Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:21:12.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equal Efficacy of Glucoprotamin and an Aldehyde Product for Environmental Disinfection in a Hematologic Transplant Unit: A Prospective Crossover Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Ruth Meinke ,
Bernhard Meyer ,
Reno Frei ,
Jakob Passweg  and
Andreas F. Widmer
Ruth Meinke
Affiliation:
University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Bernhard Meyer
Affiliation:
Ecolab Deutschland, RD&E Healthcare EMEA, Düsseldorf, Germany
Reno Frei
Affiliation:
University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Jakob Passweg
Affiliation:
University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Andreas F. Widmer*
Affiliation:
University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
*
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background.

The inanimate hospital environment has emerged as an important reservoir of nosocomial pathogens. In particular, multidrug-resistant pathogens, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Acinetobacter species, and Clostridium difficile, play a major role in the transmission of hospital-acquired infections. In Europe, aldehydes, chlorine, and quaternary ammonium compounds have been commonly used for environmental disinfection. Glucoprotamin, a newer active compound for disinfectants, has been clinically tested for disinfection of instruments but not for environmental disinfection.

Objective.

This study evaluated the antimicrobial effectiveness of a glucoprotamin-containing product (Incidin) compared with that of an aldehyde-containing product (Deconex), the current standard at our institution.

Methods.

This prospective crossover study was conducted in our access-restricted hematologic transplant unit. A total of 3,086 samples from the environment were processed and examined for overall bacterial burden as well as selectively for S. aureus, C. difficile, and gram-negative bacteria.

Results.

There was no significant difference in residual bacteria after disinfection between the 2 products in terms of overall burden and selected pathogens. Enterococci were the predominant pathogens recovered from surfaces, but no vancomycin-resistant enterococci were recovered. Similarly, C. difficile could not be found in the patients' environment, even in rooms, despite the use of selective media.

Conclusion.

The aldehyde-containing product (Deconex) and the glucoprotamin-containing product (Incidin) demonstrated similar efficacy against environmental contamination in a hematologic transplant unit with the application of selective media for C. difficile, S. aureus, and gram-negative bacteria in addition to standard medium.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 33 , Issue 11 , November 2012 , pp. 1077 - 1080
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2012

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.Kramer, A, Schwebke, I, Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? a systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Widmer, AF, Frei, R. Decontamination, disinfection, sterilization. In: Murray, PR, Baron, EJ, Pfaller, M, Tenover, FC, Yolken, R. Manual of Clinical Microbiology. Baltimore: American Society of Microbiology, 2011:138–164.Google Scholar
3.Dancer, SJ, White, LF, Lamb, J, Girvan, EK, Robertson, C. Measuring the effect of enhanced cleaning in a UK hospital: a prospective cross-over study. BMC Med 2009;7:28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Dharan, S, Mourouga, P, Copin, P, Bessmer, G, Tschanz, B, Pittet, D. Routine disinfection of patients' environmental surfaces: myth or reality? J Hosp Infect 1999;42:113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Exner, M. Divergent opinions on surface disinfection: myths or prevention? a review of the literature. GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip 2007;2:doc19.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Meyer, B, Kluin, C. Efficacy of glucoprotamin containing disinfectants against different species of atypical mycobacteria. J Hosp Infect 1999;42:151–154.Google Scholar
7.Tyski, S, Grzybowska, W, Greszczuk, S, et al.Antimicrobial activity of glucoprotamin-containing disinfectants. Pol J Microbiol 2009;58:347–353.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Widmer, AF, Frei, R. Antimicrobial activity of glucoprotamin: a clinical study of a new disinfectant for instruments. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:762–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Fenner, L, Widmer, AF, Stranden, A, et al.First cluster of clindamycin resistant Clostridium difficile PCR ribotype 027 in Switzerland. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14:514–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Dancer, SJ. How do we assess hospital cleaning? a proposal for microbiological standards for surface hygiene in hospitals. J Hosp Infect 2004;56:10–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Anderson, RE, Young, V, Stewart, M, Robertson, C, Dancer, SJ. Cleanliness audit of clinical surfaces and equipment: who cleans what? J Hosp Infect 2011;78:178–181.Google Scholar
12.Dumford, DM, Nerandzic, MM, Eckstein, BC, Donskey, JC. What is on that keyboard? detecting hidden environmental reservoirs of Clostridium difficile during an outbreak associated with North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type I strains. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Dancer, SJ. Hospital cleaning in the 21st century. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2011;30:1473–1481.Google Scholar
14.Dancer, SJ. The role of environmental cleaning in the control of hospital-acquired infection. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:378–385.Google Scholar
15.Struelens, M, Maas, A, Nonhoff, C, et al.Control of nosocomial transmission of Clostridium difficile based on sporadic case surveillance. Am J Med 1991;91:138–144.Google Scholar
16.Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA. Role of environmental contamination in the transmission of vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:306–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Anderson, RL, Carr, JH, Bond, WW, Favero, MS. Susceptibility of vancomycin-resistant enterococci to environmental disinfectants. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:195–199.Google Scholar
18.Tschudin Sutter, S, Frei, R, Dangel, M, Gratwohl, A, Bonten, M, Widmer, AF. Not all patients with vancomycin-resistant enterococci need to be isolated. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51:678–683.Google Scholar
19.Deutsches Institut fur Normung. Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Quantitative Suspension Test for the Evaluation of Basic Bactericidal Activity of Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Test Method and Requirements (Phase 1). DIN EN 1040:2006–03(E). Berlin: Beuth, 2006.Google Scholar