Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T15:29:52.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oxygen nipple and nut (Christmas tree) adaptor contamination rates and decontamination with disinfecting wipes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2020

Nicole A. Colandrea ,
Michael L. Cleary ,
David R. Peaper ,
Linda K. Sullivan ,
Richard A. Martinello  and
Thomas S. Murray Open the ORCID record for Thomas S. Murray [Opens in a new window]
Nicole A. Colandrea
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut
Michael L. Cleary
Affiliation:
Biomedical Health Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
David R. Peaper
Affiliation:
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New HavenConnecticut
Linda K. Sullivan
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut
Richard A. Martinello
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New HavenConnecticut Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New HavenConnecticut
Thomas S. Murray*
Affiliation:
Department of Infection Prevention, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut Department of Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine, New HavenConnecticut
*
Author for correspondence: Thomas S. Murray, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Different manufacturers recommend different levels of disinfection for oxygen nipple and nut adaptors, also known as Christmas-tree adaptors (CTAs). We aimed to determine the bacterial contamination rates of CTAs before and after clinical use and whether disinfection wipes effectively eliminate bacteria from CTAs.

Methods:

CTAs were swabbed for bacteria directly from the shipment box or after use in a medical intensive care unit to determine levels of contamination. CTAs were also inoculated in the laboratory with a variety of bacteria and disinfected with either 0.5% hydrogen peroxide (Oxivir 1) or 0.25% tetra-ammonium chloride with 44.50% isopropyl alcohol (Super Sani-Cloth), and the effectiveness of each wipe was determined by comparing the bacterial recovery before and after disinfection.

Results:

CTAs exhibit low levels of bacterial burden before and after clinical use. Both disinfecting wipes were effective at removing bacteria from the CTAs.

Conclusions:

Low-level disinfection of CTAs is appropriate prior to redeployment in the clinical setting.

Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 396 - 399
Copyright
© 2020 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

Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities, 2008 Center for Disease Control and Prevention website. www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection. Published 2009. Accessed October 1, 2019.Google Scholar
MES website. www.mymesinc.com/category_s/1828.htm. Accessed September 26, 2019.Google Scholar
US Oxivir Brochure, 2018. Diversey website. diversey.com/en/solutions/infection-prevention/oxivir. Published 2018. Accessed October 9, 2019.Google Scholar
Super Sani-cloth technical data bulletin, 2019. PDI website. https://pdihc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Super-Sani-Cloth-Tech-Data-Bulletin_0619-UPDATE_07168610.pdf. Published 2019. Accessed October 9, 2019.Google Scholar
List H: EPA’s registered products effective against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis or faecium (VRE), 2018. United States Environmental Protection Agency website. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-h-epas-registered-products-effective-against-methicillin-resistant. Published 2018. Accessed September 22, 2019.Google Scholar
Nandy, P, Lucas, AD, Gonzalez, EA, Hitchins, VM. Efficacy of commercially available wipes for disinfection of pulse oximeter sensors. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:304–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risteen, R, Cohen, S, Mooney, L, Giovanniello, E, Miley, GB, Hollenbeck, BL. Disinfection of blood pressure cuffs and electrocardiographic telemetry leads with 0.5% hydrogen peroxide wipes. Am J Crit Care 2018;27:322–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sattar, SA, Bradley, C, Kibbee, R, et al.Disinfectant wipes are appropriate to control microbial bioburden from surfaces: use of a new ASTM standard test protocol to demonstrate efficacy. J Hosp Infect 2015;91:319–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerba, C, Lopez, G, Ikner, L. Distribution of bacteria in dental offices and the impact of hydrogen peroxide disinfecting wipes. J Dental Hygiene 2016;90:354–361.Google ScholarPubMed