Comparative Antimicrobial Efficacy of Two Hand Sanitizers in Intensive Care Units Common Areas: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. (31st January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Deshpande, Abhishek; Fox, Jacqueline; Wong, Ken Koon; Cadnum, Jennifer L.; Sankar, Thriveen; Jencson, Annette; Schramm, Sarah; Fraser, Thomas G.; Donskey, Curtis J.; Gordon, Steven
• Is Part Of: Infection control and hospital epidemiology. Volume 39:Number 3(2018)
• Page Start: 267
• Page End: 271
• Publication Date: 2018-01-31
• Subjects: Nosocomial infections -- Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Health facilities -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Hospital buildings -- Sanitation -- Periodicals; Cross Infection -- Periodicals; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Hospitals -- Periodicals; Infection Control -- Periodicals; 614.44
• DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.293
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0899-823X

Abstract

Abstract : OBJECTIVE: Contaminated hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important source of transmission of healthcare-associated infections. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers, while effective, do not provide sustained antimicrobial activity. The objective of this study was to compare the immediate and persistent activity of 2 hand hygiene products (ethanol [61% w/v] plus chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG; 1.0% solution] and ethanol only [70% v/v]) when used in an intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study SETTING: Three ICUs at a large teaching hospital PARTICIPANTS: In total, 51 HCWs involved in direct patient care were enrolled in and completed the study. METHODS: All HCWs were randomized 1:1 to either product. Hand prints were obtained immediately after the product was applied and again after spending 4–7 minutes in the ICU common areas prior to entering a patient room or leaving the area. The numbers of aerobic colony-forming units (CFU) were compared for the 2 groups after log transformation. Each participant tested the alternative product after a 3-day washout period. RESULTS: On bare hands, use of ethanol plus CHG was associated with significantly lower recovery of aerobic CFU, both immediately after use (0.27 ± 0.05 and 0.88 ± 0.08 log10 CFU; P = .035) and after spending time in ICU common areas (1.81 ± 0.07 and 2.17 ± 0.05 log10 CFU; P <.0001). Both the antiseptics were well tolerated by HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the ethanol-only product, the ethanol plus CHG sanitizer was associated with significantly lower aerobic bacterial counts on hands of HCWs, both immediately after use and after spending time in ICU common areas. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02258412 Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:267–271