Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zkb6p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T09:46:18.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Antimicrobial Efficacy of Two Hand Sanitizers in Intensive Care Units Common Areas: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2018

Abhishek Deshpande,
Jacqueline Fox,
Ken Koon Wong,
Jennifer L. Cadnum,
Thriveen Sankar,
Annette Jencson,
Sarah Schramm,
Thomas G. Fraser,
Curtis J. Donskey and
Steven Gordon
Abhishek Deshpande*
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OhioMedicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Jacqueline Fox
Affiliation:
Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Ken Koon Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Jennifer L. Cadnum
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Thriveen Sankar
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
Annette Jencson
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Sarah Schramm
Affiliation:
Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Thomas G. Fraser
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
Curtis J. Donskey
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OhioGeriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Steven Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Infectious Diseases, Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
*
Address correspondence to Abhishek Deshpande MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Desk G10, Cleveland OH 44195 (abhishekdp@gmail.com).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Contaminated hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are an important source of transmission of healthcare-associated infections. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers, while effective, do not provide sustained antimicrobial activity. The objective of this study was to compare the immediate and persistent activity of 2 hand hygiene products (ethanol [61% w/v] plus chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG; 1.0% solution] and ethanol only [70% v/v]) when used in an intensive care unit (ICU).

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study

SETTING

Three ICUs at a large teaching hospital

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 51 HCWs involved in direct patient care were enrolled in and completed the study.

METHODS

All HCWs were randomized 1:1 to either product. Hand prints were obtained immediately after the product was applied and again after spending 4–7 minutes in the ICU common areas prior to entering a patient room or leaving the area. The numbers of aerobic colony-forming units (CFU) were compared for the 2 groups after log transformation. Each participant tested the alternative product after a 3-day washout period.

RESULTS

On bare hands, use of ethanol plus CHG was associated with significantly lower recovery of aerobic CFU, both immediately after use (0.27 ± 0.05 and 0.88 ± 0.08 log10 CFU; P = .035) and after spending time in ICU common areas (1.81 ± 0.07 and 2.17 ± 0.05 log10 CFU; P<.0001). Both the antiseptics were well tolerated by HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the ethanol-only product, the ethanol plus CHG sanitizer was associated with significantly lower aerobic bacterial counts on hands of HCWs, both immediately after use and after spending time in ICU common areas.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02258412

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:267–271

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , March 2018, pp. 267 - 271
Copyright
© 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved 

Nosocomial infections are an important reason for increased morbidity and mortality among patients in hospitals and, specifically, intensive care units (ICUs).Reference Boev and Kiss 1 The hands of healthcare workers (HCWs) are generally considered the most important source of transmission of hospital-acquired infections (HAIs).Reference Allegranzi and Pittet 2 Pathogens can be acquired on hands after contact with patients or with contaminated environmental surfaces. Many Gram-positive and -negative bacteria and fungal pathogens can persist for weeks to months on dry surfaces.Reference Kramer, Schwebke and Kampf 3 It has also been estimated that among device-related nosocomial infections, 20%–40% of pathogens are transmitted via HCW hands.Reference Weinstein 4 As such, good hand hygiene among HCWs is paramount to reducing the spread of pathogens. Despite the evidence showing the efficacy of regular handwashing to curb the transmission of pathogens from HCWs to patients, a significant problem remains with generally low compliance rates among HCWs regarding hand hygiene protocols. The introduction of alcohol-based hand rubs has helped improve compliance with hand hygiene practices,Reference Bischoff, Reynolds and Sessler 5 – Reference Maury, Alzieu and Baudel 6 largely due to the time savings of hand sanitizer application versus handwashing with soap and water.

Alcohol-based sanitizers have excellent activity against resident and transient skin microbiota and are recommended for routine hand antisepsis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Reference Hugonnet, Perneger and Pittet 7 However, alcohol-only sanitizers are short acting and confer no sustained antimicrobial activity. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) has traditionally been used for skin antisepsis because it has broad-spectrum activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeasts, and enveloped viruses. Importantly, CHG also has persistent activity for several hours after application, which builds up with repeated use. The objective of this study was to use the rigor of a randomized, controlled trial to compare the immediate and persistent activity of 2 alcohol-based hand sanitizers (with and without CHG) when used in an ICU setting.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind trial (NCT02258412) used a crossover design in which 2 hand hygiene products were compared: (1) hand sanitizer containing ethanol (61% w/w) plus chlorhexidine gluconate (1% solution; Avagard, 3M, Maplewood, MN ) and (2) hand sanitizer containing ethanol (70% v/v; Purell Advanced Foam, Gojo, Akron, OH). Participants used both hand hygiene products with a washout period between products. The study was conducted in 3 ICUs at a teaching hospital and was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Cleveland Clinic. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. The HCWs involved with direct patient care (ie, registered nurses, residents, fellows, senior technicians, and attending physicians) were eligible to participate in the study. The HCW subject numbers were randomized to the order of product used. Randomization was achieved using a computer-generated treatment order with a block size of 10.

Eligible participants were not to use any CHG-containing products in the 72 hours prior to the study. The HCWs were randomly assigned to either ethanol-plus-CHG or ethanol-only hand hygiene products. On the first day of the study, after washing their hands with nonantimicrobial soap and water, each HCW applied the assigned product evenly to cover both hands until completely dry. The test products were dispensed through automated dispensers to deliver a single uniform volume of sanitizer. Both products are commercially available and were used according to the instructions on the manufacturer’s label.

To assess the efficacy on the resident microbiota, the nondominant hand was imprinted after using the hand sanitizer onto a nonselective tryptic soy agar handprint plate containing 0.01% lecithin and 0.5% polysorbate 80 to neutralize CHG (neutralizer incorporated into agar). This hand was then covered with a white cotton glove to avoid transfer of neutralizers to the other hand. The HCWs were then allowed to continue with their daily routine duties (eg, charting, keyboarding, phone calls, etc) in the ICU common areas. To assess the persistent efficacy of the sanitizers on the transient microbiota after spending time in the ICU common areas, HCWs provided an imprint of the ungloved dominant hand on a fresh agar plate, prior to leaving the area or entering a patient room. More than 3 days after the first participation (ie, the washout period), each HCW was invited to participate in the second arm of the study using the alternative product. Adverse reactions volunteered by the HCWs were collected. A formal medical evaluation was not planned.

All handprint plates were incubated at 35±2°C for 24±4 hours and observed for growth, and digital photos were taken. Image-Pro Premier was utilized to count the colonies. The numbers of aerobic colony-forming units (CFU) were compared for the 2 groups after log transformation. In addition, bacterial colonies consistent with staphylococci, enterococci, and Gram-negative bacilli were subjected to identification and susceptibility testing for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacilli, respectively using standard microbiological methods. The HCWs were blinded to the product used (ie, product names were obscured and similar dispensers were used) although there were some physical differences in the products. The investigator measuring the CFUs and area of bacterial growth within each hand print was blinded to the products, as was the statistician.

The effectiveness of the neutralizer (ie, 0.01% lecithin and 0.5% polysorbate 80) for CHG was verified in an independent, third-party neutralization verification study using a method adapted from ASTM E1054-08 (2013): Standard Test Methods for Evaluation of Inactivators of Antimicrobial Agents. Serratia marcescens ATCC 14756 was used as a marker organism. The neutralizers were found to be effective and nontoxic (data not shown, available upon request).

Statistical Analysis

Colony-forming units were converted to log10 CFU to stabilize the variance (mean log10 CFU ± standard error of the mean). Differences between the treatment groups were assessed using t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous measures and Fisher exact tests for categorical measures. A P value < .05 was considered significant. Any identification of drug-resistant organisms was summarized. A sample size of 45 subjects using both treatments provided 80% power to detect a change of 0.3 log10 (doubling of CFU). Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

RESULTS

A total of 51 HCWs from the 3 study ICUs entered the study and all completed testing for both products. The randomization of HCWs to each product is shown in Figure 1. Both sanitizers were well tolerated, and there were no reports of increased skin irritation or dryness. The duration of time spent by HCWs in the ICU common area prior to HCW handprints being sampled for persistent efficacy was 4–7 minutes.

Figure 1

CONSORT flow diagram depicting the flow of participants through the crossover trial.

Immediate Efficacy

In comparison to the ethanol-only product, use of ethanol plus CHG was associated with a significantly lower recovery of aerobic CFU counts after immediate use of the hand sanitizers (0.27 ± 0.05 log10 CFU vs 0.88 ± 0.08 log10 CFU; P = .035) (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

(A) Box plot comparing the recovery of aerobic colony-forming unit (CFU) counts after immediate use of ethanol-only and ethanol-plus- chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) hand sanitizers. (B) Box plot comparing the recovery of aerobic CFU counts of ethanol-only product and ethanol-plus-CHG hand sanitizers after spending time in the intensive care unit (ICU) common areas. Box plots depict the median (thick horizontal line), first and third quartiles (box), maximum and minimum values (whiskers), and outlying values (cross mark). The individual data points (diamonds) and their distribution curve is provided to the left of the box plot.

Persistent Efficacy

In comparison to the ethanol-only product, the use of ethanol plus CHG was associated with a significantly lower recovery of aerobic CFU counts (1.81±0.07 log10 CFU versus 2.17±0.05 log10 CFU; P < .0001) after spending time in the ICU common areas (Figure 2B).

Antibiotic-Resistant Organisms

No methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), or fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria were isolated immediately after use of either sanitizer. However, after spending time in the ICU common areas, 6 isolates of MRSA (1 in the alcohol plus CHG group and 5 in alcohol only group; P = .20) and 5 isolates of fluoroquinolone-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (Klebsiella, Pseudomonas spp; 2 in the alcohol plus CHG group, and 3 in the alcohol only group; P =1.0) were detected. No vancomycin-resistant enterococci were isolated. Overall, 3 participants in the alcohol plus CHG group had hand contamination with ≥1 of the resistant pathogens versus 8 in the alcohol-only group.

DISCUSSION

Use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer before and after patient contact is recommended to reduce the risk for transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings. In the current study, use of a hand sanitizer containing ethanol plus CHG was associated with significantly lower aerobic bacterial counts on hands of HCWs, both immediately after use and after spending time in ICU common areas. Moreover, we observed a trend toward less frequent acquisition of antibiotic-resistant pathogens on hands in the ethanol plus CHG group. Both products used in the study are commercially available and were used in line with the instructions on the label under real-world clinical conditions. Our findings suggest that the addition of CHG to alcohol-based hand sanitizers could be an effective approach to enhancing and extending the duration of antimicrobial activity.

Alcohols are very fast acting on a wide variety of pathogens and are recommended for routine hand antisepsis in healthcare facilities. Persistent antimicrobial activity may be beneficial for HCWs involved with patient care because flora on the skin regrows over time following the use of an alcohol-based sanitizer alone. An additional concern is the acquisition of bacteria on hands after contact with inanimate objects such as telephones and keyboards. Our findings are consistent with previous studies demonstrating that the persistent antimicrobial activity of CHG may be beneficial in reducing bacterial contamination on hands for up to several hours after application. 8 Also, after repeated use, CHG accumulates on skin, resulting in increased immediate bacteriocidal effects (cumulative efficacy).

In studies of CHG on bacterial activity, results can be skewed to show artificially high bacterial load reductions due to the continued bacteriocidal activity of CHG in the sampling medium.Reference Olson, Morse, Duley and Savelle 9 For this reason, an independent verification of the neutralization of CHG in our sampling medium was conducted, which confirmed that the neutralizer used in this study was both effective and nontoxic. Some antiseptic products or lotions contain thickeners or emulsifiers that dramatically reduce the persistent activity of CHG.Reference Kampf, Reichel, Hollingsworth and Bashir 10 , Reference Kaiser, Klein, Karanja, Greten and Newman 11 Therefore, when using hand sanitizers containing CHG, it is important that other products applied to the hands are compatible with CHG.

Our study has several limitations. A crossover design was chosen due to the heterogeneity (lack of uniformity) among HCWs. However, each HCW served as his or her own control, which reduced variation and increased study power. The study was not powered to detect a difference in hand contamination with resistant bacterial pathogens. Nevertheless, there was a trend toward a reduction in acquisition of resistant bacteria on hands of the ethanol plus CHG group in comparison to the ethanol only group. Bacterial contamination was assessed using agar hand prints rather than the glove juice technique. The latter technique is more effective in recovering a complete bacteria burden simply because it recovers bacteria from the entire hand, including between the fingers, the top of the hand, and the fingernails, whereas the handprint method only provides bacteria information from the bottom of the hand. The study was conducted in the ICU common areas. The hand cultures obtained after spending time in the ICU common areas were taken after only ~4–7 minutes rather than the 6 hours typically used in volunteer studies to assess persistence. Studies are needed that have longer periods of follow-up and involve patient rooms. Finally, it should be acknowledged that there is considerable debate regarding the value of adding CHG to alcohol-based surgical scrubs and hand sanitizers, including the potential for developing acquired resistance to CHG.Reference Macinga and Edmonds 13 – Reference Kampf 17 Additional studies are needed to provide a more complete assessment and understanding of the risks and benefits of this approach in ICUs and high-risk patient areas.Reference Kampf 17

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing CHG is associated with significantly lower aerobic bacterial counts on the hands of HCWs (compared with sanitizer without CHG), both immediately after use and after conducting normal activities in ICU common areas. Further studies are needed to determine whether the use of CHG-containing sanitizer results in sustained antimicrobial protection against healthcare-associated pathogens.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The study was designed in collaboration between the sponsors and authors. The sponsors had no role in study conduct and implementation, data collection, data interpretation and decision to publish.

Financial support: The study was funded by 3M.

Potential conflicts of interest: A.D. has received research funding from Steris, 3M, and Clorox. C.J.D. is on the advisory board of 3M and has received research funding from Gojo, Ecolab, and Clorox. S.D. is on the advisory board of 3M. All other authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

References

REFERENCES

1. Boev, C, Kiss, E. Hospital-acquired infections: current trends and prevention. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am 2017;29:51–65.Google Scholar
2. Allegranzi, B, Pittet, D. Role of hand hygiene in healthcare-associated infection prevention. J Hosp Infect 2009;73:305–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Kramer, A, Schwebke, I, Kampf, G. How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 2006;6:130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Weinstein, R. Epidemiology and control of nosocomial infections in adult intensive care units. Am J Med 1991;91(Suppl 3B):179s–184s.Google Scholar
5. Bischoff, WE, Reynolds, TM, Sessler, CT, et al. Hand washing compliance by health care workers: the impact of introducing an accessible, alcohol-based hand antiseptic. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1017–1021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Maury, E, Alzieu, M, Baudel, JL, et al. Availability of an alcohol solution can improve hand disinfection compliance in an intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:324–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hugonnet, S, Perneger, TV, Pittet, D. Alcohol-based handrub improves compliance with hand hygiene in intensive care units. Arch Intern Med 2002;162:1037–1043.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HICPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. MMWR 2002;51(No. RR16).Google Scholar
9. Olson, L, Morse, D, Duley, C, Savelle, B. Prospective, randomized in vivo comparison of a dual-active waterless antiseptic versus two alcohol-only waterless antiseptics for surgical hand antisepsis. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Kampf, G, Reichel, M, Hollingsworth, A, Bashir, M. Efficacy of surgical hand scrub products based on chlorhexidine is largely overestimated without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:e1–e5.Google Scholar
11. Kaiser, N, Klein, D, Karanja, P, Greten, Z, Newman, J. Inactivation of chlorhexidine gluconate on skin by incompatible alcohol hand sanitizing gels. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:569–573.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Senior, N. Some observations on the formulation and properties of chlorhexidine. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1973;24:259–278.Google Scholar
13. Macinga, DR, Edmonds, SL. Inclusion of chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol-based presurgical hand antiseptics: Can a product be considered “superior” if it does not meet established efficacy requirements? Am J Infect Control 2013;41:475–476.Google Scholar
14. Olson, LK. Response to letter, “Inclusion of chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol-based presurgical hand antiseptics: Can a product be considered ‘superior’ if it does not meet established efficacy requirements?”. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:476–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Macinga, DR, Edmonds, SL, Campbell, E, McCormack, RR. Comparative efficacy of alcohol-based surgical scrubs: the importance of formulation. AORN J 2014;100:641–650.Google Scholar
16. Rutter, JD, Angiulo, K, Macinga, DR. Measuring residual activity of topical antimicrobials: is the residual activity of chlorhexidine an artefact of laboratory methods? J Hosp Infect 2014;88:113–115.Google Scholar
17. Kampf, G. Acquired resistance to chlorhexidine—Is it time to establish an ‘antispetic stewardship’ initiative? J Hosp Infect 2016;94:213–227.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1CONSORT flow diagram depicting the flow of participants through the crossover trial.

Figure 1

Figure 2(A) Box plot comparing the recovery of aerobic colony-forming unit (CFU) counts after immediate use of ethanol-only and ethanol-plus- chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) hand sanitizers. (B) Box plot comparing the recovery of aerobic CFU counts of ethanol-only product and ethanol-plus-CHG hand sanitizers after spending time in the intensive care unit (ICU) common areas. Box plots depict the median (thick horizontal line), first and third quartiles (box), maximum and minimum values (whiskers), and outlying values (cross mark). The individual data points (diamonds) and their distribution curve is provided to the left of the box plot.