• Am J Infect Control · Dec 2001

    Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial

    Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy.

    • G Mulberrry, A T Snyder, J Heilman, J Pyrek, and J Stahl.
    • Hill Top Research, Inc., Miamiville, Ohio 45147, USA.
    • Am J Infect Control. 2001 Dec 1;29(6):377-82.

    AbstractA new waterless surgical hand preparation containing 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) and 61% ethyl alcohol was evaluated for antimicrobial efficacy in comparison with a standard 4% CHG surgical scrub and a 61% ethyl alcohol control. Clinical studies were based on the Tentative Final Monograph for Health-Care Antiseptic Drug Products (TFM) (proposed rule) and the Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Surgical Hand Scrub Formulations (ASTM E1115-91). Two randomized, blinded, well-controlled clinical studies involving 137 healthy subjects were conducted to evaluate the antimicrobial effectiveness of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation in producing an immediate and persistent reduction in the normal bacterial flora of the hands. The CHG/ethanol hand preparation was applied without scrubbing or the use of water, and a standard 4% CHG reference product was applied with a scrub brush in 2 traditional 3-minute surgical scrubs. In 1 study, a 61% ethanol vehicle control treatment was applied without scrubbing or use of water. During a 5-day period, each study subject performed a series of 11 surgical scrubs with 1 of the test treatments. After the first treatment on days 1, 2, and 5, surgical gloves were worn for 3 or 6 hours. Bacterial samples were taken with the glove-juice technique at 1 minute, 3 hours, and 6 hours after treatment. The immediate bactericidal effect of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation after a single application resulted in a 2.5-log reduction in normal flora. This bactericidal effect persisted throughout the studies and eventually increased to a 3.6-log reduction after the 11th scrub on day 5. The log reductions of the CHG/ethanol hand preparation proved to be significantly better (P <.05) than that of the 4% CHG product at each sampling interval on days 1 and 2 and the sampling at 6 hours on day 5 and significantly better than the 61% ethanol vehicle at all times. The combination of 1% CHG and 61% ethanol had significantly greater microbial reduction than either the 4% CHG (without ethanol) or the 61% ethanol vehicle (without CHG).

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.