June 2008 - Volume 2, Issue 3

Efficacy of Betadine and Decosept for surgical hand scrub on Bacterial Colony Count (BCC)

Kobra Rezaei 1, Yadollah Sahranavard 2, Maryam Nooritajer 3 1) Faculty member of Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Lorestan, Iran. 2) Master of Microbiology, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Lorestan, Iran. 3) Associate Professor of Iran University of medical Sciences Correspondence: Kobra Resaei P.O. Box: 1951633731, Kolahdooz (Dolat) St, South Dibaji St, Dead end Bazargani, No 47, Unit 1, Rezaei, Tehran, Iran Te: +98 22545987 Email: rezaei_159@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT Introduction: Nowadays in most operating rooms in developed countries, the surgical team, scrubs with an efficient agent for a short time, while, in Iran often the surgical team uses conventional and routine hand scrubbing (with Betadine more than 3 min). The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of Betadine and an alcoholic agent (Decosept) on BCC. Methods: Twenty cases were selected from operating room Scrub Nurses. Firstly, all subjects washed their hands for 1 minute with non-antibacterial soap. Then, in the first stage, each subject scrubbed their hands with Betadine (Povidone Iodine 7.5 %) for 3 minutes and dried by sterile towel after rinse. Bacterial post-value I (immediate effect) was obtained for one hand and the other hand was gloved for 2 hours. After the removing the gloves, a second post-value-II, was obtained for sustained effect. After one week, for second stage, all subjects first, washed their hand and the bacterial pre-value was obtained such as in the first stage. Then, each subject scrubbed with Decosept by using as many portions as necessary to keep hands wet for 3 min (10-12 ml). Bacterial post-value I (immediate effect) was obtained for one hand and the other hand was gloved for 2 hours. After removing gloves, a second post-value II was obtained for sustained effect. Results: BCC frequency was different for immediate effect of Betadine and Decosept (38 & 25), and also for 2 hours after scrubbing (72 & 40). The mean of BCC reduction immediately after Betadine and Decosept scrub were significantly different (P=0.011). Conclusion: The results showed that the alcohol agent (Decosept) was more efficient on BCC reduction. We suggest more use of the alcohol agents for hand surgical scrub instead of others. Key words: Betadine, Decosept, Surgical Scrub, Bacterial Colony Count; Efficacy of Betadine and Decosept for surgical hand scrub on Bacterial Colony Count (BCC).

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important health and medical care activity to prevent the transmission of nosocomial infection is hand washing. Medical hand scrub methods are used for washing and disinfecting of hands in non-invasive processes; but for invasive processes, such as surgery, hands should be disinfected with the surgical hand scrub method. The aim of the surgical hand scrub is removing dirt, killing the transient skin bacteria, and prevention of growth of resident skin bacteria of hand^(1,2). Contagious Disease Committees alway introduces new methods for reduction of contamination to prevent nosocomial infections⁽³⁾.

Agents used for disinfection of hands before surgery should have powerful and quick antiseptic effects, without irritant and allergen effects for skin, and with persistent efficacy for prevention of bacterial growth during the operation⁽⁴⁾. Several materials have heretofore been used for surgical scrub of hands such as Antibacterial Soaps, Hibitan, Chlorhexidine, Betadine (Povidone Iodine 7.5%)⁽⁵⁾.

Among these agents, Betadine scrub has been conventionally and generally used in Iran for years, whereas alcoholic agents with powerful and longtime antiseptic effects that can disinfect hands in a short time (3 minutes) are preferred and used in European countries (6) due to their efficacy and less irritant and allergen effects after longtime use^(5,7).

Many studies show alcohol-based agents (ethanol or propanol), compared with other materials, have more persistent and quick antiseptic effects. It means that these agents can remove transient skin bacteria in the shortest time; furthermore, they can control and cease the growth of resident skin bacteria for a long time^(8,9).

Although some researchers have indicated the effect of Povidone Iodine 7.5% in reduction of bacteria of hand with more than 3 minutes scrubbing and less than 2 hours permanence, this agent, compared with alcoholic agents, have had less power to control resident skin bacteria^(10,11). The aim of this study is to compare efficacy of Betadine and an alcoholic agent (Decosept) for surgical hand scrub on Bacterial Colony Count (BCC).

METHODS

This clinical trial was conducted on 20 (13 women and 7 men) healthy human subjects (operating room nurses of Tamin-e-Ejtemaee Hospital in Khorram-Abad in Iran, 2006) who met the necessary inclusin criteria and were aged 21-28 years old. The same group was used in both stages of the study for assimilating of samples and deletion of some effective agent on skin bacterial flora. At the first stage, Betadine (Povidone Iodine 7.5%) and then (1 week later) at the second stage, Decosept (100g contains: 44.7g Iso-propanol, 21.9g N-propanol, and 0.1g Benzalkoniumchlorid) were used for scrubbing. Cases were initially controlled for the following criteria:

1. They should refrain from having contact with any local antimicrobial-containing material (such as ointment, cream, soap, and shampoo) and using systemic antibiotics for one week before the study and during the study (for protection of bacteria flora).
   
2. Skin of their hands was intact without any abrasion and fingernails were clipped.
   
3. Both groups scrubbed for 3 min so nthat fingertips up to wrist was disinfected (without using a brush).
   
4. The scrub method was performed by routine technique in the Betadine stage and according to special instructions in the Decosept stage.
   
5. First stage: a culture sample was provided for determination of pre-value after hand washing with 5ml of a non-antimicrobial soap for 1 minute and then toweling dry. Hands were scrubbed for 3 minutes then (for 3 times and every time for 1 min with a 5ml of Betadine), namely after wetting hands; they were disinfected from fingertips up to wrists and then washed and dried with a sterile towel.
   
6. After one week: all the subjects (20 cases) washed their hands for 1 minute with soap and toweled them again. The culture sample was then provided for determination of pre-value. They rubbed their hands with 10-12ml of Decosept for 3 minutes after that (according to instructions and without washing). The moisture of hands with this agent should have been sustained during the disinfecting by Decosept⁽³⁾. Totally of 120 samples (60 samples in each stage) were provided and cultured. The plates were coded after sampling.
   

Pre-value determination:
In this study, TSB (Tryptic Soy Broth) and TSA (Tryptic Soy Agar) standard cultures of Merk Company were used. Sampling was performed with PrEN12791 standard method in 9cm diameter plates which contained 10ml TSB⁽⁵⁾. This sampling method is used in European countries to determine preparation and purity of hands after primary washing⁽¹¹⁾. In this method, a tenth of the diluted matter from hands was settled in TSB culture and then was distributed (with a sterile spatula) in TSA culture. Period of sampling to culturing onset was performed in less than 30 minutes. The plates were incubated at 36±1oC for 48 hours. The Colony Forming Unit (CFU) was then enumerated in each plate.

Determination of immediate after disinfection criterion (Post-value I):
All the subjects set their fingertips of one hand into TSB culture for 1 min after hand disinfecting by either agent (Betadine or Decosept). Neutralizers (3% Tween 80, 3% Saponin, 1% Histidin, 0.1% Cystein) was added in each plate and then the other hand was put in a sterile glove.

Determination of persistence of antiseptic agent efficacy criterion (Post-value II):
Gloves were removed after 2 hours and fingertip sampling for 1 minute was performed by the previous method (for examination of immediate effect). Diluted matter in TSB was taken from plates and settled and distributed (with sterile spatula) in TSA plates. Then the plates were incubated at 36±1oC for 48 hours outright. The period of sampling and putting them into the incubator was done in less than 30 minutes. The CFU was enumerated in each plate after exiting from the incubator.

The bacterial colony counts were converted to logarithms, and log10 reductions from the baseline were calculated for each period (Pre-value, immediate after disinfection and 2 hours after disinfection criteria).

Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS v.12 software after data adjustment. Demonstration of a normal distribution was obtained by using the one-sample kolmogrov smirnov test. Statistical comparisons between groups were performed by paired t-test.

RESULTS

The results of 120 cultured samples in two stages (60 samples in each stage) were provided from 20 nurses from the operating room:

1) There was no statistical difference between both stages in means of colony-forming count after hand-washing with non-antimicrobial soap.

2) The means of colony forming count after hand washing with soap compared with immediate after disinfecting by Betadine showed a prominent statistical difference (P=0.000).

3) The means of reduction of colony forming count for immediately after disinfecting by Betadine compared with 2 hours after showed a prominent statistical difference (P=0.001).

4) There was a statistical difference between means of colony-forming count, after hand washing with soap and immediately after disinfecting by Decosept (P=0.000).

5) The means of increasing of colony-forming counts for immediately after disinfecting by Decosept compared with 2 hours after, showed a statistical difference (P=0.001).

6) The means of reduction of colony forming counts for immediately after disinfecting by Betadine compared with Decosept showed a prominent statistical difference (P=0.011).

7) The means of increasing colony-forming count for 2 hours after disinfecting by Betadine compared with Decosept (for determining of agent persistence) showed a prominent statistical difference (P=0.023). (Table 1)

8) Comparison between antiseptic effect immediatlye and 2 hours after disinfecting showed the increase in colony forming of about 1.7 in Betadine (P=0.001) versus about 1.15 in Decosept (P=0.001) (Table 2).

9) Bacterial colony frequency after hand washing with soap was about 2-14 colonies in each culture (total of 114 and 122 for Betadine and Decosept respectively).

10) Bacterial colony frequency immediately after scrubbing with Betadine was about 1-7 colonies in each culture (total of 38).

11) Bacterial colony frequency 2 hours after scrubbing with Betadine was about 1-13 colonies in each culture (total of 72).

12) Bacterial colony frequency immediately after scrubbing with Decosept was about 0-2 colonies in each culture (total of 25).

13) Bacterial colony frequency 2 hours after scrubbing with Decosept was about 0-5 colonies in each culture (total of 40). (Figure 1)

Figure 1- Comparison between reduction of colony frequency after hand-washing with soap, immediately and 2 hours after scrubbing with Betadine and Decosept.

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed the efficacy of both Betadine (Povidone Iodine 7.5%) and Decosept (contained Propanol) agents on immediate and longtime reduction of skin bacteria, which corresponds, to Kampf and Nishimura research^(5,9).

According to the aim of the study, Betadine and Decosept have a prominent difference in immediate reduction of skin bacteria, which was evidenced by colony count in cultured samples of subjects. This result equates with other research, which has shown the efficacy of alcoholic agents over routine agents in reducing colonies of the skin bacteria^(10,11).

Whereas cleaning of transient skin bacteria off the hand in the shortest time is very important, and for nosocomial infections control, considering the efficacy and longtime effect of Decosept on reduction of microorganisms with 3 minutes of scrubbing, it is better to replace Betadine with Decosept for hand scrub.

The moisture of hands with alcoholic agents such as Decosept should be sustained during the scrubbing. In this study, 10-12ml of Decosept was sufficient for every scrub. Results of Kampf and Ostermeyer (2004) research showed various volumes of N-propanol 60% and the quantity which kept the moisture of hands have the same effect on reduction of colonies⁽¹¹⁾.

It is necessary to use a longterm effect agent to keep the antiseptic status of hand in glove for prolonged (more than 1 hour) and major surgery. In this study, there was a prominent difference between means of reduction of colony growth of hand in glove after scrubbing by Decosept compared with Betadine. This difference of persistency of alcoholic agents during the surgery in keeping the antiseptic status of hand skin has been shown in the Bryce study⁽¹²⁾.

Therefore, it is recommended that alcoholic agents such as Decosept be used instead of other antiseptic agents as far as possible.

Generally, there was a prominent difference between Betadine comparing with Decosept in reduction of colony count immediately after disinfecting and increasing of colony count 2 hours after it. Therefore, considering health workers' important goal and duty for controlling nosocomial infections, they should be encouraged to use more alcoholic agents (Decosept). It is also necessary to study possible complications in bacterial flora and skin dehydration through the prolonged use of alcoholic agents.

REFERENCES

1. Rotler ML. Hand washing and hand disinfection. Hospital epidemiology and infection control. Lippincott willies Wilkins, Philadelphia, 1999.
   
2. 2. Fry A, MT (ASCP) CM, Burger T. Hand hygiene compliance: Step up, reach out.
   Nurs Manag 2006; 37: 40-4.
   
3. 3. Boyce JM, Pitter D. Guideline for hand hygiene in health - cane setting. Recommendation of the Health cane Infection control practices Advisory Committee and the HICAC / SHEA / APIC / IDSA Hand Hygiene Task Fore Mo Montal. Wkiy Rep 2002; 51: 1-45.
   
4. 4. Fortunato N, Berry and Kohn's. Operating room Technique. 9th ed, London: Mosby co 2000: 243-246.
   
5. 5. Kampf G, Kramer A. Epidemiology background of hand hygiene and evaluation of most important agents for scrubs and rubs. Clin Microbiol Rev 2004;17: 663-893.
   
6. 6. Twomey C. Hand Hygiene, Best practice for 2006. May 2006. TCT-Main Articles. In:[www.infectioncontroltoday.com]
   
7. 7. Betadine surgical scrub complications. update: 2004. Copyright: 2006. in:[www.netdoctor.com.uk/medicine]
   
8. 8. Hsieh HF, Chiu H H, Lee FP. Surgical hand scrub in relation to microbial count: Systematic literature review. J Advan Nurs 2006; 55: 68-72.
   
9. 9. Nishimura C. Comparison of the antimicrobial Efficacy of Povidone Iodine- Ethanol and Chlorhexidine Gluconate-Ethanol Surgical Scrub. Dermatology 2006; 212: 21-5.
   
10. 10. Labadie, Kampf G, Lejeune B, Exner M, et al. Recommendation for surgical hand disinfection - requirements, implementation and need for research. A proposal by representative of the SFHH, DGHM and DGKH for a European discussion. J Hosp Infect 2002; 51:312-5.
    
11. 11. Kampf G, Ostermeyer C. Influence of Applied Volume on Efficacy of 3 - Minute Surgical Reference Disinfection Method PrEN 12791. Appl Environmen Microbiol 2004; 70: 7066-9.
    
12. 12. Bryce EA. Spence F, Roberts FJ. An in use evaluation of on alcohol based pre - surgical hand disinfectant. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2001; 22: 635-9.