Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students

Po-Yen Chou, Aimie J. Doyle, Shiori Arai, Pierre J. Burke, Trina R. Bailey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Study Population: Third year veterinary students (n = 45). Methods: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively. Results: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups. Conclusion: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)515-522
Number of pages8
JournalVeterinary Surgery
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

chlorhexidine
veterinarians
hands
Hand
Students
Stem Cells
2-Propanol
isopropyl alcohol
shrublands
surgery
Antisepsis
gluconates
chlorhexidine gluconate
1-propanol
spore-forming bacteria
1-Propanol
Gram-Positive Bacteria
Gram-positive bacteria
Spores
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • veterinary(all)

Cite this

Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students. / Chou, Po-Yen; Doyle, Aimie J.; Arai, Shiori; Burke, Pierre J.; Bailey, Trina R.

In: Veterinary Surgery, Vol. 45, No. 4, 01.05.2016, p. 515-522.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chou, Po-Yen ; Doyle, Aimie J. ; Arai, Shiori ; Burke, Pierre J. ; Bailey, Trina R. / Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students. In: Veterinary Surgery. 2016 ; Vol. 45, No. 4. pp. 515-522.
@article{dd0a0225d64e431e87d0f39dd910ea3a,
title = "Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Study Population: Third year veterinary students (n = 45). Methods: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4{\%} chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30{\%} 1-propanol and 45{\%} 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70{\%} 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61{\%} ethanol solution with 1{\%} chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively. Results: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups. Conclusion: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.",
author = "Po-Yen Chou and Doyle, {Aimie J.} and Shiori Arai and Burke, {Pierre J.} and Bailey, {Trina R.}",
year = "2016",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/vsu.12473",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "515--522",
journal = "Veterinary Surgery",
issn = "0161-3499",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Antibacterial Efficacy of Several Surgical Hand Preparation Products Used by Veterinary Students

AU - Chou, Po-Yen

AU - Doyle, Aimie J.

AU - Arai, Shiori

AU - Burke, Pierre J.

AU - Bailey, Trina R.

PY - 2016/5/1

Y1 - 2016/5/1

N2 - Objective: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Study Population: Third year veterinary students (n = 45). Methods: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively. Results: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups. Conclusion: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.

AB - Objective: To compare the antibacterial efficacy of different surgical hand antisepsis protocols used by veterinary students. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Study Population: Third year veterinary students (n = 45). Methods: The participants were randomly assigned to 4 of the following 12 hand preparation product/time combinations: nonabrasive hand scrub method with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CH); hand rub with a mixture of 30% 1-propanol and 45% 2-propanol solution (MPS), 70% 2-propanol solution (IPS), or 61% ethanol solution with 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (ES/CH), with a contact time of 1.5, 3, or 5 minutes. Antibacterial efficacy was assessed after surgical hand preparation and at the end of surgery. Log reductions of total bacterial colony forming unit (CFU)/mL and positive aerobic culture rates were compared using multivariable analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression, respectively. Results: After surgical hand preparation, CH and ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive and spore-forming bacteria compared to MPS and IPS. Increase in contact time did not provide significant improvement in bacterial reduction. At the end of surgery, ES/CH provided significantly higher log CFU reduction compared to IPS and lower positive culture rate for Gram-positive bacteria compared to CH, MPS, and IPS. Increase in contact time significantly improved log CFU reduction in ES/CH and MPS groups. Conclusion: In our population of veterinary students ES/CH hand rubs or CH scrubs were more effective in reducing bacterial CFU during surgical hand preparation than MPS or IPS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964961090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964961090&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/vsu.12473

DO - 10.1111/vsu.12473

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 515

EP - 522

JO - Veterinary Surgery

JF - Veterinary Surgery

SN - 0161-3499

IS - 4

ER -