Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy

Jeong Sil Choi

doi:10.4040/jkan.2008.38.1.39

Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.38(1) > 1063731

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Choi: Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy

Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing

Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2008; 38(1): 39-44.

Published online: 28 February 2008

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2008.38.1.39

Evaluation of a Waterless, Scrubless Chlorhexidine Gluconate/Ethanol Surgical Scrub and Povidone-Iodine for Antimicrobial Efficacy

Jeong Sil Choi

Full-time Lecturer, Department of Nursing Science, Konyang University, Daejeon, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Choi, Jeong-Sil. Department of Nursing Science, College of Medical Science, Konyang University, 685 Gasuwon-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon 320-718, Korea. Tel: 82-42-600-6346, Fax: 82-42-600-6307, jschoi408@empal.com

Received 29 May 2007 Accepted 24 October 2007

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare 1% chlorhexidine-gluconate/61% ethanol (CHG/Ethanol) emollient and 7.5% povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub for antimicrobial,residual effect, and skin condition.

Methods

CHG/Ethanol emollient hand hygiene was performed waterless, and brushless by operating doctors and nurses (N=20). PVI hand washing was performed with water and a brush (N=20) for 5 min. The subjects were asked to press their left hand in hand-shaped agar before a surgical scrub, immediately after a surgical scrub and after the operation. The amount of isolated microorganisms were calculated by counting the number of divided areas(1×1 cm, 160 cell) which were culture positive in the hand culture plate. The skin condition was evaluated.

Results

The antimicrobial count of CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI immediately post surgical scrub was 0.0 vs. 4.1 (p>.05), and after the operation was 0.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The Residual effect of CHG/Ethanol emollient immediately post surgical scrub and after the operation were 0.0 vs. 0.1 (p>.05), and PVI were 4.1 vs. 37.8 (p>.05)respectively. The skin condition and satisfaction of CHG/Ethanol emollient was higher than PVI (p<.05).

Conclusion

The antimicrobial effect between CHG/Ethanol emollient and PVI were the same. Considering skin condition, satisfaction and allergic reaction CHG/Ethanol emollient for surgical scrub is recommended in Korea.

Keywords: Surgical scrub, Skin, Chlorhexidine gluconate, Povidone iodine

Figures and Tables

Figure 1

Process of hand culture.

Table 1

Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Antibacterial Efficiency (CFU/160 cm²)

Table 2

Comparison of Bacterial Count between Experimental and Control Group of Residual Effect (CFU/160 cm²)

^*paired t-test.

Table 3

Comparison of Satisfaction, Skin Condition and Allergy between Experimental and Control Group

^*p<.01; ^†p<.001.

References

1. Bischoff WE, Reynolds TM, Sessler CN, Edmond MB, Wenzel RP. Handwashing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antisepsis. Arc Intern Med. 2000. 160:1017–1021.

2. Bulus N, Kaleli I. Comparison of antibacterial effects of different antiseptics after hand washing. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2004. 38(1-2):137–143.

3. CDC. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. MMWR. 2002. 51(RR-16):

4. Earl ML, Jackson MM, Rickman LS. Improved rates of compliance with hand antisepsis guidelines: a three-phase observational study. Am J Nurs. 2001. 101:26–33.

5. Grove GL, Zerweck CR, Heilman JM, Pyrek JD. Methods for evaluating changes in skin condition due to the effect of antimicrobial hand cleansers: two studies comparing a new waterless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol-emollient antiseptic preparation with a conventional water-applied product. Am J Infect Control. 2001. 29:361–369.

6. Jeong JS. Effect of Handwashing Improving Programs on the Adherence of Hand Washing and Nosocomial Infections in a Surgical Intensive Care Unit. 2002. Seoul: Seoul National University;Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

7. Jeong JS, Kim DH, Kim MN, Choe MA. Bactericidal effect of waterless alcohol gel hand washing agent. J Korean Biol Nurs Sci. 2002. 4:127–137.

8. Kjolen H, Anderson BM. Handwashing and disinfection of heavily contaminated hands- effective or ineffective. J Hospi Infect. 1992. 21:61–71.

9. Larson EL. Skin hygiene and infection prevention: More of the same or different approaches? Clin Infect Dis. 1999. 29:1287–1294.

10. Larson EL. Comparison of different regimens for surgical hand preparation. ARON J. 2001. 73:412–432.

11. Mulberrry G, Snyder AT, Heilman J, Pyrek J, Stahl J. Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate/ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy. Am J Infect Control. 2001. 29:377–382.

12. Park ES, Kim KS, Lee WJ, Jang SY, Choi JY, Kim JM. The Economical Impact of Surgical Site Infection. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2005. 10(2):57–64.

13. Park ES, Jang SY, Kim KA, Kim YS, Jung SK, Woo KJ, et al. Comparison of waterless, brushless chlorhexidine/ ethanol emollient with povidone-iodine surgical scrubs. Korean J Nosocomial Infect Control. 2006. 11(1):50–57.

14. Revised nomenclature for allergy for global use: Report of the Nomenclature Review Committee of the World Allergy Organization, October 2003. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004. 113:832–836.

15. Smith DR, Ohmura K, Yamagata Z. Prevalence and correlates of hand dermatitis among nurses in a Japanese teaching hospital. J Epidemiol. 2003. 13:157–161.

16. Smith DR, Smyth W, Leggat PA, Wang RS. Prevalence of hand dermatitis among hospital nurses working in a tropical environment. Aust J Adv Nurs. 2005. 22:28–32.

17. Visscher M, Canning J, Said D, Wickett R, Bondurant P. Effect of hand hygiene regimens on skin condition in health care workers. Am J Infect Control. 2006. 34:111–123.

18. 3M Avagard. Chlorhexidine Gluconate 1% solution and Ethyl alcohol 61% guideline. 2002. Unpublished manuscript.

TOOLS

Similar articles