Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of povidone-iodine, povidone-iodine-ethanol and chlorhexidine gluconate-ethanol surgical scrubs.
BACKGROUND
Scrubbing of the hands and forearms with a brush and antiseptic agents has been the standard for surgical practice. However, it has been increasingly recognized that brush scrubbing may provoke side effects and that an alcohol-based hand antiseptic used in conjunction with a scrub agent enhances the effectiveness. In this study, two types of alcohol-based agents were used after a povidone-iodine (PVP-I) scrub and compared for their effectiveness.


METHODS
The study was conducted as a crossover trial with 20 volunteers. After hand rubbing with PVP-I, either PVP-I-ethanol rubbing or chlorhexidine gluconate-ethanol (CHG-ethanol) rubbing was used for surgical hand cleansing. Samples were collected by the modified glove juice method to count bacteria on hands.


RESULTS
In both groups, the bacterial count was significantly reduced after handwashing (p < 0.001), and the reduction was still significant after 2 h (p < 0.001 for PVP-I-ethanol and p < 0.002 for CHG-ethanol). The log(10) reduction factor (RF) in the PVP-I-ethanol group was significantly higher than that in the CHG-ethanol group immediately after handwashing (p < 0.001) but significantly lowered after 2 h (p < 0.01) to the level similar to that of CHG-ethanol. Although RF was lower in the CHG-ethanol group immediately after and 2 h after handwashing compared to the PVP-I-ethanol group, it did not decrease with time.


CONCLUSIONS
Brushless surgical scrubbing with PVP-I-ethanol or CHG-ethanol in conjunction with PVP-I showed antiseptic effects immediately after and 2 h after handwashing. RF immediately after handwashing was significantly higher with PVP-I-ethanol compared to CHG-ethanol, but it was similar in both groups after 2 h. These results suggest that when used in combination with a PVP-I scrub, an alcohol-based hand antiseptic containing the same active agent (PVP-I in this study) has a powerful antiseptic effect; however, when it contains different antiseptic agents (i.e. CHG in this study), it should be selected carefully based on its antiseptic property.
Nishimura
Chieko
C
Operating Suite, Shinshu University Hospital, Nagano 390-8621, Japan. cnishim@hsp.me.shinshu-u.ac.jp
D000287:Administration, Topical; D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D002710:Chlorhexidine / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D015169:Colony Count, Microbial; D004203:Disinfection / Q000379:methods; D004338:Drug Combinations; D000431:Ethanol / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D006235:Hand Disinfection / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D011206:Povidone-Iodine / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D013997:Time Factors
D000891:Anti-Infective Agents, Local; D004338:Drug Combinations; D000431:Ethanol; D011206:Povidone-Iodine; C010882:chlorhexidine gluconate; D002710:Chlorhexidine