-
Am J Infect Control · Dec 2001
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialEvaluation 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).
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?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.
.