An in-use evaluation of an alcohol-based pre-surgical hand disinfectant

Comparing surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability to alcohol-based surgical hand preparation vs traditional surgical scrub: A matched quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the tolerance and acceptability of alcohol-based surgical hand preparation versus handscrubbing with antimicrobial soap and water by surgeons.

METHODS

Matched quasi-experimental trial in an academic quaternary care hospital in Ribeirão Preto, Brazil, from April 1 to October, 31, 2017. Participants were cardiac and orthopedics surgeons from the study facility. In the first study phase, they performed handscrubbing with either 2% chlorhexidine (CHG) or 10% iodopovidone (PVP-I) and, in the second phase, they performed handrubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR). Surgeons' skin tolerance and acceptability were evaluated using WHO-validated tools. Data were analyzed using the MacNemar's test within STATA.

RESULTS

A total of 33 surgeons participated to the "per protocol" population; the majority were male (94%); mean age of 35 years (SD, 8.5). On product tolerance, there was a minimal variation in redness, scaliness, fissures, and visual evaluation of the skin when handrubbing with ABHR was compared to handscrubbing with either PVP-I or CHX. Regarding acceptability, participants rated better handrubbing with ABHR than handscrubbing with PVP-I when assessing product smell (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002), color (73.3% vs 0%, p=0.001), product texture (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), skin dryness (60% vs 0%, p=0.004), ease of application (66.6% vs 0%, p=0.002) and overall satisfaction (66.6% vs 6.7% p=0.011). Participants rated similarly handrubbing with ABHR and handscrubbing with CHX, except for product texture, where handrubbing rated better (71,4% vs. 0%, p=0.002). Handrubbing with ABHR was preferred by 73.3%.

CONCLUSION

Although handrubbing and handscrubbing were equally well tolerated by surgeons, alcohol-based surgical hand preparation fell into the personal preference for most of them.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC), RBR-8ym9yj.

Comparing rubbing and scrubbing surgical hand antisepsis with propan-1-ol 60% in accordance with European regulation UNE-EN 12791:2016+A1:2018

A crossover trial was conducted to compare hand rub and hand scrub-brush methods for reducing bacterial loads when using propan-1-ol-60% according to European regulations. Both methods significantly reduced the bacterial load immediately after antisepsis, but only the hand rub method achieved significant bacterial load reduction 3 hours after the procedure.

Equine Skin Antisepsis Using an Alcohol-Based Rub

Alcohol-based antisepsis has been extensively studied in human health care, but only little information is available regarding efficacy and tolerance in other species. The purpose of this study was to determine if an alcohol-based antiseptic is effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin and the appropriate contact time to do so, without causing any adverse skin reactions. Samples were collected before and after preparation from clipped sites over both jugular veins of horses and were plated on 3M Petrifilm Aerobic Count Plates in duplicate. Trial 1 tested an alcohol-based product (ET-80% ethanol) against a control of sterile saline at a contact time of 180-second. Trial 2 tested two different contact times of ET-90 and 180 seconds. All samples were assessed for colony-forming unit counts using an automated 3M Petrifilm reader. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test, and the significance was set at P < .05. The results determined that ET had a mean 2.95 log₁₀ reduction from prepreparation to postpreparation colony-forming unit counts. A significant difference in log reduction between ET and control (P = .0033) was observed. There was no difference in log₁₀ reduction between the two contact times (P = .75). Mild urticaria was the only skin reaction observed and was often present in both ET and control groups. These findings demonstrate that ET is effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin at a contact time of 90 seconds without producing significant adverse skin reaction.

The Association of Shelter Veterinarians' 2016 Veterinary Medical Care Guidelines for Spay-Neuter Programs

As community efforts to reduce the overpopulation and euthanasia of unwanted and unowned cats and dogs have increased, many veterinarians have increasingly focused their clinical efforts on the provision of spay-neuter services. Because of the wide range of geographic and demographic needs, a wide variety of spay-neuter programs have been developed to increase delivery of services to targeted populations of animals, including stationary and mobile clinics, MASH-style operations, shelter services, community cat programs, and services provided through private practitioners. In an effort to promote consistent, high-quality care across the broad range of these programs, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians convened a task force of veterinarians to develop veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs. These guidelines consist of recommendations for general patient care and clinical procedures, preoperative care, anesthetic management, surgical procedures, postoperative care, and operations management. They were based on current principles of anesthesiology, critical care medicine, infection control, and surgical practice, as determined from published evidence and expert opinion. They represent acceptable practices that are attainable in spay-neuter programs regardless of location, facility, or type of program. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians envisions that these guidelines will be used by the profession to maintain consistent veterinary medical care in all settings where spay-neuter services are provided and to promote these services as a means of reducing sheltering and euthanasia of cats and dogs.

The Effects of Surgical Hand Scrubbing Protocols on Skin Integrity and Surgical Site Infection Rates: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aimed to critically appraise and synthesize updated evidence regarding the effect of surgical-scrub techniques on skin integrity and the incidence of surgical site infections. Databases searched include the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Our review was limited to eight peer-reviewed, randomized controlled trials and two nonrandomized controlled trials published in English from 1990 to 2015. Comparison models included traditional hand scrubbing with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine against alcohol-based hand rubbing, scrubbing with a brush versus without a brush, and detergent-based antiseptics alone versus antiseptics incorporating alcohol solutions. Evidence showed that hand rubbing techniques are as effective as traditional scrubbing and seem to be better tolerated. Hand rubbing appears to cause less skin damage than traditional scrub protocols, and scrub personnel tolerated brushless techniques better than scrubbing using a brush.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Evaluation of an Alcohol-Based Surgical Hand Disinfectant Containing a Synergistic Combination of Farnesol and Benzethonium Chloride for Immediate and Persistent Activity Against Resident Hand Flora of Volunteers and With a Novel In Vitro Pig Skin Model

Objective.

To evaluate the immediate, persistent and sustained in vivo activity of an alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectant, consisting of a zinc gel and a preservative system containing a synergistic combination of farnesol and benzethonium chloride (ZBF disinfectant), and to develop a pig skin model for in vitro evaluation of the immediate and persistent efficacy of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident hand flora.

Design.

The in vivo immediate, persistent, and sustained activity of ZBF disinfectant was evaluated using human volunteers and the “glove-juice” method described in the US Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph (FDA-TFM) for Healthcare Antiseptic Products. A novel in vitro pig skin model was developed to compare the immediate and persistent activity of alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants against resident flora usingStaphylococcus epidermidisas the test organism. Four alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants were evaluated using this model.

Results.

The results for the ZBF disinfectant exceed the FDA-TFM criteria for immediate, persistent, and sustained activity required for surgical hand disinfectants. The reduction factors for the 4 hand disinfectants obtained using the pig skin model show good agreement with the log10reductions in concentrations of hand flora obtained using human volunteers to test for immediate and persistent activity.

Conclusion.

The ZBF disinfectant we evaluated met the FDA-TFM criteria for surgical hand disinfectants. The immediate and persistent efficacy of the surgical hand disinfectants evaluated with the novel pig skin model described in this study shows good agreement with the results obtained in vivo.

Current preventive measures for health-care associated surgical site infections: a review

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) continue to be a tremendous issue today. It is estimated 1.7 million HAIs occur per year, and cost the healthcare system up to $45 billion annually. Surgical site infections (SSIs) alone account for 290,000 of total HAIs and approximately 8,000 deaths. In today's rapidly changing world of medicine, it is ever important to remain cognizant of this matter and its impact both globally and on the individual lives of our patients. This review aims to impress upon the reader the unremitting significance of HAIs in the daily practice of medicine. Further, we discuss the etiology of HAIs and review successful preventive measures that have been demonstrated in the literature. In particular, we highlight preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative interventions to combat SSIs. Finally, we contend that current systems in place are often insufficient, and emphasize the benefits of institution-wide adoption of multiple preventive interventions. We hope this concise update and review can inspire additional dialogue for the continuing progress towards improving patient care and patient lives.

An update on modifiable factors to reduce the risk of surgical site infections

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Despite an increase in physician and public awareness and advances in infection control practices, surgical site infection (SSI) remains to be one of the most common complications after an operation. Surgical site infections have been shown to decrease health-related quality of life, double the risk of readmission, prolong the length of hospital stay, and increase hospital costs.

PURPOSE

To critically evaluate the literature and identify modifiable factors to reduce the risk of SSI.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A critical review of the literature was performed using OVID, Pubmed, and the Cochrane database and focused on eight identifiable factors: preoperative screening and decolonization of methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant S. aureus protocols, antiseptic showers, antiseptic cloths, perioperative skin preparation, surgeon hand hygiene, antibiotic irrigation and/or use of vancomycin powder, closed suction drains, and antibiotic suture.

RESULTS

Screening protocols have shown that 18% to 25% of patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery are nasal carriers of S. aureus and that carriers are more likely to have a nosocomial infection and SSI. The evidence suggests that an institutionalized prescreening program, followed by an appropriate eradication using mupirocin ointment and chlorhexidine soap/shower, will lower the rate of nosocomial S. aureus infections. Based on the current literature, definitive conclusions cannot be made on whether preoperative antiseptic showers effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative infection. The use of a chlorhexidine bathing cloth before surgery may decrease the risk of SSI. There is no definitive clinical evidence that one skin preparation solution effectively lowers the rate of postoperative infection compared with another. The use of dilute betadine irrigation or vancomycin powder in the wound before closure likely decreases the incidence of SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence in the literature that optimizing specific preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables can significantly lower the risk of developing an SSI.

Comparison of surgical hand scrub and alcohol surgical hand rub on reducing hand microbial burden

This study was performed to compare the effects of two hand decontamination methods on the microbial burden of operating room staff hands. The surgical hand washing methods compared were a traditional surgical hand scrub using a povidone iodine solution, and a social wash using a liquid non-antibacterial soap followed by the application of an alcoholic hand rub.

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.

The Association of Shelter Veterinarians veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs

As efforts to reduce the overpopulation and euthanasia of unwanted and unowned dogs and cats have increased, greater attention has been focused on spay-neuter programs throughout the United States. Because of the wide range of geographic and demographic needs, a wide variety of programs have been developed to increase delivery of spay-neuter services to targeted populations of animals, including stationary and mobile clinics, MASH-style operations, shelter services, feral cat programs, and services provided through private practitioners. In an effort to ensure a consistent level of care, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians convened a task force of veterinarians to develop veterinary medical care guidelines for spay-neuter programs. The guidelines consist of recommendations for preoperative care (eg, patient transport and housing, patient selection, client communication, record keeping, and medical considerations), anesthetic management (eg, equipment, monitoring, perioperative considerations, anesthetic protocols, and emergency preparedness), surgical care (eg, operating-area environment; surgical-pack preparation; patient preparation; surgeon preparation; surgical procedures for pediatric, juvenile, and adult patients; and identification of neutered animals), and postoperative care (eg, analgesia, recovery, and release). These guidelines are based on current principles of anesthesiology, critical care medicine, microbiology, and surgical practice, as determined from published evidence and expert opinion. They represent acceptable practices that are attainable in spay-neuter programs.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand antisepsis, to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms, is routinely carried out before undertaking invasive procedures. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the number of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (Week 5, 2007), CINAHL (June 2007), EMBASE (Week 23, 2007) and ZETOC (2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this review. Only one trial reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, and nine trials measured numbers of CFUs. One trial involving 4387 patients found alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients were as effective as aqueous scrubs in reducing SSIs. Four trials compared different alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients with aqueous scrubs for numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found N-duopropenide more effective than chlorhexidine and povidone iodine aqueous scrubs. One trial found 45% propanol-2, 30% propanol-1 with 0.2% ethylhexadecyldimethyl ammonium ethylsulfate more effective than chlorhexidine scrubs. One trial found no difference between 1% chlorhexidine gluconate in 61% ethyl alcohol or zinc pyrithione in 70% ethyl alcohol against aqueous povidone iodine. A fourth trial found 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs more effective than chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol rubs. Four trials compared the relative effects of different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands. Three trials found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs were significantly more effective than povidone iodine scrubs. One trial found no difference between chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs and povidone iodine plus triclosan scrubs. Two trials found no evidence of a difference between alternative alcohol rubs in terms of the number of CFUs. Four trials compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the numbers of CFUs on hands. One trial found no difference after the initial scrub but found subsequent three minute scrubs using chlorhexidine significantly more effective than subsequent scrubs lasting 30 seconds. One trial found that following a one minute hand wash, a three minute rub appears to be more effective than the five minute rub using alcohol disinfectant. The other comparisons demonstrated no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol rubs used in preparation for surgery by the scrub team are as effective as aqueous scrubbing in preventing SSIs however this evidence comes from only one, equivalence, cluster trial which did not appear to adjust for clustering. Four comparisons suggest that alcohol rubs are at least as, if not more, effective than aqueous scrubs though the quality of these is mixed and each study presents a different comparison, precluding meta analysis. There is no evidence to suggest that any particular alcohol rub is better than another. Evidence from 4 studies suggests that chlorhexidine gluconate based aqueous scrubs are more effective than povidone iodine based aqueous scrubs in terms of the numbers of CFUs on the hands. There is limited evidence regarding the effects on CFUs numbers of different scrub durations. There is no evidence regarding the effect of equipment such as brushes and sponges.

An in-use microbiological comparison of two surgical hand disinfection techniques in cardiothoracic surgery: hand rubbing versus hand scrubbing

Surgical site infection after heart surgery increases morbidity and mortality. The method of presurgical hand disinfection could influence the infection risk. From February to April 2003, we compared the microbiological efficacy of hand-rubbing (R) and hand-scrubbing (S) procedures. The surgical team alternately used hand-scrubbing or hand-rubbing techniques every two weeks. Fingertip impressions were taken before and immediately after hand disinfection, every 2h and at the end of the operation. Acceptability of hand rubbing was assessed by a questionnaire. Mean durations of surgical procedures were 259+/-68 and 244+/-69min for groups S and R respectively (P=0.43). Bacterial counts immediately after hand disinfection were comparable with the two techniques, but significantly lower in group R at the end of surgery. No differences were observed between the percentages of negative samples taken after 2h, 4h and at the end of surgery between the two groups. Bacterial skin flora reduction immediately after hand disinfection, after 2h and 4h of operating time and at the end of surgery was better in group R, but the difference was not statistically significant. Before surgery, the hand-rubbing method with alcohol solution preceded by hand washing with mild neutral soap is as effective as hand scrubbing to reduce bacterial counts on hands. It decreased the bacterial counts both immediately after hand disinfection and at the end of long cardiothoracic surgical procedures. The acceptability of hand rubbing was excellent and it can be considered to be a valid alternative to the conventional hand-scrubbing protocol.

Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital

The antiseptic effectiveness and acceptability of a commercial alcohol-based waterless (ABWL) and an alcohol-based water-aided (ABWA) scrub solution were compared with a brush-based iodine solution (BBIS) under conditions encountered in community hospital operating rooms. This randomized partially blinded study was based on guidelines from the American Society for Testing and Methods. The three scrub solutions were compared for antimicrobial efficacy, using criteria within the Food and Drug Administration's Tentative Final Monograph for Healthcare Antiseptic Products (FDA-TFM), and for participants' acceptance of the products. Volunteer surgical staff that worked daily in the same operating room for the entire duration of the study were enrolled. In total, 1126 surgical scrub procedures were performed over the duration of the study. Only the ABWL met all of the FDA-TFM criteria. The BBIS performed better than both of the alcohol-based solutions at the end of Day 1 (P=0.03), but the ABWL was more efficacious than the ABWA and the BBIS at the end of Days 2 and 5 (P=0.02 and 0.01, respectively). When colony-count reductions were compared over the entire duration of the study, there was no significant difference between the three solutions (P=0.2). The participants found the ABWL easiest to use (P<0.001), with the fewest adverse effects on skin (P=0.007), and it was their preferred product (P<0.001). Although both of the commercially available alcohol-based solutions may be considered as acceptable alternatives to the BBIS for presurgical antisepsis, the ABWL was found to have significantly higher user acceptability.

In vivo efficacy of an alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectant containing a synergistic combination of ethylhexylglycerin and preservatives

Alcohol-based surgical hand disinfectants are widely available in healthcare settings. Some currently marketed alcohol-based products use active concentrations of antimicrobials to achieve the required efficacy, raising the risk for exposure to potentially irritating levels of antimicrobials. This study compares the in vitro and in vivo efficacy of an alcohol-based surgical hand preparation containing 70% ethanol and preservative levels of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and benzalkonium chloride (BZK) in synergistic combination with ethylhexylglycerin (Surgicept) with a surgical hand disinfectant containing 61% ethanol and 1% CHG (Avagard). The in vivo efficacy of Surgicept and Avagard was evaluated in volunteers using the Tentative Final Monograph method of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and their prolonged effect against transient pathogens was compared using a pig skin model. Surgicept exceeded the FDA requirements for surgical hand antiseptic with mean log(10) reductions of 2.36, 3.3 and 3.54 in resident flora 1 min after initial application, and showed a persistent effect with mean log(10) reductions of 2.23, 2.73 and 3.3, 6h post application on days 1, 2 and 5, respectively. Surgicept showed a superior prolonged effect against transient bacteria compared with Avagard. Surgicept (70% alcohol and preservative levels of CHG and BZK) may provide similar in vivo efficacy as Avagard (61% ethanol and 1% CHG).

Surgical hand scrubs in relation to microbial counts: systematic literature review

AIM

This paper reports a systematic review whose objective was to determine the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs in relation to bacterial growth on the hands of operating room staff members.

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for surgical hand scrubs, evidence shows that frequent and prolonged use of antiseptics and brushes may damage the skin. Consequently, lesions may appear, become more heavily colonized by microorganisms and increase the risk of transmitting infection to patients. Recommendations about surgical hand scrubs vary widely and their effectiveness in relation to microbial counts is unknown.

METHOD

A variety of healthcare databases were searched covering the period between January 1990 and December 2004. Based on selection criteria, the abstracts of studies identified were checked to determine whether they fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Using Cochrane Review Manager 4.2 software, weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

FINDINGS

Three studies were included in this review. Two studies compared the effectiveness of surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product and a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference (weighted mean difference = -0.63, 95% confidence intervals = -0.99 to -0.27, P = 0.0006). One study compared the effectiveness of 2- and 3-minute surgical hand scrubs using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate; meta-analysis showed no difference (weighted mean difference = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals = -0.13 to 0.71, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

Surgical hand scrubs using an alcohol-based product were more effective than a 6-minute scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate. There is no evidence to support a 2-minute surgical hand scrub as being more effective than a 3-minute one using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate.

Surgical hand rubbing compared with surgical hand scrubbing: comparison of efficacy and costs

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of surgical hand rubbing (SHR) with the efficacy of surgical hand scrubbing (SHS), and to determine the costs of both techniques for surgical hand disinfection. A review of studies reported in the literature that compared the efficacy of SHS and SHR was performed using MEDLINE. The costs of SHR and SHS were estimated based on standard hospital costs. The literature showed that SHR had immediate efficacy that was similar to that of SHS, but SHR had a more lasting effect. SHR reduced costs by 67%. In conclusion, SHR is a cost-effective alternative to SHS.

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

A systematic review on the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene

The use of alcohol has been proposed as an option for hand hygiene. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence supporting the use of alcohol-based solutions in hospitals as an option for hand hygiene. Studies published between January 1992 and April 2002 in English and Thai, related to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions, were reviewed. The databases searched included Medline, DARE, CINAHL and Dissertation Abstracts International. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Results of this systematic review supported that alcohol-based hand rubbing removes microorganisms effectively, requires less time and irritates hands less often than does handwashing with soap or other antiseptic agents and water. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers.

Effectiveness of Alcohol-based solutions for Hand Hygiene: A Systematic Review

: Hand hygiene is an important measure in reducing the transmission of nosocomial infections in hospitals, but adherence is poor among health care workers (HCWs).More rapid and effective hand disinfection procedures have been proposed, such as rubbing with alcohol.Hand rubbing with alcohol-based products is commonly used in some countries instead of handwashing. This review evaluates the scientific and clinical evidence on the use of alcohol-based hand rubs in health care settings as a new option for hand hygiene.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to determine the best available evidence related to effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions for hand hygiene. The specific review questions addressed were: the effectiveness in reducing microorganisms, compliance with hand hygiene, and the incidence of skin problems. Application time (consumption) addressed efficiency.

CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING STUDIES IN THIS REVIEW

This review considered all studies that included alcohol-based solutions that related to the objectives of the review. Outcomes included measures for the reduction of organisms, compliance with hand hygiene, the types of skin problems, and application time. The review primarily considered any intra-individual trials (IITs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) relating to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions but also included quasi-experimental designs.

SEARCH STRATEGY FOR IDENTIFICATION OF STUDIES

The search sought to find published and unpublished studies. The databases searched included: Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest and Dissertation Abstracts International. Studies were additionally identified from reference lists of all studies retrieved.

ASSESSMENT AND DATA EXTRACTION

All studies were checked for methodological quality by two reviewers and data were extracted using a tool.

DATA ANALYSIS

The study results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager software and summarized in narrative form where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible.

RESULTS

This systematic review included thirty seven studies that supports the use of alcohol-based solutions for routine hand hygiene and surgical hand scrub. Alcohol-based hand rub removes microorganisms from hands of personnel more effectively, requires less time, and irritates hands less often than traditional handwashing with nonmedicated soap or other antiseptic agents and water. The combination of 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is even more effective in producing residual antibacterial properties on the skin. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increased compliance with hand hygiene among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

Rubbing hands with alcohol-based agents has been proved to be effective in the reduction of microorganisms from hands. Alcohols are effective for preoperative cleaning of the hands of surgical personnel. Addition of CHG to alcohol-based solution can produce residual antibacterial properties on the skin. The use of alcohol-based solutions containing emollients causes less skin irritation and dryness and requires less time than washing hands with soap or other disinfectants. The promotion of bedside, alcohol-based hand rubs contributes to the increase in compliance with hand hygiene by HCWs.

Hand hygiene: improved standards and practice for hospital care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the most recently published literature on hand hygiene practices in healthcare settings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Adherence with recommendations for hand hygiene remains low, but key factors of noncompliance have been identified and corrective actions proposed. Current guidelines recommend the use of alcohol-based handrub formulations as the new standard of care, thus requiring a system change in most hospitals. In addition, healthcare worker education and motivation are obviously important to modify hand hygiene behavior and must be part of multimodal strategies to enhance compliance in hospitals. Compliance improvement is associated with reduced infection rates and resistance spread. Handrub application according to recommended practices is an alternative to conventional surgical handscrubbing with antiseptic soap and water for surgical hand preparation.

SUMMARY

System change must be addressed in most hospitals where alcohol-based handrubbing has not become a standard of care. Strategies to improve hand hygiene compliance must be multimodal and include staff education and motivation, the use of performance indicators, and hospital management support. Successful campaigns will result in reduced infection rates, antimicrobial resistance spread, and enhance patient safety.

Update on the Epidemiology and Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

Surgical site infections contribute significantly to the morbidity and mortality of the individual patient and impose a burden on the health care resources of the community. With the shift toward streamlined hospitalizations and ambulatory surgery, a majority of surgical site infections are being diagnosed after discharge. There are several tools available for identifying and risk stratifying patients that include the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance system and the Study on the Efficacy of Nosocomial Infection Control index. If patients can be identified preoperatively, appropriate prophylactic measures and postdischarge surveillance can be undertaken, an underemphasized task faced by hospital systems today.