine central venous
catheter. Only something like a tunneled Hickman catheter can be safely
left in that long, which is somewhat different. Nevertheless, bacterial
colonization of at least some part of the catheter will occur no matter what
you coat it, impregnate it, or lube it with. If your strep were systemic
your catheter should have been removed.
>
> Not to say coated catheters are worthless, they just don't work as well
> and again they are not the same...
>
> REPLY:
> You don't have the data to make that conclusion.
Are you calling these pubmed authors liars? I posted two concerning the
efficacy of silver
associated catheters.
REPLY:
I have seen one, discussed below - which is a bad article (I actually read
it, you should try) and shows no meaningful difference between silver coated
and uncoated URINARY catheters. What that has to do with this debate I have
no idea. I read it because urinary catheters are my gig and I hadn't seen
that article. I now see why - it was junk.
> CONCLUSIONS: The risk of infection declined by 21% among study wards
> randomized to silver-coated catheters and by 32% among patients in whom
> silver-coated catheters were used on the wards. Use of the more
> expensive silver-coated catheter appeared to offer cost savings by
> preventing excess hospital costs from nosocomial UTI associated with
> catheter use. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:3294-3298.
>
> PMID: 11088092 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> REPLY:
> OK - so I went and got that article, "A randomized crossover study of
> silver
> coated urinary catheters in hospitalized patients".
>
> Not only is this study limted to urinary catheters, it doesn't say squat
> about silver "impregnated" catheters.
Uh....that was my point. They are not silver "impregnated", they are
silver coated. The point is they do not work as well as the AgION
catheter.
REPLY:
Then post an article that shows what you want it to show - not lacks what it
should have. You won't because you can't because it doesn't exist. I'd be
happy for you to prove me wrong.
> As for the study itself, it is terrible. It was randomized but not
> blinded.
> You can't expect to get valid results for this kind of a study without
> blinding - too much bias. Even then, the results were neither
> statistically
> nor clinically significant - a difference of about 30 UTI's out of 28,000
> patients. And that difference would likely disappear with blinding. They
> fall back on a weak economic argument, which again falls short because
> more
> UTI's are going to be detected based on increased surveillance and
> awareness
> of the study.
Should have used the AgION catheters.
Use of catheters with the AgION antimicrobial system lead to a marked
reduction in catheter-associated infections of the bloodstream.
Loertzer H, Soukup J, Hamza A, Wicht A, Rettkowski O, Koch E, Fornara
P.
Department of Urology and Transplant Center of the Martin Luther
University, Halle, Germany. Hagen.Loertzer@medizin.uni-halle.de
Liars?
REPLY:
Who? What? There is no medical article available that I can find called
"Use of catheters with the AgION antimicrobial system lead to a marked
reduction in catheter-associated infections of the bloodstream". All I see
above is a bunch of names. Is there an article associated with those names,
or are they paid by the silver company?
|