Journal of Korean Clinical Nursing Research (임상간호연구)

Hospital Nurses Association (병원간호사회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison of Antimicrobial Effect of Two Waterless Alcohol-based Hand Rubs with a Povidone-Iodine Hand Scrub for Surgical Hand Antisepsis

두 가지 알코올제제 손마찰과 포비돈 아이오다인의 외과적 손소독 효과 비교

  • Ju, Houng Ley (Department of Nursing, Incheon Christian Hospital) ;
  • Jeong, Jae Sim (Department of Clinical Nursing, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Kim, Mi Na (Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine and Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Park, Kwang Ok (Children's Hospital Nursing Team, Asan Medical Center)
  • 주형례 (인천기독병원) ;
  • 정재심 (울산대 의대 임상전문간호학) ;
  • 김미나 (서울아산병원 진단검사의학과) ;
  • 박광옥 (서울아산병원 소아청소년병원 간호부)
  • Received : 2009.01.29
  • Accepted : 2009.02.27
  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the 1% chlorhexidine gluconate/61% ethanol (CHG/ethanol), 45% ethanol/18% 1-propanol (ethanol/propanol) and 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub with brush to evaluate their antimicrobial effect. Method: Utilizing repeated measures design, 9 nurses participated in the study. Glove juice sampling procedure was used to evaluate microbial hand counts before the surgical hand antisepsis, one minute after hand wash, and after the surgery. Results: Waterless rub using CHG and ethanol combination resulted in a 3.94 log reduction at 1 min and 2.78 log reduction at 3 hrs. Ethanol/propanol resulted in a 2.42 at 1 min and 2.22 at 3 hrs. The traditional scrub using PVI with brush resulted in a 0.94 at 1 min and 0.95 at 3 hrs (p=.003) and 3 hrs (p=.026) after the surgical hand antisepsis. Repeated measures ANOVA results showed that there was a statistically significant difference among group (p=.002). Duncan post hoc test result showed that the PVI was less effective (p<.05) in sterilizing microbials on hands than CHG/ethanol or ethanol/propanol. Conclusion: Both of the two alcohol-based antiseptic rubs are acceptable alternatives to the PVI with brush for surgical hand antisepsis.

Keywords

References

  1. 김명숙, 김경자, 신영란, 박광옥, 문향미, 정재심 등(2007). 손 소독제 및 소독방법에 따른 외과적 손 소독 효과. 대한기초간호자연과학회지, 9(2), 118-24.
  2. 김용순, 박지원, 진혜영, 전희선, 이은경, 곽연식(1996). 수술실 내에서 손씻기 시간과 소독제에 따른 살균효과 비교. 감염, 28(1), 41-49.
  3. 김준명, 박은숙, 정재심, 김경미, 김정미, 오향순 등(1997). 1996년도 국내 병원감염률 조사연구. 병원감염관리, 2(2), 157-176.
  4. 박은숙, 김경식, 이우정, 최준용, 김준명, 장선영(2005). 수술부위감염에 따른 경제적 손실. 병원감염관리, 10(2), 57-64.
  5. 박은숙, 장선영, 김경애, 김양수, 정수경, 우경자 등(2006). 외과적 손소독에 대한 Chlorhexidine/Ethanol 연화제와 Povidone-Iodine의 비교. 병원감염관리, 11(1), 50-57.
  6. 박은숙, 정재심, 김경미, 김옥선, 정선영, 장선영 등(2006). 국내 병원의 소독제 사용 실태조사. 병원감염관리, 11(1), 42-49.
  7. 윤혜상(1996). 의사와 간호사의 외과적 손씻기에 관한 지식, 태도 및 실천에 대한 조사 연구. 대한간호학회지, 26(3), 591-604.
  8. 정재심, 김덕희, 김미나, 최명애(2002). 물 없이 사용하는 알코올 젤의 손소독 효과에 대한 연구. 대한기초간호자연과학학회지, 4(2), 127-137.
  9. 최정실(2008). 물과 솔 없이 사용하는 외과적 손 소독제 Chlorhexidine/Ethanol 혼합제와 Povidone-iodine의 소독 효과. 대한간호학회지, 38(1), 39-44.
  10. 홍성윤, 김정민, 김소영, 이수정, 오은실, 양서인 등(2006). 수술실 손 소독제의 종류에 따른 균주 수의 변화. 임상간호연구, 11(2), 91-101.
  11. Ayliffe, G. A. (1984). Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infection Control, 5(1), 23-27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0195941700058756
  12. Boyce, J. M., & Pittet, D. (2002). Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care setting. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51, RR-16.
  13. Garner, J. S. (1986). Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infection. American Journal of Infection Control, 14(2), 71-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-6553(86)90059-3
  14. Gupta, C., Czubatyj, A. M., Briski, L. E., & Malani, A. K. (2007). Comparison of two alcohol-based surgical scrub solutions with an iodine-based scrub brush for presurgical antiseptic effectiveness in a community hospital. Journal of Hospital Infection, 65, 65-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2006.06.026
  15. Hobson, D. W., Woller, W., Anderson, L., & Guthery, E. (1998). Development and evaluation of a new alcohol-based surgical hand scrub formulation with persistent antimicrobial characteristics and brushless application. American Journal of Infection Control, 26(5), 507-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-6553(98)70024-0
  16. Kampf, G., & Ostermeyer, C. (2005). Efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection a controlled trial according to prEN 12791. Bioinformatics Infection Disease, 5(1), 17.
  17. Kampf, G., Ostermeyer, C., Heeg, P., & Paulson, D. (2006). Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(6), 3856-3861. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02746-05
  18. Kjolen, H., & Anderson, B. M. (1992). Handwashing and disinfection of heavily contaminated hand-effective or ineffective. Journal of Hospital Infection, 21, 61-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6701(92)90154-E
  19. Larson, E. L., Strom, M. S., & Evans, C. A. (1980). Analysis of three variables in sampling solutions used to assay bacteria of hands: Type of solutions, use if antiseptic neutralizers, and solution temperature. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 12, 355-360.
  20. Marchetti, M. G., Kampf, G., Finzi, G., & Salvatorelli, G. (2003). Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791. Journal of Hospital Infection, 54, 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6701(03)00039-2
  21. Mulberry, G., Snyder, A. T., Heilman, J., Pyrek, J., & Stahl, J. (2001). Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy. American Journal of Infection Control, 29(5).
  22. Pietsch, H. (2001). Hand Antiseptics: Rubs versus scrubs, alcohol solutions versus alcoholic gels. Journal of Hospital Infection, 48(Supplement A), S33-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6701(01)90010-6