Article

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

Bode Chemie GmbH & Co., Scientific Affairs, Melanchthonstrasse 27, 22525 Hamburg, Germany. .
Clinical Microbiology Reviews (Impact Factor: 17.31). 11/2004; 17(4):863-93, table of contents. DOI:10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
101 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Some manufacturers recommend using 1.1 mL per application of alcohol-based handrubs for effective hand disinfection. However, whether this volume is sufficient to cover both hands, as recommended by the World Health Organization, and fulfills current efficacy standards is unknown. This study aimed to determine hand coverage for three handrubs (two gels based on 70% v/v and 85% w/w ethanol and a foam based on 70% v/v ethanol) applied at various volumes. Products were tested at product volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, 2.4 mL as well as 1 and 2 pump dispenser pushes; the foam product was tested in addition at foam volumes of 1.1 mL, 2 mL, and 2.4 mL. Products were supplemented with a fluorescent dye and 15 participants applied products using responsible application techniques without any specific steps but the aim of completely covering both hands. Coverage quality was determined under ultraviolet light by two blinded investigators. Efficacy of the three handrubs was determined according to ASTM E 1174-06 and ASTM E 2755-10. For each experiment, the hands of 12 participants were contaminated with Serratia marcescens and the products applied as recommended (1.1 mL for 70% v/v ethanol products; 2 mL for the 85% w/w ethanol product). Log10-reduction was calculated. Volumes < 2 mL yielded high rates of incomplete coverage (67%--87%) whereas volumes >= 2 mL gave lower rates (13%--53%). Differences in coverage were significant between the five volumes tested for all handrubs (p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA) but not between the three handrubs themselves (p = 0.796). Application of 1.1 mL of 70% v/v ethanol rubs reduced contamination by 1.85 log10 or 1.60 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06); this failed the US FDA efficacy requirement of at least 2 log10. Application of 2 mL of the 85% w/w ethanol rub reduced contamination by 2.06 log10 (ASTM E 1174-06), fulfilling the US FDA efficacy requirement. Similar results were obtained according to ASTM E 2755-10. Our data indicated that handrubs based on 70% ethanol (v/v) with a recommended volume of 1.1 mL per application do not ensure complete coverage of both hands and do not achieve current ASTM efficacy standards.
    BMC Infectious Diseases 10/2013; 13(1):472. · 3.03 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Viruses account for about 5% of all nosocomial infections. Viral cross-infection is most common in infants and children, but also occurs in other groups, including the elderly, institutionalized persons of all ages, immunecompromised hosts, and patients with underlying chronic pulmonary, renal, or cardiac disease. These infections are associated with extended length of hospital stay, as well as considerable morbidity and mortality. The new technology of rapid viral diagnosis allows a more timely and accurate recognition of viral infections, even in the smaller hospital with limited laboratory resources. Early recognition of viral diseases should, in turn, permit the introduction, and further evaluation of specific measures for their control. Influenza vaccination of health care workers is an important prevention strategy for nosocomial infection.
    Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica 07/2013; · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Moringa oleifera is a plant found in many tropical and subtropical countries. Many different uses and properties have been attributed to this plant, mainly as a nutritional supplement and as a water purifier. Its antibacterial activity against different pathogens has been described in different in vitro settings. However the potential effect of this plant leaf as a hand washing product has never been studied. The aim of this study is to test the efficacy of this product using an in vivo design with healthy volunteers. The hands of fifteen volunteers were artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli. Moringa oleifera leaf powder was tested as a hand washing product and was compared with reference non-medicated liquid soap using a cross over design following an adaptation of the European Committee for Standardization protocol (EN 1499). In a second part of tests, the efficacy of the established amount of Moringa oleifera leaf powder was compared with an inert powder using the same protocol. Application of 2 and 3 g of dried Moringa oleifera leaf powder (mean log10-reduction: 2.44 +/- 0.41 and 2.58 +/- 0.34, respectively) was significantly less effective than the reference soap (3.00 +/- 0.27 and 2.99 +/- 0.26, respectively; p < 0.001). Application of the same amounts of Moringa oleifera (2 and 3 g) but using a wet preparation, was also significantly less effective than reference soap (p < 0.003 and p < 0.02, respectively). However there was no significant difference when using 4 g of Moringa oleifera powder in dried or wet preparation (mean log10-reduction: 2.70 +/- 0.27 and 2.91 +/- 0.11, respectively) compared with reference soap (2.91 +/- 0.28). Application of calcium sulphate inert powder was significantly less effective than the 4 g of Moringa oleifera powder (p < 0.01). Four grams of Moringa oleifera powder in dried and wet application had the same effect as non-medicated soap when used for hand washing. Efficacious and available hand washing products could be useful in developing countries in controlling pathogenic organisms that are transmitted through contaminated hands.
    BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 02/2014; 14(1):57. · 2.08 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
2 Downloads
Available from