Alcohol for surgical scrubbing?

Surgical hand antisepsis: experimental study

Purpose

Nosocomial infections account for one of the most serious complications in hospitalized patients around the world. Surgical site infections have significant economic implications, and surgical antisepsis plays an important role in such processes.

Methods

With prior approval by the Institutional Review Board and informed consent, 10 volunteers were randomly assigned to 3 protocols on hand antisepsis: protocol A (chloroxylenol 3%), protocol B (benzalkonium chloride at 1%), and protocol C (ethyl alcohol 61%, 1% chlorhexidine gluconate). Smears from both hands were cultured after each hand pro tocol (t0) and at the end of suturing (t1). Colony forming units were counted (CFUs on blood agar dishes) with digital counting software (Open CFU). Friedman test was used to compare the mean values among the groups, and a Bonferroni correction was made to determine the dissimilar group, with a P = 0.015.

Results

At t0 for protocol A the CFU count was 82.8 ± 1.3; protocol B was 9.7 ± 30; protocol C was 0.1 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). At t1 for protocol A the CFU was 80.7 ± 89.4; protocol B was 7.5 ± 32; protocol C was 0.0 ± 0.0 (P < 0.001). No adverse events were present among the subjects.

Conclusion

Ethyl alcohol at 61% with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate showed higher efficacy than the traditional washing antiseptics.

Healthcare workers' hand microbiome may mediate carriage of hospital pathogens

One function of skin microbiota is to resist colonization and infection by external microorganisms. We sought to detect whether the structure of the hand microbiota of 34 healthcare workers (HCW) in a surgical intensive care unit mediates or modifies the relationship between demographic and behavioral factors and potential pathogen carriage on hands after accounting for pathogen exposure. We used a taxonomic screen (16S rRNA) to characterize the bacterial community, and qPCR to detect presence of Staphylococcus aureus,Enterococcus spp., methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Candida albicans on their dominant hands. Hands were sampled weekly over a 3-week period. Age, hand hygiene, and work shift were significantly associated with potential pathogen carriage and the associations were pathogen dependent. Additionally, the overall hand microbiota structure was associated with the carriage of potential pathogens. Hand microbiota community structure may act as a biomarker of pathogen carriage, and modifying that structure may potentially limit pathogen carriage among HCW.

Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect

BACKGROUND

The present study compared both the antiseptic efficacy of sodium hypochlorite against that of chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol and the substantive effect of chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, and sodium hypochlorite.

METHODS

This was a 2-step study that included volunteers. In step 1, 4 skin areas were tested for bacteria in colony-forming units (CFU): 2 were controls to determine baseline bacteria or the effect of scrubbing, and 2 were treated with 10% hypochlorite or 2% chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol. Every subject was tested 4 times. The second step tested the substantive effect of 10% povidone-iodine and the aforementioned antiseptics.

RESULTS

For the first step, 30 volunteers were studied, resulting in 120 determinations for each control and antiseptic. No differences between chlorhexidine gluconate (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) and sodium hypochlorite (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) were found. Both antiseptics were significantly different from rubbing control (317 CFU/cm(2)) and basal control (606 CFU/cm(2)). Only chlorhexidine showed a substantive effect.

CONCLUSION

We consider that chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and povidone-iodine is equally effective for procedures that do not require a long action. However, chlorhexidine is desirable for procedures such as catheter insertion, skin preparation for surgery, or handwashing prior to surgery.

In vivo evaluation of the persistant and residual antimicrobial properties of three hand-scrub and hand-rub regimes in a simulated surgical environment

BACKGROUND

The use of antimicrobial formulations for disinfecting hands prior to surgery has been shown to reduce the incidence of surgical site infections. Such formulations must demonstrate an immediate reduction of microbial flora on the hands that persists while the hands are gloved.

AIM

This study compared persistent and residual antimicrobial effects of three simulated in-use surgical hand-cleansing procedures, one using a scrub followed by a hand rub with products containing chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and two using a scrub with a cleansing soap followed by a hand rub with one of two alcohol-based products.

METHODS

The study was executed in two phases. In phase 1, persistent antimicrobial effects versus the resident microbial flora of volunteer subjects' hands were evaluated. In phase 2, the residual antimicrobial effects were challenged with the application of Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) on to the hands of volunteer subjects.

FINDINGS

Phase 1 testing showed that significantly greater reductions of normal flora (P ≤ 0.00) persisted with a scrub with the CHG product followed by alcohol/CHG hand rub, than were achieved by scrubs with soap followed by application of either of the other hand rubs. Through all protocols of phase 2, the CHG scrub and alcohol/CHG hand rub produced significantly greater reductions of the S. aureus population (P ≤ 0.00) than did a soap scrub in combination with the other two hand rubs.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a scrub and rub with products containing CHG and alcohol was shown to reduce significantly and persistently both the resident flora and contaminating transient bacteria on skin beneath surgical gloves.

Testing of the World Health Organization recommended formulations in their application as hygienic hand rubs and proposals for increased efficacy

BACKGROUND

In Central Europe, alcohol-based hand rubs have been the preferred choice for hand hygiene, whereas, in other countries, other preparations have been used that are based on other active agents. Recently, a move towards alcohol-based hand rubs has begun, but they may be costly and unaffordable to some. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended 2 hand rub formulations (WHO I and WHO II) for local production in health care settings where commercial products are not available or are too expensive.

OBJECTIVES

WHO I, based on ethanol 80% (vol/vol), and WHO II, based on isopropanol 75% (vol/vol), were investigated for their bactericidal efficacy in their application as hygienic hand rubs.

METHODS

The investigation took place at the Institute for Hygiene and Applied Immunology, Medical University Vienna, Austria, as a prospective, randomized, in vivo laboratory study, comparative in crossover design. Both formulations were tested according to the European Standard EN 1500 in 2 applications (1 × 3 mL/30 seconds or 2 × 3 mL/2 × 30 seconds). Additionally, modifications with increased alcohol concentrations (weight instead of volume percent) were tested in the short application. Bactericidal efficacies were compared with those of the respective reference procedure "R," ie, rubbing 2 × 3 mL 60% vol/vol isopropanol for 2 × 30 seconds onto hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli K12.

RESULTS

The short application of either WHO formulation resulted in bacterial reductions significantly inferior to the respective ones of R. However, prolonging the contact time to 60 seconds or increasing the alcohol content produced reductions similar to those of R.

CONCLUSION

Both WHO-recommended formulations meet the efficacy requirements of EN 1500 within 60 seconds but not within 30 seconds. Increasing the respective alcohol concentrations from 80% vol/vol to 80% wt/wt and 75% vol/vol to 75% wt/wt renders the formulations sufficiently active to conform to the norm also within 30 sections.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentrations at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications for these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

World Health Organization-recommended hand-rub formulations do not meet European efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection in five minutes

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended two hand-rub formulations for local production based on 80% ethanol or 75% isopropanol (both v/v). We have looked at their efficacy according to EN 12791. Twenty-six subjects treated their hands with the reference procedure (n-propanol, 60%) for 3 min or with one of the two formulations for 1.5, 3 or 5 min (Latin square design). Post-values (immediate effect) were taken from one hand, the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After the glove had been taken off, the second post-value was taken (3 h effect). The mean log(10) reduction of each hand rub at all three application times was compared to Hodges and Lehmann's reference procedure for non-inferiority. In the first block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.43 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.22 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the ethanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 1.41 log(10) at 5 min) was inferior to the reference procedure at all application times [lower 95% confidence interval (CI): less than -0.75]. In the second block the reference procedure reduced bacterial load by 2.72 log(10) (immediate effect) and 2.26 log(10) (3 h effect). The efficacy of the isopropanol-based formulation (e.g. immediate efficacy of 2.05 log(10) at 5 min) was also inferior to the reference procedure at all application times (lower 95% CI: less than -0.75). Both WHO-recommended hand-rub formulations failed to meet the EN 12791 efficacy requirements for surgical hand disinfection within 5 min. A higher concentration of the active ingredients may improve the efficacy.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentrations at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications for these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

Surgical hand rub: Influence of duration of application on the immediate and 3-hours effects of n-propanol and isopropanol

BACKGROUND

The recommended duration for surgical hand treatment has been changed from 10 over 5 to 3 minutes and even shorter.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to study the impact of the length of surgical hand antisepsis with n-propanol 60% (vol/vol) or isopropanol 70% (vol/vol) applied for 1, 3, or 5 minutes on the reduction of resident hand flora in the setting of the microbiologic laboratory for experimental and applied testing of disinfectants and antiseptics at the Medical University Vienna, Austria, using a Latin Square design.

METHODS

Our methods were according to the Austrian Guidelines for Testing Products for Surgical Hand Antisepsis. The release of bacterial hand flora of 21 subjects is assessed before and immediately after disinfection from one hand and 3 hours later from the other, meanwhile gloved, hand. Mean reduction factors (RF) are calculated.

RESULTS

The immediate mean log(10) RFs with n-propanol or isopropanol were 1.05, 2.03, and 2.30 and 0.74, 1.48, and 2.12, respectively, when applied for 1, 3, or 5 minutes, respectively. After 3 hours, the respective mean log(10) RFs were 0.45, 1.01, and 1.60 and 0.19, 0.79, and 1.03. Thus, with increasing length of application, a highly significant trend (P < .001) toward higher log(10) reductions was demonstrated. At both sampling times, n-propanol was more effective than isopropanol at the corresponding treatments. Furthermore, a highly significant (P < .001) association was found between the individual volunteers and the effect of the antiseptics on their hands.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of surgical antisepsis is significantly associated with the length of application.

Improving adherence to surgical hand preparation

At present, no universal agreement on detailed practice for surgical hand preparation exists. In order to fill this gap, in 2002 a Franco-German recommendation for surgical hand preparation was published as a first step towards a generally accepted European recommendation. Based on an assessment of the actual literature, a protocol for surgical hand preparation is discussed with the aim to recommend evidence-based standard procedures including prerequisites, washing and disinfection phase, and its practical implementation. In contrast to hygienic hand disinfection, for surgical hand preparation compliance is not an issue, since it mostly is regarded as a ceremony which is carried out without exception. Nevertheless, the following factors influence acceptance and efficacy: skin tolerance, ease of use, duration of procedure, and recommended time), potential for impaired efficacy due to incorrect performance of the procedure, possibility of systemic risks and irritating potential by applied preparations, religious restrictions, ecological aspects, costs and safety. Here, we report our experience with the introduction of a new hand preparation regime in all surgical disciplines in our university hospital based on the above factors. The following statements were evaluated: 1) The immediate efficacy of an alcohol-based hand disinfectant is impaired by a preceding hand wash for up to 10 minutes. Therefore hands should not be routinely washed before the disinfection period unless there is a good reason for it such as visible soiling. 2) A shortened application time (1.5 minutes) is equal to 3 min in terms of efficacy. 3) Hands should be air dried before gloves are put on, otherwise the perforation rate of gloves will increase. 4) The efficacy of alcohol-based disinfectants is significantly higher when hands are allowed to dry for 1 minute after the washing phase and before the disinfection phase. To clarify the above questions before the establishment of the modified technique, the surgical team was invited to a meeting. As a result, the heads of surgical departments supported the new technique and decided to change their practice.

Bacterial population kinetics on hands during 2 consecutive surgical hand disinfection procedures

BACKGROUND

Although consecutive surgical hand disinfections is common clinical practice, the effect on the bacterial density on hands has not been studied for all commonly used hand rubs. We studied the effect of 2 consecutive applications of hand rubs on resident bacterial hand flora.

METHODS

A propanol-based hand rub (PBHR; Sterillium) and the reference alcohol (60% n-propanol) were tested in a Latin-square design according to EN 12791. The first application of the PBHR was always for 1.5 minutes; the second application was for 1.5, 1, or 0.5 minutes. The reference alcohol was always applied for 3 minutes. Pre-values and post-values were obtained in accordance with EN 12791.

RESULTS

The first reference disinfection reduced the bacterial density by 2.87 log(10) (immediate efficacy) and 2.27 log(10) (after 3 hours). The PBHR yielded a similar reduction. Immediately after the second reference disinfection, bacterial density was reduced by 0.45 log(10). Application of the PBHR yielded greater reductions of 0.71 log(10) (after 0.5 minute), 0.79 log(10) (after 1 minute), and 1.12 log(10) (after 1.5 minutes). The difference between all treatments was not significant (P = .089; Friedman test). After 3 hours, bacterial density was further decreased by 1.11 log(10) (reference disinfection), 1.89 log(10) (PBHR, 1 minute), 1.67 log(10) (PBHR, 1.5 minutes), and 1.08 log(10) (PBHR, 0.5 minute). The difference between all treatments was significant (P = .005), but none of the short treatments with the PBHR was significantly less effective than the reference treatment (P > .05; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a simple 1.5-minute application of a well-formulated PBHR for surgical hand disinfection keeps the bacterial density as low as possible ("irreducible minimum") even in 2 consecutive surgical procedures of 3 hours.

Use of Avagard in pediatric urologic procedures

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the use of Avagard compared with a hand-brush scrub preparation by the urologist in preparation for inpatient and outpatient pediatric urologic operations. Avagard (chlorhexidine gluconate 1% solution and ethyl alcohol 61% wt/wt) is a waterless, brushless, and scrubless hand antiseptic indicated as a replacement for traditional preoperative brush hand scrubbing.

METHODS

We evaluated the first 550 patients for whom we used Avagard as a preoperative hand antiseptic and compared them with the last 550 consecutive patients for whom we performed traditional antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush scrubbing. All patients underwent pediatric urologic procedures. Patients were monitored postoperatively for signs of wound infection, and patients and the surgeon were monitored for side effects. A cost analysis was performed to compare the use of Avagard as a preoperative hand preparation with that of an antiseptic-impregnated hand-brush.

RESULTS

The incidence of wound infection was one in the Avagard group and two in the hand-scrub group, not a statistically significant difference. All wound infections were successfully treated with a single course of oral antibiotics without any long-term sequelae. No side effects for the patients or surgeon were noted, including skin irritations or allergic reactions in either group. The use of Avagard was more time efficient and cost effective.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating that Avagard is a fast, effective, easy to apply, and safe surgical hand preparation for pediatric urologic surgery. Its use is cost effective, as well as time efficient, in relation to the traditional surgical scrub.

Effectiveness of hand-cleansing formulations containing tea tree oil assessed ex vivo on human skin and in vivo with volunteers using European standard EN 1499

The efficacy of formulations containing tea tree oil (TTO) has been assessed in vitro in previous studies. Products that passed the European suspension test guidelines were investigated further in this study, in vivo with volunteers using the European handwashing method (EN 1499) and ex vivo using freshly excised human skin samples. The activity of 5% TTO in 0.001% Tween 80, in a hygienic skin wash (HSW) and in an alcoholic hygienic skin wash (AHSW) was investigated and compared with that of a non-medicated soft soap (SS, control). These formulations were assessed against Escherichia coli K12 as recommended by the European standard. In-vivo results showed that 5% TTO in Tween 80 and the AHSW were significantly more active than the SS after 1 min of handwashing. When assessed ex vivo, these two products were also significantly more active than the reference soap after 1 min of rubbing. Both methods showed that 5% TTO in Tween 80 was generally, although not always, more active than a handwash formulation, and that the AHSW was generally more active than the HSW, although this difference was not significant. The formulations tested, as well as the SS, were more active when assessed in vivo than ex-vivo against E. coli, although only the SS and the HSW were significantly more active in vivo. There appeared to be a pattern in the comparison between ex vivo and in vivo results. The antiseptics tested were, on average, 1.28+/-0.06 times more active when assessed in-vivo than when assessed ex vivo. Nevertheless, the main outcome of the European handwashing method is for the formulation tested to be significantly more active than the SS; both 5% TTO in Tween 80 and the AHSW achieved this both in-vivo and ex-vivo. TTO in Tween 80 and in formulations met the European in-vivo method requirements.

Topical antibacterial agents

Decreased systemic toxicity, ease of application, and increased concentration at the target site are some of the important advantages topical antibacterial agents offer. This article reviews the literature on selected indications of these agents and provides in-depth examination of specific agents for the prophylaxis and treatment of skin and wound infections.

Microbial flora of hands of homemakers

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Because of increasing concern about antimicrobial resistance in the community, aerobic flora of hands of 224 healthy homemakers in northern Manhattan, New York, were examined.

RESULTS

Mean log colony-forming unit counts before and after handwashing were 5.72 and 5.69, respectively, P =.60; mean number of species identified/sample was 3.6 before washing and 3.3 after (P =.02). After handwashing gram-negative bacteria were isolated from 75.1% of subjects; yeast from 32.9%; and Staphylococcus aureus from 18.5%, 1 of which (2.4%) was oxacillin-resistant. Generally, these community isolates were more sensitive than isolates from inpatients in the local hospital, although community isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were significantly more resistant than inpatient isolates for 4/10 agents tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Hands of healthy persons in the community were usually colonized with gram-negative bacteria, a single handwash had little impact on microbial counts, and hands of healthy adults may increasingly become one reservoir for antimicrobial resistance.

A descriptive study of peripheral intravenous catheters in patients admitted to a pediatric unit in one Australian hospital

Over a 5-month period, 496 peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVs) inserted into neonates, infants, and children were prospectively studied. Data were collected on demographic patient characteristics, PIV indications for use, dwell time, and reasons for removal, together with nursing actions. The results showed that most PIVs were removed within 72 hours. In 6.6% of cases, some degree of phlebitis was present at PIV removal. The risk of phlebitis increased when the PIV remained in place longer, the child was younger, or medication was administered. The greatest risk was age, with neonates being 5(1/2) times more likely to have some degree of phlebitis than non-neonates.

Arguments for alcoholic hand disinfection

The non-aqueous use of ethanol or propanols offers various advantages over washing hands with either unmedicated or medicated soap in both hygienic and surgical hand disinfection. Alcohols exert the strongest and fastest activity against a wide spectrum of bacteria and fungi (but not bacterial spores) as well as enveloped (but less so against non-enveloped) viruses, being little influenced by interfering substances. They are of low toxicity and offer acceptable skin tolerability when made up with suitable emollients. The mode of their application is simple and three to four times more economical of time than wash procedures, features which help to increase the compliance with the rules of hand hygiene.

Topical antibacterial agents

Topical antibacterial agents occupy an important niche of antimicrobial therapy for both inpatients and outpatients. These agents, including antiseptic and antibiotic preparations, are used for prophylaxis and treatment of infection. Prophylactic uses include application for traumatic and surgical wounds, burns, intravascular catheters, and eradication of S. aureus nasal carriage. Topical antibacterial agents are also used for treatment of primary and secondary pyodermas. Individual antibacterial agents have been reviewed. Of note, despite the widespread use of topical antibacterial agents, further data on which to guide therapy are needed in many instances.

Skin hygiene and infection prevention: more of the same or different approaches?

The purpose of this article is to review research indicating a link between hand hygiene and nosocomial infections and the effects of hand care practices on skin integrity and to make recommendations for potential changes in clinical practice and for further research regarding hand hygiene practices. Despite some methodological flaws and data gaps, evidence for a causal relationship between hand hygiene and reduced transmission of infections is convincing, but frequent handwashing causes skin damage, with resultant changes in microbial flora, increased skin shedding, and risk of transmission of microorganisms, suggesting that some traditional hand hygiene practices warrant reexamination. Some recommended changes in practice include use of waterless alcohol-based products rather than detergent-based antiseptics, modifications in lengthy surgical scrub protocols, and incorporation of moisturizers into skin care regimens of health care professionals.

Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999" presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.1,2 Part I, "Surgical Site Infection: An Overview," describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis. Part II, "Recommendations for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection," represents the consensus of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) regarding strategies for the prevention of SSIs.3 Whenever possible, the recommendations in Part II are based on data from well-designed scientific studies. However, there are a limited number of studies that clearly validate risk factors and prevention measures for SSI. By necessity, available studies have often been conducted in narrowly defined patient populations or for specific kinds of operations, making generalization of their findings to all specialties and types of operations potentially problematic. This is especially true regarding the implementation of SSI prevention measures. Finally, some of the infection control practices routinely used by surgical teams cannot be rigorously studied for ethical or logistical reasons (e.g., wearing vs not wearing gloves). Thus, some of the recommendations in Part II are based on a strong theoretical rationale and suggestive evidence in the absence of confirmatory scientific knowledge.It has been estimated that approximately 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in "ambulatory," "same-day," or "outpatient" operating rooms by the turn of the century.4 In recommending various SSI prevention methods, this document makes no distinction between surgical care delivered in such settings and that provided in conventional inpatient operating rooms. This document is primarily intended for use by surgeons, operating room nurses, postoperative inpatient and clinic nurses, infection control professionals, anesthesiologists, healthcare epidemiologists, and other personnel directly responsible for the prevention of nosocomial infections. This document does not: Specifically address issues unique to burns, trauma, transplant procedures, or transmission of bloodborne pathogens from healthcare worker to patient, nor does it specifically address details of SSI prevention in pediatric surgical practice. It has been recently shown in a multicenter study of pediatric surgical patients that characteristics related to the operations are more important than those related to the physiologic status of the patients.5 In general, all SSI prevention measures effective in adult surgical care are indicated in pediatric surgical care. Specifically address procedures performed outside of the operating room (e.g., endoscopic procedures), nor does it provide guidance for infection prevention for invasive procedures such as cardiac catheterization or interventional radiology. Nonetheless, it is likely that many SSI prevention strategies also could be applied or adapted to reduce infectious complications associated with these procedures. Specifically recommend SSI prevention methods unique to minimally invasive operations (i.e., laparoscopic surgery). Available SSI surveillance data indicate that laparoscopic operations generally have a lower or comparable SSI risk when contrasted to open operations.6-11 SSI prevention measures applicable in open operations (e.g., open cholecystectomy) are indicated for their laparoscopic counterparts (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Recommend specific antiseptic agents for patient preoperative skin preparations or for healthcare worker hand/forearm antisepsis. Hospitals should choose from products recommended for these activitie

Changes in bacterial flora associated with skin damage on hands of health care personnel

In a prospective observational study of 40 nurses (20 with diagnosed hand irritation and 20 without), nurses with damaged hands did not have higher microbial counts (P = .63), but did have a greater number of colonizing species (means: 3.35 and 2.63, P = .03). Although numbers were small, nurses with damaged hands were significantly more likely to be colonized with Staphylococcus hominis (P = .03). Fifty-nine percent of S hominis isolates from nurses with damaged hands were resistant to methicillin compared with 27% of isolates from those with healthy skin (P = .14). Twenty percent of nurses with damaged hands were colonized with Staphylococcus aureus compared with none of the nurses with normal hands (P = .11). Nurses with damaged hands were also twice as likely to have gram-negative bacteria (P = .20), entercocci (P = .13), and Candida (P = .30) present on the hands. Antimicrobial resistance of the coagulase-negative staphylococcal flora (with the exception of S hominis) did not differ between the 2 groups, nor did a trend toward increasing resistance exist when compared with other studies during the past decade. Skin moisturizers and protectant products were used almost universally by nurses at work, primarily products brought from home. Efforts to improve hand condition are warranted because skin damage can change microbial flora. Such efforts should include assessment or monitoring of hand care practices, formal institutional policy adoption and control of use of skin protectant products or lotions, and prudent use of latex gloves or more widespread use of powder-free and nonlatex products.

Povidone iodine gel alcohol: a 30-second, onetime application preoperative skin preparation

BACKGROUND

Simplifying and shortening the skin-preparation application procedure is desirable for many reasons, which include labor-cost savings and improved suite utilization. A new formulation, PVP-I Gel Alcohol (PGA) that contains 5% PVP-I and 62% ethanol in gel form, was developed to achieve a shorter preparation time with a rapid and persistent efficacy on a broad spectrum of microorganisms and to minimize the potential for iodine irritation.

METHOD

The test methods outlined in the Federal Register, 21 CFR Parts 333 and 369, "Tentative Final Monograph for Health-Care Antiseptic Drug Products;" Proposed Rule, 1994 (Monograph), were adapted in this study. Efficacy of PGA was evaluated, both in vitro and in vivo. The in vitro time-kill and minimum inhibition concentration tests were conducted by using 33 strains of aerobic and anaerobic gram-positive bacteria, gram-negative bacteria, yeasts, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In the clinical test, the inguinal and abdominal skin sites of human subjects were exposed to PGA for 30 seconds to assess the antimicrobial efficacy on normal skin flora. Betadine PVP-I scrub was tested in a 5-minute application as a control.

RESULTS

The time-kill test showed that PGA delivered a rapid antimicrobial activity--reducing greater than 3 to 8 log microorganisms in 15 seconds in all of the 33 species of microorganisms tested. Within 30 seconds, all challenge organisms were reduced below detection level. Results of the minimum inhibition concentration test showed that PGA demonstrated an equivalent activity to Betadine control under the testing conditions. In the clinical test, PGA was effective in the reduction of greater than 3 log and 2 log of normal skin flora, respectively, in inguinal and abdominal sites in a single-step 30-second application. Bacteria levels remained significantly below the baseline for 6 hours in the primary study and for 24 hours in a secondary study. These results show that the current PGA formulation with a 30-second application delivers an efficacy equivalent to Betadine scrub in a 5-minute application and that the PGA formulation has a long-lasting effect--up to 24 hours.

CONCLUSION

The PGA formulation delivered rapid and persistent antimicrobial activity against a broad spectrum of bacteria both in vitro and in vivo. PGA is an effective skin-preparation formulation for use in a single-step 30-second application.

An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts

Five protocols for surgical handwashing (scrubbing) were evaluated for their efficiency of removal of micro-organisms and their drying effect on the skin. The scrubbing protocols tested were: (1) an initial scrub of 5 min and consecutive scrubs of 3.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-5); (2) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% (CHG-3); (3) an initial scrub of 3 min and consecutive scrubs of 2.5 min with povidone iodine 5% and triclosan 1% (PI-3); (4) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of isopropanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (IPA); and (5) an initial scrub of 2 min with chlorhexidine gluconate 4% followed by a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5%, and a 30 s application of ethanol 70% and chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% for consecutive scrubs (EA). A convenience sample of 23 operating theatre nurses completed each scrub protocol for one week in a randomized order. A week of normal work activities intervened between each protocol. Subjects were assessed before commencing and after completing the week of each protocol to determine changes in the microbial counts and skin condition of the hands. Specimens for microbial analysis were collected before, immediately after and 2 h after an initial scrub, and 2 h after a consecutive scrub. The CHG-5, CHG-3 and PI-3 protocols, which used detergent-based antiseptics only, were compared with protocols incorporating an alcohol-based antiseptic (IPA and EA). The protocols incorporating alcohol-based antiseptics and the CHG-5 protocol were generally associated with the lowest post-scrub numbers of colony forming units (cfu). No difference between the CHG-5 protocol and the alcohol-based antiseptics was found at the beginning of the test week, but after exclusive use of the respective protocols for a week, the alcohol-based antiseptics were associated with significantly lower cfu numbers in two out of the three post-scrub samples (P = 0.003, P = 0.035). Although virtually no statistically significant differences in skin condition were found, many subjects reported the alcohol-based antiseptic protocols to be less drying on the skin. The findings of this study support the proposition that a scrub protocol using alcohol-based antiseptics is as effective and no more damaging to skin than more time-consuming, conventional methods using detergent-based antiseptics.

Triclosan: applications and safety

Triclosan (2,4,4'-trichloro-2'-hydroxydiphenyl ether) is a nonionic, broad spectrum, antimicrobial agent that, because of its favorable safety profile, has been incorporated into a variety of many personal care products, including deodorant soaps, underarm deodorants, shower gels, and health care personnel handwashes. Triclosan exhibits a moderate degree of substantivity to the skin, and, in many products, it imparts a remnant antimicrobial effect. Although direct contact with the material under exaggerated exposure conditions causes dermal irritation in laboratory animals, it has only rarely been associated with skin irritation or sensitization in human being in formulated products. Acute, subacute/subchronic, and chronic toxicity profiles have been established to determine that triclosan is neither an acute oral toxicant nor that it acts as a carcinogen, mutagen, or teratogen. A new application for triclosan is in oral dentifrices for plaque control. Currently under investigation in the United States, it is approved for oral care application in Canada and many European countries.

Effects of a protective foam on scrubbing and gloving

OBJECTIVE

To test the effects of a skin protectant on surgical scrub and glove integrity.

DESIGN

Forty-nine healthy adult volunteers were assigned (12 subjects per group) to apply a protective foam (DermaMed; Benchmark Enterprises, Salt Lake City, Utah) in conjunction with surgical scrub in one of the following formulations: 70% isopropyl alcohol, a liquid detergent base containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, a liquid detergent base containing 7.5% povidone-iodine, or a nonantimicrobial liquid soap (control). According to a standard protocol, subjects performed a surgical scrub on 3 days (every other day). Foam was applied after surgical scrub on day 1 and before surgical scrub on day 3. No foam was applied on day 2. Subjects were gloved for 2 hours after surgical scrub.

SETTING

Laboratory setting.

RESULTS

On all test days, there were significant differences in bacterial reduction by products (chlorhexidine gluconate or alcohol > povidone-iodine > control). When controlling for baseline counts and products used, there were no significant differences in colony-forming unit counts on hands with or without foam immediately after scrubbing or at 2 hours after scrub on gloved or ungloved hands, nor were there differences in glove leakage rates when foam was on hands.

CONCLUSIONS

Such protectants can be used without detrimental effects to scrub effectiveness or glove integrity.

Investigations into the efficacy of different procedures for surgical hand disinfection between consecutive operations

In order to examine whether thorough surgical hand disinfection (handwashing plus hand disinfection) between consecutive operations is necessary, tests were carried out simulating normal clinical conditions. The tests were performed according to the guidelines for the evaluation of disinfection procedures of the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology. Surgical hand disinfection was as follows: handwashing with soap without antimicrobial additives and subsequent 5-min disinfection with 60% n-propanol. This was followed by simulated operations of 30 or 120 min duration with a 30-min break between operations, during which half of the test group kept on the surgical gloves, while the other half removed them. The second surgical hand disinfection was done without prior handwashing by 50% of the test group. The disinfection time was reduced from 5 to 1 min by 50% of the test group. The results were evaluated by means of explorative data analysis and inductive statistical methods. Removing the surgical gloves during the interoperative break did not result in significantly higher numbers of colony forming units (cfu) compared with retaining the gloves. This was also the case after a subsequent handwashing. At the second surgical hand disinfection, after a simulated operation of 60 min duration (including break), there was no significant difference in the numbers of cfus between the test group who had washed their hands and those who had not. Reducing the disinfection time from 5 min to 1 min was not associated with a significant increase in the number of cfus. However, after a simulated operating time of 150 min (including the break), the second surgical hand disinfection with handwashing resulted in a significantly lower number of microorganisms than disinfection alone. In half the tests, the numbers of cfu were significantly lower when the test group disinfected their hands for 5 min rather than 1 min.

The influence of cosmetic additives on the acceptability of alcohol-based hand disinfectants

A prospective, randomized double-blind study with intra-individual comparison of the results was undertaken with 20 volunteers to assess the influence of cosmetic additives on the acceptability of a mixture of n-propanol (50% v/v) and isopropanol (30% v/v) for hand disinfection. Three to 5 ml of antiseptic was rubbed into the hands until dry 15 times a day, 5 days a week and for 2 weeks per preparation. For self-assessment the parameters 'appearance', 'intactness', 'turgor' and 'sensation' were evaluated weekly by visual analogue; for assessment by a dermatologist the same parameters except 'sensation' were used. Each score was compared before and after treatment. The antimicrobial efficacy of the alcoholic mixture was equivalent to or better than the standard (isopropanol 60% v/v, 1 min). The frequent application of these antiseptic preparations caused a slight but significant deterioration of the skin condition as judged by both self-assessment and dermatologist; however, this was significantly less when the antiseptic contained cosmetic additives. It is concluded that the addition of suitable emollients can significantly increase the acceptability of alcoholic disinfectants.