| Literature DB >> 34051861 |
Füszl Astrid1, Zatorska Beata1, Ebner Julia1, Presterl Elisabeth2, Diab-Elschahawi Magda1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental surface decontamination is a crucial tool to prevent the spread of infections in hospitals. However, manual cleaning and disinfection may be insufficient to eliminate pathogens from contaminated surfaces. Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation deploying autonomous disinfection devices, i.e. robots, are increasingly advertised to complement standard decontamination procedures with concurrent reduction of time and workload. Although the principle of UV-C based disinfection is proven, little is known about the operational details of UV-C disinfection delivered by robots. To explore the impact of a UV-C disinfection robot in the clinical setting, we investigated its usability and the effectiveness as an add-on to standard environmental cleaning and disinfection. Additionally, its effect on Candida auris, a yeast pathogen resistant to antifungals and disinfectants, was studied.Entities:
Keywords: Candida auris; Healthcare-associated infections; Infection control; UV-C robot; Ultraviolet-C
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34051861 PMCID: PMC8164075 DOI: 10.1186/s13756-021-00945-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ISSN: 2047-2994 Impact factor: 4.887
Fig. 1UVD Robot® (Clean Room Solutions)
Fig. 2Area map pre-programmed into the UV-C robot in the ENT outpatient clinic. The blue dots indicate where the robot had to stop for 3 min during the disinfection cycle. The red color indicates which area was covered by the mapping procedure and exposed to UV-C light
Fig. 3Area map pre-programmed into the UV-C robot in the oncology outpatient clinic. The blue dots indicate where the robot had to stop for 3 min during the disinfection cycle. The red color indicates which area was covered by the mapping procedure and exposed to UV-C light. The violet color indicates “light detection and ranging” (Lidar), which is a way for the robot to see an obstacle and avoid that area
Fig. 4Reference chart (UV-C dose received according to indicator’s change of color); Intellego Technologies
Proportion of contact cultures with low, acceptable and high microbial burden before routine cleaning and/or disinfection, after routine cleaning and/or disinfection and after the use of the UV-C robot
| ENT outpatient area | Oncology outpatient area | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Average | High | Low | Average | High | |
| Before C&D | 45.8% (11/24) | 37.5% (9/24) | 16.7% (4/24) | 22.5% (9/40) | 60.0% (24/40) | 17.5% (7/40) |
| After C&D | 79.2% (19/24) | 20.8% (5/24) | 0% (0/24) | 32.5% (13/40) | 62.5% (25/40) | 5.0% (2/40) |
| After C&D + UV-C | 100% (24/24) | 0% (0/24) | 0% (0/24) | 95.0% (38/40) | 5.0% (2/40) | 0% (0/40) |
C&D cleaning and disinfection, UV-C ultraviolet C; low = 0–3 CFUs/24 cm2, average = 4–50 CFUs/24 cm2, high > 50 CFUs/24 cm2
Reductions in Colony-Forming Units after routine cleaning and/or disinfection compared to baseline and after routine cleaning and/or disinfection + UV-C irradiation compared to routine cleaning and/or disinfection alone
| ENT outpatient area | Oncology outpatient area | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of samples | Median CFU (IQR) | Min | Max | No. of samples | Median CFU (IQR) | Min | Max | |||
| Before C&D | 24 | 8.5 (8.5–28.3) | 0 | 207 | 0.003 | 40 | 22.0 (4.3–36.0) | 0 | 200 | |
| After C&D | 24 | 0 (0–2.8) | 0 | 18 | 40 | 6.5 (2.3–20.5) | 0 | 101 | <0.001 | |
| After C&D | 24 | 0 (0–2.8) | 0 | 18 | 0.008 | 40 | 6.5 (2.3–20.5) | 0 | 101 | |
| After C&D + UV-C | 24 | 0 (0–0) | 0 | 1 | 40 | 0 (0–0) | 0 | 5 | <0.001 | |
No. number, CFU Colony Forming Unit, IQR interquartile range, Min minimum, Max maximum, C&D cleaning and disinfection, UV-C ultraviolet C
Fig. 5C. auris (106 CFUs/ml) on Sabouraud plates without (above) and with (below) exposure to UV-C irradiation following incubation
Colony counts per TSA plate containing C. auris in a stationary phase (103 CFUs/ml) with and without UV-C exposure
| Control (without UV-C exposure) | > 100 | > 100 | > 100 | > 100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day1 (after UV-C) | ||||
| 1 | > 50 | 35 | 1 | > 50 |
| 2 | > 50 | > 50 | 28 | 35 |
| 3 | > 50 | > 50 | 1 | > 50 |
| Day2 (after UV-C) | ||||
| 1 | > 50 | > 100 | > 50 | 20 |
| 2 | > 50 | > 100 | 11 | > 50 |
| 3 | > 100 | > 100 | 10 | > 50 |
| Day3 (after UV-C) | ||||
| 1 | > 50 | > 50 | 11 | > 50 |
| 2 | > 50 | > 50 | 0 | > 50 |
| 3 | > 50 | > 50 | > 50 | 30 |
Corresponding UV-C doses received during each disinfection cycle ranged from 75 to 100 mJ/cm2
Fig. 6Growth of C. auris strains in a stationary phase on TSA contact plates after UV-C exposure