Microorganisms adhere to non-living material or living tissue, and form biofilms made up of extracellular polymers/slime. Biofilm-associated microorganisms behave differently from free-floating bacteria with respect to growth rates and ability to resist antimicrobial treatments and therefore pose a public health problem. The objective of this study is to detect the prevalence of biofilm producers among Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria isolated from clinical specimens, and to study their antimicrobial susceptibility pattern. The study was carried out from October 2009 to March 2010, at the Department of Microbiology, Army Medical College/ National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Clinical specimens were received from various wards of a tertiary care hospital. These were dealt by standard microbiological procedures. Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria isolated were subjected to biofilm detection by congo red agar method (CRA). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing of those isolates, which showed positive results (slime production), was done according to the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion technique. A total of 150 isolates were tested for the production of biofilm/slime. Among them, 81 isolates showed positive results. From these 81, 51 were Gram positive and 30 were Gram negative. All the 81(54%) slime producers showed reduced susceptibility to majority of antibiotics. Bacterial biofilms are an important virulence factor associated with chronic nosocomial infection. Detection of biofilm forming organisms can help in appropriate antibiotic choice.

Background/Aims: Colonoscopy for screening is associated with unpleasant experiences for patients, and abdominal compression devices have been developed to minimize these problems. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the therapeutic benefits of this strategy. This study examined the effects of using an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on the cecal intubation time (CIT), abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural changes. Methods: We searched PubMed and Scopus (from inception to November 2021) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on CIT, abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural change. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. Results: Our pooled analysis of seven randomized controlled trials revealed that abdominal compression devices significantly reduced CIT (WMD, –0.76 [–1.49 to –0.03] minutes; p=0.04), abdominal compression (OR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.94; p=0.03), and postural changes (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27–0.78; p=0.004) during colonoscopy. However, our results did not show a significant change in patient comfort (WMD, –0.48; 95% CI, –1.05 to 0.08; p=0.09) when using an abdominal compression device. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that employing an abdominal compression device may reduce CIT, abdominal compression, and postural change but have no impact on patient comfort.

BACKGROUNDDrug eluting stents (DESs) made with biodegradable polymer have been developed in an attempt to improve clinical outcomes. However, the impact of biodegradable polymers on clinical events and stent thrombosis (ST) remains controversial.

METHODSWe searched Medline, the Cochrane Library and other internet sources, without language or date restrictions for articles comparing clinical outcomes between biodegradable polymer DES and durable polymer DES. Safety endpoints were ST (definite, definite/probable), mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). Efficacy endpoints were major adverse cardiac event (MACE) and target lesion revascularization (TLR).

RESULTSWe identified 15 randomized controlled trials (n = 17 068) with a weighted mean follow-up of 20.6 months. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of definite/probable ST between durable polymer- and biodegradable polymer- DES; relative risk (RR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.11; P = 0.22. Biodegradable polymer DES had similar rates of definite ST (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.72), mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.09, P = 0.43), MI (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26. P = 0.35), MACE (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.09, P = 0.85), and TLR (RR, 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.06, P = 0.30) compared with durable polymer DES. Based on the stratified analysis of the included trials, the treatment effect on definite ST was different at different follow-up times: ≤ 1 year favoring durable polymer DES and >1 year favoring biodegradable polymer DES.

CONCLUSIONSBiodegradable polymer DES has similar safety and efficacy for treating patients with coronary artery disease compared with durable polymer DES. Further data with longer term follow-up are warranted to confirm the potential benefits of biodegradable polymer DES.

Coronary Artery Disease ; drug therapy ; surgery ; Drug-Eluting Stents ; Humans ; Polymers ; administration & dosage ; Thrombosis