두 가지 알코올제제 손마찰과 포비돈 아이오다인의 외과적 손소독 효과 비교
A Comparison of Antimicrobial Effect of Two Waterless Alcohol-based Hand Rubs with a Povidone-Iodine Hand Scrub for Surgical Hand Antisepsis
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
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.
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.
참고문헌 (22)
- 김명숙, "손 소독제 및 소독방법에 따른 외과적 손 소독 효과", 기초간호자연과학회지, 9(2), pp.118~124 (2007), 기초간호자연과학회
- 김용순, "수술실 내에서 손씻기 시간과 소독제에 따른 살균효과 비교", 감염, 28(1), pp.41~49 (1996)
- 김준명, "1996년도 국내 병원감염률 조사연구", 병원감염관리, 2(2), pp.157~176 (1997)
- 박은숙, "수술부위감염에 따른 경제적 손실", 병원감염관리, 10(2), pp.57~64 (2005)
- 박은숙, "외과적 손소독에 대한 Chlorhexidine", Ethanol 연화제와 Povidone-Iodine의 비교, 2006, pp.11(1), 50~57
- 박은숙, "국내 병원의 소독제 사용 실태조사", 병원감염관리, 11(1), pp.42~49 (2006)
- 윤혜상, "의사와 간호사의 외과적 손씻기에 관한 지식, 태도 및 실천에 대한 조사 연구", 대한간호학회지, 26(3), pp.591~604 (1996)
- 정재심, "물 없이 사용하는 알코올 젤의 손소독 효과에 대한 연구", 대한기초간호자연과학학회지, 4(2), pp.127~137 (2002)
- 최정실, "물과솔없이사용하는외과적손소독제Chlorhexidine", Ethanol 혼합제와Povidone-iodine의소독효과, 2008, pp.38(1), 39~44[DOI]
- 홍성윤, "수술실 손 소독제의 종류에 따른 균주 수의 변화", 임상간호연구, 11(2), pp.91~101 (2006), 병원간호사회
- Ayliffe, G. A., "Surgical scrub and skin disinfection", Infection Control, 5(1), pp.23~27 (1984)
- Boyce, J. M., "Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care setting", Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51, pp.RR~16 (2002)
- Garner, J. S., "Guideline for prevention of surgical wound infection", American Journal of Infection Control, 14(2), pp.71~80 (1986)
- Gupta, C., "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, pp.65~71 (2007)
- Hobson, D. W., "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), pp.507~512 (1998)
- Kampf, G., "Efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection a controlled trial according to prEN 12791", Bioinformatics Infection Disease, 5(1), pp.17~ (2005)
- Kampf, G., "Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis", Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(6), pp.3856~3861 (2006)
- Kjolen, H., "Handwashing and disinfection of heavily contaminated hand-effective or ineffective", Journal of Hospital Infection, 21, pp.61~71 (1992)
- Larson, E. L., "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, pp.355~360 (1980)
- Marchetti, M. G., "Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of five products for surgical hand disinfection according to prEN 12054 and prEN 12791", Journal of Hospital Infection, 54, pp.63~67 (2003)
- Mulberry, G., "Evaluation of a waterless, scrubless chlorhexidine gluconate", ethanol surgical scrub for antimicrobial efficacy, 2001, pp.29(5), ~
- Pietsch, H., "Hand Antiseptics: Rubs versus scrubs, alcohol solutions versus alcoholic gels", Journal of Hospital Infection, 48, pp.S33~36 (2001)