R Herruzo1, M J Vizcaino2, R Yela2. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: rafael.herruzo@uam.es. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical use of 4% chlorhexidine soap (CHX-4) and 10% povidone iodine (PVP-I-10) does not meet the standards defined by EN 12791. AIM: To investigate the possibility of increasing the immediate and residual effects of these antiseptics. METHODS: Over three consecutive weeks, n-propanol, standard CHX-4 and PVP-I-10 were tested in two experimental groups of volunteers. The new method for applying the antiseptic substances involved standard hand rub and rinse of CHX-4 or PVP-I-10, followed by application of an aqueous solution based on 5% chlorhexidine or PVP-I-10 with no further rinsing of the hands prior to donning gloves. Samples were taken to assess immediate and residual effects, analysing the logarithmic reduction of colony-forming units. FINDINGS: At t=0 h, n-propanol was superior in bactericidal effect to standard CHX-4 (P<0.05), but the new chlorhexidine protocol was superior to both standard CHX-4 (P<0.01) and n-propanol (P<0.05); the same effect was observed at t=3 h (residual effect). At t=0 h, n-propanol was significantly superior to standard PVP-I-10, but the new PVP-I-10 protocol was superior, although not significantly, to n-propanol. There was no significant residual effect at t=3 h. CONCLUSION: The new protocol for chlorhexidine application permits surgical hand preparation with chlorhexidine, as a safe alternative to alcohol solutions, because it meets the standards defined by EN 12791.
BACKGROUND: Surgical use of 4% chlorhexidine soap (CHX-4) and 10% povidone iodine (PVP-I-10) does not meet the standards defined by EN 12791. AIM: To investigate the possibility of increasing the immediate and residual effects of these antiseptics. METHODS: Over three consecutive weeks, n-propanol, standard CHX-4 and PVP-I-10 were tested in two experimental groups of volunteers. The new method for applying the antiseptic substances involved standard hand rub and rinse of CHX-4 or PVP-I-10, followed by application of an aqueous solution based on 5% chlorhexidine or PVP-I-10 with no further rinsing of the hands prior to donning gloves. Samples were taken to assess immediate and residual effects, analysing the logarithmic reduction of colony-forming units. FINDINGS: At t=0 h, n-propanol was superior in bactericidal effect to standard CHX-4 (P<0.05), but the new chlorhexidine protocol was superior to both standard CHX-4 (P<0.01) and n-propanol (P<0.05); the same effect was observed at t=3 h (residual effect). At t=0 h, n-propanol was significantly superior to standard PVP-I-10, but the new PVP-I-10 protocol was superior, although not significantly, to n-propanol. There was no significant residual effect at t=3 h. CONCLUSION: The new protocol for chlorhexidine application permits surgical hand preparation with chlorhexidine, as a safe alternative to alcohol solutions, because it meets the standards defined by EN 12791.