Literature DB >> 8429580

Effect of iodophor vs iodine tincture skin preparation on blood culture contamination rate.

C L Strand1, R R Wajsbort, K Sturmann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine if iodine tincture is a more effective skin antiseptic for blood culture collection than povidone-iodine, an iodophor.
DESIGN: Pairwise comparisons across phases. In phases 1 and 3, blood culture skin preparation was performed with the iodophor; in phases 2 and 4, skin preparation was performed with iodine tincture.
SETTING: Emergency department of a large urban teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All adult patients seen in the emergency department who had blood cultures collected because a systemic bacterial infection was suspected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The blood culture contamination rate for the iodophor and iodine tincture skin preparations.
RESULTS: A total of 8467 blood cultures were collected during the study, and 421 (4.97%) were classified as contaminated. The contamination rate for the blood cultures collected using the iodophor was 6.25%, and the contamination rate for the cultures using iodine tincture was 3.74%; this difference is statistically significant (P < .00001).
CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of the skin antiseptic may be an important factor in determining contamination rate in blood culturing. If these results are confirmed by others, then institutions that have a high blood culture contamination rate when using an iodophor for skin preparation should consider changing to iodine tincture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8429580

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  26 in total

Review 1.  Blood cultures in newborns and children: optimising an everyday test.

Authors:  J P Buttery
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 5.747

2.  Sterilization of skin and catheters before drawing blood cultures.

Authors:  Andreas F Widmer
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 3.  Updated review of blood culture contamination.

Authors:  Keri K Hall; Jason A Lyman
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 26.132

Review 4.  Blood culture contamination: persisting problems and partial progress.

Authors:  Melvin P Weinstein
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Doing it right the first time: quality improvement and the contaminant blood culture.

Authors:  F I Weinbaum; S Lavie; M Danek; D Sixsmith; G F Heinrich; S S Mills
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 5.948

6.  Comparison of iodophor and alcohol pledgets with the Medi-Flex blood culture prep kit II for preventing contamination of blood cultures.

Authors:  M L Wilson; M P Weinstein; S Mirrett; L G Reimer; C Fernando; F T Meredith; L B Reller
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Pathogen or contaminant? Distinguishing true infection from synovial fluid culture contamination in patients with suspected septic arthritis.

Authors:  Mary Louise Fowler; Clara Zhu; Kevin Byrne; Sarah B Lieber; Andrew Moore; Robert H Shmerling; Ziv Paz
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 3.553

8.  Comparison of four antiseptic preparations for skin in the prevention of contamination of percutaneously drawn blood cultures: a randomized trial.

Authors:  David P Calfee; Barry M Farr
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Continuous quality improvement for introduction of automated blood culture instrument.

Authors:  M Alfa; S Sanche; S Roman; Y Fiola; P Lenton; G Harding
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 10.  Transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis.

Authors:  S J Wagner; L I Friedman; R Y Dodd
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 26.132

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.