Antiseptic Effect of Conventional Povidone-Iodine Scrub, Chlorhexidine Scrub, and Waterless Hand Rub in a Surgical Room: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Jui Chen Tsai, Yen Kuang Lin, Yen Jung Huang, El Wui Loh, Hsiao Yun Wen, Chia Hui Wang, Yin Tai Tsai, Wen Shyang Hsieh, Ka Wai Tam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled. INTERVENTION Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10% povidone-iodine scrub, conventional 4% chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol). RESULTS Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count. CONCLUSIONS Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone-iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)417-422
Number of pages6
JournalInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 1 2017

Fingerprint

Povidone-Iodine
Local Anti-Infective Agents
Chlorhexidine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hand
Stem Cells
Antisepsis
Medical Staff
Disinfection
Povidone
Hand Disinfection
Patient Safety
Ethanol

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Microbiology (medical)
  • Infectious Diseases

Cite this

Antiseptic Effect of Conventional Povidone-Iodine Scrub, Chlorhexidine Scrub, and Waterless Hand Rub in a Surgical Room : A Randomized Controlled Trial. / Tsai, Jui Chen; Lin, Yen Kuang; Huang, Yen Jung; Loh, El Wui; Wen, Hsiao Yun; Wang, Chia Hui; Tsai, Yin Tai; Hsieh, Wen Shyang; Tam, Ka Wai.

In: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 38, No. 4, 01.04.2017, p. 417-422.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a292844201e74e4686d697270b348b5b,
title = "Antiseptic Effect of Conventional Povidone-Iodine Scrub, Chlorhexidine Scrub, and Waterless Hand Rub in a Surgical Room: A Randomized Controlled Trial",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled. INTERVENTION Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10{\%} povidone-iodine scrub, conventional 4{\%} chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1{\%} chlorhexidine gluconate and 61{\%} ethyl alcohol). RESULTS Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count. CONCLUSIONS Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone-iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable.",
author = "Tsai, {Jui Chen} and Lin, {Yen Kuang} and Huang, {Yen Jung} and Loh, {El Wui} and Wen, {Hsiao Yun} and Wang, {Chia Hui} and Tsai, {Yin Tai} and Hsieh, {Wen Shyang} and Tam, {Ka Wai}",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/ice.2016.296",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "417--422",
journal = "Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology",
issn = "0899-823X",
publisher = "University of Chicago Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antiseptic Effect of Conventional Povidone-Iodine Scrub, Chlorhexidine Scrub, and Waterless Hand Rub in a Surgical Room

T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial

AU - Tsai, Jui Chen

AU - Lin, Yen Kuang

AU - Huang, Yen Jung

AU - Loh, El Wui

AU - Wen, Hsiao Yun

AU - Wang, Chia Hui

AU - Tsai, Yin Tai

AU - Hsieh, Wen Shyang

AU - Tam, Ka Wai

PY - 2017/4/1

Y1 - 2017/4/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled. INTERVENTION Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10% povidone-iodine scrub, conventional 4% chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol). RESULTS Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count. CONCLUSIONS Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone-iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable.

AB - OBJECTIVE Effective perioperative hand antisepsis is crucial for the safety of patients and medical staff in surgical rooms. The antimicrobial effectiveness of different antiseptic methods, including conventional hand scrubs and waterless hand rubs, has not been well evaluated. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of the 3 antiseptic methods among surgical staff of Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital. For each method used, a group of 80 participants was enrolled. INTERVENTION Surgical hand cleansing with conventional 10% povidone-iodine scrub, conventional 4% chlorhexidine scrub, or waterless hand rub (1% chlorhexidine gluconate and 61% ethyl alcohol). RESULTS Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were collected using the hand imprinting method before and after disinfection and after surgery. After surgical hand disinfection, the mean CFU counts of the conventional chlorhexidine (0.5±0.2, P<0.01) and waterless hand rub groups (1.4±0.7, P<0.05) were significantly lower than that of the conventional povidone group (4.3±1.3). No significant difference was observed in the mean CFU count among the groups after surgery. Similar results were obtained when preexisting differences before disinfection were considered in the analysis of covariance. Furthermore, multivariate regression indicated that the antiseptic method (P=.0036), but not other variables, predicted the mean CFU count. CONCLUSIONS Conventional chlorhexidine scrub and waterless hand rub were superior to a conventional povidone-iodine product in bacterial inhibition. We recommend using conventional chlorhexidine scrub as a standard method for perioperative hand antisepsis. Waterless hand rub may be used if the higher cost is affordable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85015363635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85015363635&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/ice.2016.296

DO - 10.1017/ice.2016.296

M3 - Article

C2 - 27995837

AN - SCOPUS:85015363635

VL - 38

SP - 417

EP - 422

JO - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

JF - Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology

SN - 0899-823X

IS - 4

ER -