Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:42:08.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Antimicrobial Efficacy of Two Hand Sanitizers in Intensive Care Units Common Areas: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2018

Abhishek Deshpande ,
Jacqueline Fox ,
Ken Koon Wong ,
Jennifer L. Cadnum ,
Thriveen Sankar ,
Annette Jencson ,
Sarah Schramm ,
Thomas G. Fraser ,
Curtis J. Donskey  and
Steven Gordon
Abhishek Deshpande*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Jacqueline Fox
Affiliation:
Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Ken Koon Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Jennifer L. Cadnum
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Thriveen Sankar
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Annette Jencson
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Sarah Schramm
Affiliation:
Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Thomas G. Fraser
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Curtis J. Donskey
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Steven Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
*
Address correspondence to Abhishek Deshpande MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk G10, Cleveland OH 44195 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Contaminated hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important source of transmission of healthcare-associated infections. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers, while effective, do not provide sustained antimicrobial activity. The objective of this study was to compare the immediate and persistent activity of 2 hand hygiene products (ethanol [61% w/v] plus chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG; 1.0% solution] and ethanol only [70% v/v]) when used in an intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study

SETTING

Three ICUs at a large teaching hospital

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 51 HCWs involved in direct patient care were enrolled in and completed the study.

METHODS

All HCWs were randomized 1:1 to either product. Hand prints were obtained immediately after the product was applied and again after spending 4–7 minutes in the ICU common areas prior to entering a patient room or leaving the area. The numbers of aerobic colony-forming units (CFU) were compared for the 2 groups after log transformation. Each participant tested the alternative product after a 3-day washout period.

RESULTS

On bare hands, use of ethanol plus CHG was associated with significantly lower recovery of aerobic CFU, both immediately after use (0.27 ± 0.05 and 0.88 ± 0.08 log10 CFU; P = .035) and after spending time in ICU common areas (1.81 ± 0.07 and 2.17 ± 0.05 log10 CFU; P<.0001). Both the antiseptics were well tolerated by HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the ethanol-only product, the ethanol plus CHG sanitizer was associated with significantly lower aerobic bacterial counts on hands of HCWs, both immediately after use and after spending time in ICU common areas.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02258412

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:267–271

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 267 - 271
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

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

REFERENCES

1. Boev, C, Kiss, E. Hospital-acquired infections: current trends and prevention. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2017;29:51–65.Google Scholar
2. Allegranzi, B, Pittet, D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:305–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Kramer, A, Schwebke, I, Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Weinstein, R. Epidemiology and control of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):179s–184s.Google Scholar
5. Bischoff, WE, Reynolds, TM, Sessler, CT, et al. Hand washing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antiseptic. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1017–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Maury, E, Alzieu, M, Baudel, JL, et al. Availability of an alcohol solution can improve hand disinfection compliance in an intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hugonnet, S, Perneger, TV, Pittet, D. Alcohol-based handrub improves compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1037–1043.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 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. MMWR 2002;51(No. RR16).Google Scholar
9. Olson, L, Morse, D, Duley, C, Savelle, B. Prospective, randomized in vivo comparison of a dual-active waterless antiseptic versus two alcohol-only waterless antiseptics for surgical hand antisepsis. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kampf, G, Reichel, M, Hollingsworth, A, Bashir, M. Efficacy of surgical hand scrub products based on chlorhexidine is largely overestimated without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:e1–e5.Google Scholar
11. Kaiser, N, Klein, D, Karanja, P, Greten, Z, Newman, J. Inactivation of chlorhexidine gluconate on skin by incompatible alcohol hand sanitizing gels. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:569–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Senior, N. Some observations on the formulation and properties of chlorhexidine. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973;24:259–278.Google Scholar
13. Macinga, DR, Edmonds, SL. Inclusion of chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol-based presurgical hand antiseptics: Can a product be considered “superior” if it does not meet established efficacy requirements? Am J Infect Control 2013;41:475–476.Google Scholar
14. Olson, LK. Response to letter, “Inclusion of chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol-based presurgical hand antiseptics: Can a product be considered ‘superior’ if it does not meet established efficacy requirements?”. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:476–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Macinga, DR, Edmonds, SL, Campbell, E, McCormack, RR. Comparative efficacy of alcohol-based surgical scrubs: the importance of formulation. AORN J 2014;100:641–650.Google Scholar
16. Rutter, JD, Angiulo, K, Macinga, DR. Measuring residual activity of topical antimicrobials: is the residual activity of chlorhexidine an artefact of laboratory methods? J Hosp Infect 2014;88:113–115.Google Scholar
17. Kampf, G. Acquired resistance to chlorhexidine—Is it time to establish an ‘antispetic stewardship’ initiative? J Hosp Infect 2016;94:213–227.Google Scholar