Michael G Schmidt1, Bettina von Dessauer2, Carmen Benavente2, Dona Benadof3, Paulina Cifuentes2, Alicia Elgueta4, Claudia Duran5, Maria S Navarrete6. 1. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. Electronic address: schmidtm@musc.edu. 2. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital de Niños Roberto del Río, Santiago, Chile. 3. Microbiology Laboratory, Hospital de Niños Roberto del Río, Santiago, Chile. 4. Infection Control Committee, Hospital de Niños Roberto del Río, Santiago, Chile. 5. Department of Microbiology, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 6. School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infections result in significant patient morbidity and mortality. Although cleaning can remove pathogens present on hospital surfaces, those surfaces may be inadequately cleaned or recontaminated within minutes. Because of copper's inherent and continuous antimicrobial properties, copper surfaces offer a solution to complement cleaning. The objective of this study was to quantitatively assess the bacterial microbial burden coincident with an assessment of the ability of antimicrobial copper to limit the microbial burden associated with 3 surfaces in a pediatric intensive care unit. METHODS: A pragmatic trial was conducted enrolling 1,012 patients from 2 high acuity care units within a 249-bed tertiary care pediatric hospital over 12 months. The microbial burden was determined from 3 frequently encountered surfaces, regardless of room occupancy, twice monthly, from 16 rooms, 8 outfitted normally and 8 outfitted with antimicrobial copper. RESULTS: Copper surfaces were found to be equivalently antimicrobial in pediatric settings to activities reported for adult medical intensive care units. The log10 reduction to the microbial burden from antimicrobial copper surfaced bed rails was 1.996 (99%). Surprisingly, introduction of copper objects to 8 study rooms was found to suppress the microbial burden recovered from objects assessed in control rooms by log10 of 1.863 (73%). CONCLUSION: Copper surfaces warrant serious consideration when contemplating the introduction of no-touch disinfection technologies for reducing burden to limit acquisition of HAIs.
BACKGROUND: Health care-associated infections result in significant patient morbidity and mortality. Although cleaning can remove pathogens present on hospital surfaces, those surfaces may be inadequately cleaned or recontaminated within minutes. Because of copper's inherent and continuous antimicrobial properties, copper surfaces offer a solution to complement cleaning. The objective of this study was to quantitatively assess the bacterial microbial burden coincident with an assessment of the ability of antimicrobial copper to limit the microbial burden associated with 3 surfaces in a pediatric intensive care unit. METHODS: A pragmatic trial was conducted enrolling 1,012 patients from 2 high acuity care units within a 249-bed tertiary care pediatric hospital over 12 months. The microbial burden was determined from 3 frequently encountered surfaces, regardless of room occupancy, twice monthly, from 16 rooms, 8 outfitted normally and 8 outfitted with antimicrobial copper. RESULTS:Copper surfaces were found to be equivalently antimicrobial in pediatric settings to activities reported for adult medical intensive care units. The log10 reduction to the microbial burden from antimicrobial copper surfaced bed rails was 1.996 (99%). Surprisingly, introduction of copper objects to 8 study rooms was found to suppress the microbial burden recovered from objects assessed in control rooms by log10 of 1.863 (73%). CONCLUSION:Copper surfaces warrant serious consideration when contemplating the introduction of no-touch disinfection technologies for reducing burden to limit acquisition of HAIs.
Authors: Michael G Schmidt; Hubert H Attaway; Sarah E Fairey; Jayna Howard; Denise Mohr; Stephanie Craig Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: M Monge; A Abdel-Hady; L D Aslett; M W Calfee; B Williams; K Ratliff; S Ryan; L Oudejans; A Touati Journal: Lett Appl Microbiol Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Caitlin L Williams; Heather M Neu; Jeremy J Gilbreath; Sarah L J Michel; Daniel V Zurawski; D Scott Merrell Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Yuan Ping Li; Ibtissem Ben Fekih; Ernest Chi Fru; Aurelio Moraleda-Munoz; Xuanji Li; Barry P Rosen; Masafumi Yoshinaga; Christopher Rensing Journal: Annu Rev Microbiol Date: 2021-08-03 Impact factor: 16.232
Authors: Maximilian Mora; Alexander Mahnert; Kaisa Koskinen; Manuela R Pausan; Lisa Oberauner-Wappis; Robert Krause; Alexandra K Perras; Gregor Gorkiewicz; Gabriele Berg; Christine Moissl-Eichinger Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Colum P Dunne; Minna M Keinänen-Toivola; Anne Kahru; Birgit Teunissen; Hulya Olmez; Isabel Gouveia; Luis Melo; Kazimierz Murzyn; Martina Modic; Merja Ahonen; Pete Askew; Theofilos Papadopoulos; Christian Adlhart; Francy R L Crijns Journal: Bioengineered Date: 2017-05-19 Impact factor: 3.269
Authors: Merja Ahonen; Anne Kahru; Angela Ivask; Kaja Kasemets; Siiri Kõljalg; Paride Mantecca; Ivana Vinković Vrček; Minna M Keinänen-Toivola; Francy Crijns Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Piyali Chatterjee; Marjory D Williams; John D Coppin; Yonhui Allton; Hosoon Choi; Julie Ann D Martel; John E Zeber; Richard E Nelson; Curtis J Donskey; Chetan Jinadatha Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 3.835