Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:32:03.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effectiveness of Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs for Removal of Clostridium difficile Spores from Hands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Umair Jabbar
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Julie Leischner
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Douglas Kasper
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Robert Gerber
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Susan P. Sambol
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois
Jorge P. Parada
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois
Stuart Johnson
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois
Dale N. Gerding*
Affiliation:
Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois
*
Research Service (151), Hines VA Hospital, 5000 S Fifth Ave, Bldg 1, Rm C344, Hines, IL 60141, (dale.gerding2@va.gov)

Extract

Background.

Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) are an effective means of decreasing the transmission of bacterial pathogens. Alcohol is not effective against Clostridium difficile spores. We examined the retention of C. difficile spores on the hands of volunteers after ABHR use and the subsequent transfer of these spores through physical contact.

Methods.

Nontoxigenic C. difficile spores were spread on the bare palms of 10 volunteers. Use of 3 ABHRs and chlorhexidine soap-and-water washing were compared with plain water rubbing alone for removal of C. difficile spores. Palmar cultures were performed before and after hand decontamination by means of a plate stamping method. Transferability of C. difficile after application of ABHR was tested by having each volunteer shake hands with an uninoculated volunteer.

Results.

Plain water rubbing reduced palmar culture counts by a mean (± standard deviation [SD]) of 1.57 ± 0.11 log10 colony-forming units (CFU) per cm2, and this value was set as the zero point for the other products. Compared with water washing, chlorhexidine soap washing reduced spore counts by a mean ( ± SD) of 0.89 ± 0.34 log10 CFU per cm2; among the ABHRs, Isagel accounted for a reduction of 0.11 ± 0.20 log10 CFU per cm2 (P = .005), Endure for a reduction of 0.37 ± 0.42 log10 CFU per cm2 (P = .010), and Purell for a reduction of 0.14 ± 0.33 log10 CFU per cm2 (P = .005). There were no statistically significant differences between the reductions achieved by the ABHRs; only Endure had a reduction statistically different from that for water control rubbing (P = .040). After ABHR use, handshaking transferred a mean of 30% of the residual C. difficile spores to the hands of recipients.

Conclusions.

Hand washing with soap and water is significantly more effective at removing C. difficile spores from the hands of volunteers than are ABHRs. Residual spores are readily transferred by a handshake after use of ABHR.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.O'Brien, JA, Lahue, BJ, Caro, JJ, Davidson, DM. The emerging infectious challenge of Clostridium difficile-associated disease in Massachusetts hospitals: clinical and economic consequences. Infect ControlHosp Epidemiol 2007;28:12191227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Razavi, B, Apisarnthanarak, A, Mundy, LM. Clostridium difficile: emergence of hypervirulence and fluoroquinolone resistance. Infection 2007;35(5): 300307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Boyce, JM. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infection. J Hosp Infect 2007;65 (Suppl 2):5054.Google Scholar
4.Gerding, DN, Muto, CA, Owens, RC Jr.Measures to control and prevent Clostridium diffidle infection. Clin Infect Dis 2008;46 (Suppl 1):S43S49.Google Scholar
5.Boyce, JM, Pittet, D; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee; HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Guideline for hand hygiene in healthcare settings: recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee and the HIPAC/SHEA/APIC/IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Force. Am J Infect Control 2002;30(8):S1S46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Weber, DJ, Sickbert-Bennett, E, Gergen, MF, Rutala, WA. Efficacy of selected hand hygiene agents used to remove Bacillus atrophaeus (a surrogate of Bacillus anthracis) from contaminated hands. JAMA 2003;289(10): 12741277.Google Scholar
7.Russell, AD. Bacterial spores and chemical sporicidal agents. Clin Microbiol Rev 1990;3(2:99119.Google Scholar
8.Muto, CA, Pokrywka, M, Shutt, K, et al.A large outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated disease with an unexpected proportion of deaths and colectomies at a teaching hospital following increased fluoroquinolone use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(3:273280.Google Scholar
9.Boyce, JM, Ligi, C, Kohan, C, Dumigan, D, Havill, NL. Lack of association between the increased incidence of Clostridium difficile-associated disease and the increasing use of alcohol-based hand rubs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27(5:479483.Google Scholar
10.Gordin, FM, Schultz, ME, Huber, RA, Gill, JA. Reduction in nosocomial transmission of drug-resistant bacteria after introduction of an alcohol-based hand rub. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005;26(7:650653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Rao, GG, Jeanes, A, Osman, M, Aylott, C, Green, J. Marketing hand hygiene in hospitals-a case study. J Hosp Infect 2002;50(1):4247.Google Scholar
12.King, S. Provision of alcohol hand rub at the hospital bedside: a case study. J Hosp Infect 2004;56(Suppl 2):S10S12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Bettin, K, Clabots, C, Mathie, P, Willard, K, Gerding, DN. Effectiveness of liquid soap versus Chlorhexidine gluconate for the removal of Clostridium difficile from bare hands and gloved hands. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1994;15:697702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Wilson, KH, Kennedy, MJ, Fekety, FR. Use of sodium taurochlorate to enhance spore recovery on a medium selective for Clostridium difficile. J Clin Microbiol 1982;15(3:443446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kelly, CP, LaMont, JT. Clostridium difficile-more difficult than ever. NEJM 2008;359:19321940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.McFarland, LV, Beneda, HW, Clarridge, JE, Raugi, GJ. Implications of the changing face of Clostridium difficile disease for healthcare practitioners. Am J Infect Control 2007;35(4:237253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Durai, R. Epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of Clostridium difficile infection. Dig Dis Sci 2007;52:29582962.Google Scholar
18.Rupp, ME, Fitzgerald, T, Puumala, S, et al.Prospective, controlled, crossover trial of alcohol-based hand gel in critical care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29(1:815.Google Scholar
19.Vernaz, N, Sax, H, Pittet, D, Bonnabry, P, Schrenzel, J, Harbarth, S. Temporal effects of antibiotic use and hand rub consumption on the incidence of MRSA and Clostridium difficile. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:601607.Google Scholar
20.Oughton, MT, Loo, VG, Dendukuri, N, Fenn, S, Libman, MD. Hand hygiene with soap and water is superior to alcohol rub and antiseptic wipes for removal of Clostridium difficile. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30: 939944.Google Scholar
21.Edmunds, S, Kasper, D, Zapka, C, et al.Clostridium difficile and hand hygiene: spore removal effectiveness of handwash products. In: Program and abstracts of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Arlington, VA: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, 2009. Abstract 42.Google Scholar