Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:35:09.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Population Kinetics of the Skin Flora on Gloved Hands Following Surgical Hand Disinfection With 3 Propanol-Based Hand Rubs: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Manfred L. Rotter ,
Günter Kampf ,
Miranda Suchomel  and
Michael Kundi
Manfred L. Rotter*
Affiliation:
Institutes of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Austria
Günter Kampf
Affiliation:
Bode Chemie, Scientific Affairs, Hamburg, Germany Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany
Miranda Suchomel
Affiliation:
Institutes of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Austria
Michael Kundi
Affiliation:
Environmental Health, Medical University Vienna, Austria
*
Institute of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, A-I095 Vienna, Austria ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective.

To study the bacterial population kinetics on gloved hands following hand treatment with 3 optically indistinguishable, alcohol-based surgical hand rubs, with and without supplements to delay bacterial regrowth.

Design.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, balanced quasi-Greco-Latin square design.

Setting.

Microbiology laboratory of the Medical University Vienna, Austria.

Participants.

Twenty-four healthy adult volunteers without skin lesions.

Surgical Hand Rubs.

The following hand rubs, all stained blue, were applied to the hands for 3 minutes: 1-propanol 60% vol/vol (A); 2-propanol 70% m/m plus chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% wt/wt (B); 2-propanol 45% wt/wt plus 1-propanol 30% wt/wt plus mecetronium etilsulfate 0.2% wt/wt (C). As a reference formulation (R), 1-propanol 60% vol/vol, unstained, was applied for the same amount of time.

Method.

In 8 once-weekly tests, 24 subjects randomly assigned to use the 4 hand rubs in groups of 6 persons each performed hand hygiene according to the method described in European Norm 12791. Every subject used one preparation at a time, the antimicrobial effect of which was evaluated at 2 sampling times. After week 8, each volunteer had tested every preparation at every preset sampling time. All preparations were tested in parallel.

Results.

The mean pretreatment counts of viable bacteria (in colony-forming units per milliliter) in fluid samples were not significantly different between week 1 and week 8, nor between the right and left hands (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P > .1). Immediately after applying the formulation (t0), bactericidal effects of the blinded formulations A and C were equivalent to that of the reference formulation R, whereas the effect of B was questionable. The population kinetics of the flora on the hands proceeded from large and fast initial reductions of the skin flora by 2.7 log units (A), 3.1 log units (B), 3.3 log units (reference formulation), and 3.5 log units (C), to slow regrowth. However, even after 6 hours wearing gloves viable bacterial counts remained significantly (P < .01) below the baseline values (by 0.9 log [reference formulation], 1.1 log [A and B], and 1.5 log [C]). The slowest regrowth 1 and 3 hours after application (∆ from t0, 0.1 log and 0.7 log respectively) was seen with formulation C, and the slowest regrowth after 6 hours was seen with formulation B (∆ from t0, 1.6 log). These differences did, however, not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions.

With respect to the rapid and dramatic antibacterial action of suitable alcohols at high concentrations and with appropriate neutralizers, the contribution of supplements to the delay of bacterial regrowth on gloved hands appears rather minor, if a product only exerts an immediate effect equivalent to that of the reference disinfection procedure described in EN 12791.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , March 2007 , pp. 346 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2007

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. MMWR Recomm Rep 2002;51:1–45.Google Scholar
2.Labadie, J-C, Kampf, G, Lejeune, B, et al. Recommendation for surgical hand disinfection—requirements, implementation and need for research: aproposal by representatives of the SFHH, DGHM and DGKH for a European discussion. J Hosp Infect 2002;51:312–315.Google Scholar
3.Kralj, N, Beie, M, Hofmann, F. Surgical gloves—how well do they protect against infections? Gesundheitswesen 1999;61:398–403.Google Scholar
4.Rotter, ML. Arguments for the alcoholic hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2001;48 (Suppl A): S4–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Kampf, G, Rudolf, M, Labadie, J-C, Barrett, SP. Spectrum of antimicrobial activity and user acceptability of the hand disinfectant agent Sterillium Gel. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:141–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Kampf, G, Hollingsworth, A. Validity of the four European test strains of prEN 12054 for the determination of comprehensive bactericidal activity of an alcohol-based hand rub. J Hosp Infect 2003;55:226–231.Google Scholar
7.Kampf, G, Kramer, A. Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17:863–893.Google Scholar
8.Kampf, G, Kapella, M. Suitability of Sterillium Gel for surgical hand disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:222–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Larson, EL, Aiello, A, Heilman, J, et al. Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation. AORN J 2001;73:412–432.Google Scholar
10.Partenti, JJ, Thibon, P, Heller, R, Le Roux, Y, von Theobald, P, Bensadoun, H, et al. Hand-rubbing with an aqueous alcoholic solution vs traditional surgical hand-scrubbing and 30-day surgical site infection rates: a randomized equivalence study. JAMA 2002;288:722–727.Google Scholar
11.Kampf, G, Muscatiello, M, Häntschel, D, Rudolf, M. Dermal tolerance and skin hydration properties of a new ethanol-based hand gel. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:297–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Kampf, G, Muscatiello, M. Dermal tolerance of Sterillium, a propanol-based hand rub. J Hosp Infect 2003;55:295–298.Google Scholar
13.Pietsch, H. Hand antiseptics: rubs versus scrubs, alcoholic solutions versus alcoholic gels. J Hosp Infect 2001;48:S33–S36.Google Scholar
14.Larson, EL, Butz, AM, Gullette, DL, Laughon, BA. Alcohol for surgical scrubbing? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1990;11:139–143.Google Scholar
15.Kampf, G, Goroncy-Bermes, P, Fraise, A, Rotter, M. Terminology in surgical hand disinfection—a new Tower of Babel in infection control. J Hosp Infect 2004;58:269–271.Google Scholar
16. EN 12791. Chemical disinfectants and antiseptics. Surgical hand disinfection. Test method and requirements (phase 2, step 2). CEN Brussels: Comité Européen de Normalisation; 1997.Google Scholar
17.Tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic products; proposed rule. Federal Register 59 (1994).Google Scholar
18.National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance (NNIS) System Report, data summary from January 1992 through lune 2003, issued August 2003. Am J Infect Control 2003;31:481–498.Google Scholar
19.Rotter, ML. Hand washing and hand disinfection. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Willems; 2004:1727–1745.Google Scholar
20.Kampf, G, Shaffer, M, Hunte, C. Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment. BMC Infect Dis 2005;5:48.Google Scholar
21.Sheikh, W. Development and validation of a neutralizer system for in vitro evaluation of some antiseptics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1981;19:429–434.Google Scholar
22.Shimizu, M, Okuzumi, K, Yoneyama, A, et al. In vitro antiseptic susceptibility of clinical isolates from nosocomial infections. Dermatology 2002; 204: 21–27.Google Scholar
23.Michaud, RN, McGrath, MB, Goss, WA. Improved experimental model for measuring skin degermin activity on the human hand. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1972;2:8–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Hodges, IL, Lehmann, EL. Estimates of location based on rank tests. Annals Math Statist 1963;34:598–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Rotter, ML, Simpson, RA, Koller, W. Surgical hand disinfection with alcohols at various concentrations: parallel experiments using the new proposed European standards methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1998;19:778–781.Google Scholar
26.Marchetti, MG, Kampf, G, Finzi, G, Salvatorelli, G. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:63–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Kampf, G, Ostermeyer, C, Heeg, P. Surgical hand disinfection with a propanol-based hand rub: equivalence of shorter application times. J Hosp Infect 2005;58:304–310.Google Scholar