Article

A novel rapid and effective donor arm disinfection method

National Bacteriology Laboratory, NHS Blood and Transplant, London, UK.
Transfusion (Impact Factor: 3.23). 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.

Full-text preview

Available from: blutspende-zuerich.ch
  • Source
    • "Eight studies were not randomised or quasi randomised controlled trials (de Korte 2006; Goldman 1997; Kiyoyama 2009; Lee 2002; McDonald 2006; Pleasant 1994; Shahar 1990; Wong 2004). One study examined techniques for quantifying bacterial reduction (Follea 1997) and three were neither randomised controlled trials nor did they address any of the reviews' primary or secondary outcomes (Benjamin 2010; McDonald 2010; Ramirez-Arcos 2010). "
    [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.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2013 · Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
  • 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. We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (March 10 2009); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1; Ovid MEDLINE - (1950 to February Week 4 2009); Ovid EMBASE - (1980 to 2009 Week 9); and EBSCO CINAHL - (1982 to February Week 4 2009). We also searched the reference lists of key papers. 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.
    Full-text · Article · Feb 2009 · Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Skin commensal bacteria account for most septic reactions after apheresis platelet (PLT) transfusion. Consequently, we evaluated the effectiveness of two skin disinfection methods in preventing bacterial contamination of PLT collections. Three regional blood centers evaluated a one-step 2% chlorhexidine/70% isopropyl alcohol (2% CHX/IPA) skin disinfection method (trial group), while 32 blood centers (control group) continued to use a two-step povidone-iodine (P-I) method. Aerobic quality control bacterial culture results and adverse donor events were compared between April 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009. The rate of initial positive bacterial cultures was significantly lower in the trial regions compared to control regions in 2009 (143 vs. 321 per million: odds ratio [OR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.86]). Trial regions also tended to have lower rates of both true-positive cultures (100 vs. 214 per million: OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.21-1.03) and false-positive (contamination) cultures (43 vs. 96 per million: OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14-1.49). No differences were seen in the corresponding periods in 2007 and 2008 when all centers used P-I skin preparation. Allergic reactions were reported after 89 of 73,247 apheresis procedures (0.12%) in the trial regions representing a 16-fold increase (OR 15.9, 95% CI 9.9-25.6) compared to control regions. The 2% CHX/IPA single-step skin swabs are more effective in preventing bacterial contamination of apheresis PLT components than a two-step P-I skin disinfection method and may reduce the risk of septic transfusion reactions. Skin irritation and allergic reactions were more likely among donors in trial regions, but reactions were generally mild and self-limiting.
    No preview · Article · Mar 2011 · Transfusion
Show more