A novel rapid and effective donor arm disinfection method.

National Bacteriology Laboratory, NHS Blood and Transplant, London, UK.
Transfusion (Impact Factor: 3.53). 09/2009; 50(1):53-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02332.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the study was to derive a donor arm disinfection technique that was rapid, but with a disinfection efficacy equivalent to a previous "best-practice" technique. This method consisted of a two-stage procedure with an initial application of 70% isopropyl alcohol and then 2% tincture of iodine (IATI). The total time for the IATI method was 2 minutes in duration. A rapid technique (1 min in duration) was needed to obviate potential problems due to increased donor waiting time, had the IATI method been implemented at blood donation sessions.
A direct swabbing and plating technique was used to enumerate bacteria present before and after disinfection. In total, seven methods were evaluated.
The chlorhexidine/alcohol applicator (CAA) disinfection device containing 1.5 mL of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 70% isopropyl alcohol (99.91% reduction; confidence limits, 99.55%, 99.98%) was shown to have equivalent disinfection efficacy as the IATI method (99.89% reduction; confidence limits, 99.36%, 99.98%; p = 0.86). Procedural time for the 1.5-mL CAA method was 1 minute thereby avoiding potential problems of increased donor waiting time, inherent in the IATI 2-minute procedure at blood donation sessions.
The 1.5-mL CAA disinfection method offers blood services a rapid and effective donor arm disinfection procedure. In 2006, the 1.5-mL CAA procedure was implemented throughout the entire English blood service for all donations.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study of the dose-response relationship of disinfectants is of great importance in treating infection, the objective being to use concentrations above the minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC). Below these concentrations, the bacteriostatic or bactericidal effect may be insufficient. Moreover, at low concentrations, a hormetic effect may be observed, producing a stimulation of growth instead of inhibitory action. Hormesis is not well known in the context of antimicrobial substances. This study investigates the possible existence of a hormetic effect in three commonly used antiseptics-chlorhexidine digluconate, povidone iodine and benzalkonium chloride-on strains of reference of Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Growth curves were determined for different concentrations of the disinfectants. The variables studied-concentration of disinfectant, instantaneous growth rate and number of generations-were analysed using linear, quadratic and cubic models to adjust for the variables. The three disinfectants tested show a significant hormetic effect with P. aeruginosa and a less significant effect with S. aureus. These findings point to a dose-response effect that is not linear at low concentrations, while hormetic effects observed at some low concentrations result in greater bacterial growth. In infected wounds, materials or surfaces where microorganisms may occupy zones of difficult access for a disinfectant, the hormetic effect may have important consequences.
    European Journal of Clinical Microbiology 07/2013; · 3.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blood for transfusion may become contaminated at any point between collection and transfusion and may result in bacteraemia (the presence of bacteria in the blood), severe illness or even death for the blood recipient. Donor arm skin is one potential source of blood contamination, so it is usual to cleanse the skin with an antiseptic before blood donation. One-step and two-step alcohol based antiseptic regimens are both commonly advocated but there is uncertainty as to which is most effective. To assess the effects of cleansing the skin of blood donors with alcohol in a one-step compared with alcohol in a two-step procedure to prevent contamination of collected blood or bacteraemia in the recipient. For this second update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 20 November 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 11; Ovid MEDLINE (20011 to November Week 2 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations November 20, 2012); Ovid EMBASE ( 20011 to 2012 Week 46); and EBSCO CINAHL ( 2008 to 15 November 2012). All randomised trials (RCTs) comparing alcohol based donor skin cleansing in a one-step versus a two-step process that includes alcohol and any other antiseptic for pre-venepuncture skin cleansing were considered. Quasi randomised trials were to have been considered in the absence of RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. No studies (RCTs or quasi RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this review. It is therefore unclear whether a two-step, alcohol followed by antiseptic skin cleansing process prior to blood donation confers any reduction in the risk of blood contamination or bacteraemia in blood recipients, or conversely whether a one-step process increases risk above that associated with a two-step process.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 1:CD007948. · 5.70 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Source reduction is important in minimizing bacterial-contaminated risk of blood products, but previous evaluation of chlorhexidine (CHX) was confounded by inability of Tween and lecithin to neutralize CHX. The study aims to address this limitation and also evaluates the effectiveness of two CHX–alcohol-based skin disinfectants in blood donation setting. MethodsA two-stage observational study was conducted. A single step 2% chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol brush (CHX/IPA-1) was first compared with current skin disinfection procedure consisting of sequential application of 10% povidone-iodine and 70% isopropyl alcohol (PI/IPA). Standard plates with conventional neutralizers (0·3% Tween-80, 0·1% lecithin) were used to enumerate residual bacterial counts. Then, CHX/IPA-1 was compared with another applicator CHX/IPA-2 with identical disinfectant contents using in-house plates with neutralizers (3% Tween-80, 0·3% lecithin, 0·1% histidine, 0·5% sodium thiosulphate, 3% saponin, 1% ether sulphate) having enhanced ability to neutralize CHX. ResultsAll three products were found to reduce plate counts by > 2 log10 after disinfection. The CHX/IPA-1 group gave fewer residual bacterial growth on standard plates than PI/IPA group (5·9% vs. 61·7%, P < 0·001). With the use of in-house plates, residual bacterial growth was of no difference in both CHX/IPA-1 and CHX/IPA-2 groups (42·5% vs. 49·4%, P = 0·26). Conclusion Good efficacy was observed with one-stage application of CHX/IPA in predonation skin disinfection and it could replace PI/IPA. However, the efficacy of CHX/IPA could be grossly overestimated in testing with standard plates because of insufficient neutralization.
    Vox Sanguinis 10/2013; · 2.85 Impact Factor