Search

The use of passive disinfection devices (disinfection caps) may be a beneficial part of a maintenance care bundle, aiming at the prevention of catheter-related bloodstream infections in pediatric cancer patients. This preclinical in vitro investigation tested the visual and mechanical integrity of a Broviac™ catheter hub after simulation testing with 122 3M™ CurosTM Stopper Disinfection Caps for Open Female Luers repeatedly attached and removed over 6 months. We found that these catheter hubs were compatible, fully operational, and airtight with use of 3M Curos stopper caps after 6 months of use with 122 caps per catheter hub. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are of major concern in infection control. Although broad infection control actions to check VRE have been implemented, VRE remain part of daily infection preven- tion in clinical settings. Cleaning procedures in the inanimate ward environment might play a key role in controlling VRE. In order to optimize infection control management at University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany (UHF), this study evaluates the impact of H2O2-containing cleaning wipes compared to Glucoprotamin containing wipes on VRE prevalence in intensive care wards. Methods: Retrospective analyses were conducted of the VRE prevalence on environmental materials obtained from three intensive care units (ICU) at UHF for 17 months prior to (T1) and during the 25 months after (T2) the implementation of H2O2-containing cleaning wipes from January 2016 to June 2019. The bactericidal power of the two disinfectants against VRE was compared using the 4-field test according to EN 16615 (2015). Results: At T1 and T2, n=666 and n=710 environmental samples, re- spectively, were obtained. At T1, 24.2% (n=161/666; 95% confidence interval: 21.0–27.6) and at T2, 6.9% (n=49/710; 5.1–9.0) samples were positive for VRE. In vitro disinfectant testing did not reveal any superiority of H2O2 over glucoprotamin. No effect on the VRE prevalence in patients' rectal screening materials was observed. Conclusion: Though Glucoprotamin and H2O2 were in vitro equally effective against VRE, the prevalence of VRE in ICU environment at UHF de- creased after implementation of H2O2-containig wipes. This might be due to multiple factors, of which we consider the impact of the Hawthorne effect to be the strongest. Success of infection control strategies might depend on the compliance of the persons critically in- volved. Transparent information on infection control strategies is sug- gested to increase compliance and should therefore be considered both in daily infection control and outbreak management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Two test methods for surface disinfection (phase 2, step 2) – the Wiperator method (ASTM standard E2967-15) and the 4-field test (EN 16615) – were compared using a disinfectant solution based on qua- ternary ammonium compounds and a ready-to-use alcohol-based wipe. As test organisms, Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeru- ginosa were used. Results: While the 4-field test is a manual method and better reflects the process in practice, with the Wiperator, the wiping process is better controlled because it is an automated procedure. A comparison of the effects of both methods on the target log10-reduction of S. aureus and P. aeruginosa indicates a statistically significant difference between the two test methods (Mann-Whitney U-Test. S. aureus: 0 (Umin)<4 (Ucrit); n1=8, n2=8, p=0.001; 2-sided. P. aeruginosa: 24 (Umin)<26 (Ucrit); n1=11, n 2=10, p=0.025, 2-sided). In addition, the results indicate that the wipe used has a major influence on the success of the disinfection process. Discussion: Both methods are suitable for efficacy studies of surface disinfectants, yet they differ in some aspects. Additionally our data indicate a statistically significant difference between the two test methods. Conclusion: Efficiency testing of surface disinfection is a complex process that depends on many different parameters. Since the 4-field test better reflects the practice, it makes sense to stick to this test procedure, taking into account that the EN 16615 was approved by CEN TC 216 in 2015 after method validation ring trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has recently been reported that reusable dispensers for surface disinfection tissues may be contaminated, especially with adapted Achromobacter species 3, when products based on surface-active ingredients are used. Fresh solution may quickly become recontaminated if dispensers are not processed adequately. Methods: We evaluated the abilities of six manual and three automatic processes for processing contaminated dispensers to prevent recolonisation of a freshly-prepared disinfectant solution (Mikrobac forte 0.5%). Dispensers were left at room temperature for 28 days. Samples of the disinfectant solution were taken every 7 days and assessed quantitatively for bacterial contamination. Results: All automatic procedures prevented recolonisation of the disinfectant solution when a temperature of 60-70°C was ensured for at least 5 min, with or without the addition of chemical cleaning agents. Manual procedures prevented recontamination of the disinfectant solution when rinsing with hot water or a thorough cleaning step was performed before treating all surfaces with an alcohol-based disinfectant or an oxygen-releaser. Other cleaning and disinfection procedures, including the use of an alcohol-based disinfectant, did not prevent recolonisation. Conclusions: These results indicate that not all processes are effective for processing reusable dispensers for surface-disinfectant tissues, and that a high temperature during the cleaning step or use of a biofilm-active cleaning agent are essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]