The Effectiveness of Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) versus Aerosolized Hydrogen Peroxide (aHP) in ICU Terminal Disinfection.
J Hosp Infect 2021;
121:114-119. [PMID:
34915051 DOI:
10.1016/j.jhin.2021.12.004]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/02/2021] [Revised: 12/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10% of patients with healthcare-acquired infections (HAIs) died during their hospitalisation in 2015. Thus, the reduction in HAI prevalence is critical. One strategy to achieve this is the adequate disinfection of patient rooms within the hospital.
AIM
To compare the effectiveness of an Ultraviolet-C room sanitizer against that of an aerosolized hydrogen peroxide device in eliminating selected healthcare-associated (HA) pathogens and other HA-organisms in an ICU setting.
METHODS
The disinfection systems were tested on the following organisms: meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii, and Candida auris. Media plates with known densities of each organism and placed at preselected regions within an ICU room. The mean kill rate was determined for each organism. Additionally, swabs were taken from five high-touch areas from different ICU rooms prior to manual cleaning, following manual cleaning, and following each disinfection method in order to compare their effectiveness.
FINDINGS
The UV-C device achieved a 96.75% mean microbial reduction in non-shaded areas. It was significantly less effective in the shaded regions. The aHP system achieved a mean kill rate of 50.71% for all areas. The swab results revealed that 15% of manually cleaned surfaces still harboured a microbial load, which was eradicated after use of either no-touch disinfection system.
CONCLUSION
This study presents the notable differences between two no-touch disinfection methods, highlights their effectiveness and advocates for their incorporation alongside a manual cleaning regimen.
Collapse