Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:24:04.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of a Rapid Readout Biological Indicator for Steam Sterilization With Four Conventional Biological Indicators and Five Chemical Indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

William A. Rutala ,
Suzanne M. Jones  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Suzanne M. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
547 Bumett-Womack, CB #7030, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: In this study, we compare a new biological indicator that provides results within 3 hours with four conventional, 48-hour biological indicators and five chemical indicators.

Design: Biological indicators tested included the conventional Attest 1262, Proof Plus, Assert, and Biosign, and the new Attest 1292 Rapid Readout biological indicator. Chemical indicators tested included Comply, Propper, Chemdi, Sterigage, and Thermalog S. Spore survival following 121°C in a gravity displacement sterilizer was measured by media color change after incubation for 24 and 48 hours at 56°C for the conventional biological indicators, fluorescence at 3 hours for the Attest 1292 Rapid Readout biological indicator, and color change for the chemical indicators. Each exposure time was replicated 12 times with five samples of each indicator per run (ie, 60 replicates per indicator).

Results: At 48 hours, the conventional biological indicators Attest 1262, Proof Plus, Assert, and Biosign showed 100%, 95%, 88%, and 93% spore survival at 5 minutes' exposure; 0%, 0%, 0%, and 8% at 10 minutes; and all showed 0% survival at 15 minutes' exposure. Following a 3hour incubation, the Attest 1292 Rapid Readout biological indicator showed fluorescence at 100%, 72%, and 0% at 5, 10, and 15 minutes, respectively. The chemical indicators Comply, Propper, Chemdi, Sterigage, and Thermalog S revealed sterilization failure rates of 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, and 100% at 5 minutes' exposure; 0%, 0%, 0%, 92%, and 100% at 10 minutes; and, 0%, 0%, 0%, 3%, and 27% at 15 minutes' exposure, respectively.

Conclusions: The sensitivity of the Attest 1292 Rapid Readout biological indicator parallels that of conventional biological indicators. These data suggest that a 3hour rapid readout biological indicator is equivalent to a standard 48-hour biological indicator. Some chemical indicators (eg, Thermalog S) failed to indicate adequate sterilization at 15 minutes' exposure. These chemical indicators have the potential of causing unnecessary recall of adequately sterilized items.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 17 , Issue 7 , July 1996 , pp. 423 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1996

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. Greene, VW. Control of sterilization process. In: Russell, AD, Hugo, WB, Ayliffe, GAJ, eds. Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation, and Sterilization. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1992:605–624.Google Scholar
2. Vesley, D, Langholz, AC, Rohlfing, SR, Foltz, WE. Fluorimetric detection of a Bacillus stearother漏pphilus spore-bound enzyme, a-D-glucosidase, for rapid identification of flash sterilization failure. Appl Environ Microbiol 1992;58:717–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Vesley, D, Nellis, MA, Allwood, PB. Evaluation of a rapid readout biological indicator for 121°C gravity and 132°C vacuum-assisted steam sterilization cycles. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1995;16:281–286.Google Scholar
4. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Evaluation of a rapid readout biological indicator for flash sterilization with three biological indicators and three chemical indicators. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:390–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for sterilization in the practice setting. AORN Standards and Recommended Practices; Denver, CO: AORN; 1995:267–278.Google Scholar
6. Garner, JS, Favero, MS. Guidelines for Handwashing and Environmental Control. CDC publication no. 85-923404. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control; 1985.Google Scholar
7. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Good Hospital Practice: Steam, Sterilization, and Sterility Assurance. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1993.Google Scholar
8. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 1994.Google Scholar
9. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 1996:459.Google Scholar