Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:34:04.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of 3 Alcohol Gels and 70% Ethyl Alcohol for Hand Hygiene

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Mirian Nicéa Zarpellon
Affiliation:
Departments of Clinical Analyses, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
Vanessa Sarto Soares
Affiliation:
Medicine, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
Natal Rodrigo Albrecht
Affiliation:
Medicine, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
Douglas Ricardo da Silva Bergamasco
Affiliation:
Medicine, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
Lourdes Botelho Garcia
Affiliation:
Departments of Clinical Analyses, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
Celso Luiz Cardoso*
Affiliation:
Departments of Clinical Analyses, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná Brazil
*
Laboratório de Microbiologia, Departamento de Análises Clínicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Avenida Colombo 5790, CEP 87020-900 Maringá, Paraná, Brazil ([email protected])

Abstract

In a laboratory study, we demonstrated that 3 alcohol-based hand gels, commercially available in Brazil, were as effective as the traditional 70% ethyl alcohol (by weight) in removing clinical isolates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Serratia marcescens, and Candida albicans from heavily contaminated hands of human volunteers.

Type
Concise Communication
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Boyce, JM, Pittet, D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23(12 suppl):S3S40.Google Scholar
2.Voss, A, Widmer, AF. No time for handwashing!? Handwashing versus alcoholic rub: can we afford 100% compliance? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:205208.Google Scholar
3.Hernandes, SED, Mello, AC, Sant'Ana, JJ, et al.The effectivenesss of alcohol gel and other hand-cleansing agents against important nosocomial pathogens. Braz J Microbiol 2004;35:3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Santana, SL, Furtado, GHC, Coutinho, AP, Medeiros, EAS. Assessment of healthcare professionals' adherence to hand hygiene after alcohol-based hand rub introduction at an intensive care unit in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:365367.Google Scholar
5.Kramer, A, Rudolph, P, Kampf, G, Pittet, D. Limited efficacy of alcohol-based hand gels. Lancet 2002;359:14891490.Google Scholar
6.Dharan, S, Hugonnet, S, Sax, H, Pittet, D. Comparison of waterless hand antisepsis agents at short application times: raising the flag of concern. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:160164.Google Scholar
7.Guilhermetti, M, Hernandes, SED, Fukushigue, Y, Garcia, LB, Cardoso, CL. Effectiveness of hand-cleansing agents for removing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strain from contaminated hands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001;22:105108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Ayliffe, GAJ, Babb, JR, Quoraishi, AH. A test for “hygienic” hand disinfection. J Clin Pathol 1978;31:923928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Agênda Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária, Brasil. Higienização das Mãos em Serviços de Saúde. Brasília: Anvisa, 2007:52.Google Scholar
10.Kampf, G, Ostermeyer, C. Efficacy of alcohol-based gels compared with simple hand wash and hygienic hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2004;56:S13S15.Google Scholar