首页> 外文OA文献 >Evaluation of Two Methods of Determining the Efficacies of Two Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs for Surgical Hand Antisepsis
【2h】

Evaluation of Two Methods of Determining the Efficacies of Two Alcohol-Based Hand Rubs for Surgical Hand Antisepsis

机译:两种确定两种含酒精的手部磨砂膏对手术手消毒功效的评价方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The antimicrobial efficacies of preparations for surgical hand antisepsis can be determined according to a European standard (prEN 12791 [EN]) and a U.S. standard (tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products [TFM]). The U.S. method differs in the product application mode (hands and lower forearms, versus hands only in EN), the number of applications (11 over 5 days, versus a single application in EN), the sampling times (0, 3, and 6 h after application, versus 0 and 3 h in EN), the sampling methods (glove juice versus fingertip sampling in EN), and the outcome requirements (absolute bacterial reduction factor [RF], versus noninferiority to reference treatment in EN). We have studied the efficacies of two hand rubs according to both methods. One hand rub was based on 80% ethanol and applied for 2 min, and the other one was based on 45% propan-2-ol, 30% propan-1-ol, and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulfate and applied for 1.5 min. The ethanol-based hand rub was equally effective as the 3-min reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.97 ± 0.89 versus 2.92 ± 1.03, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.20 ± 1.07 versus 2.47 ± 1.25, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.99 log10 (day 1), 3.00 log10 (day 2), and 3.43 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. The propanol-based hand rub was even more effective than the reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.35 ± 0.99 versus 1.86 ± 0.87, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.17 ± 1.00 versus 1.50 ± 1.26, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.82 log10 (day 1), 3.29 log10 (day 2), and 3.25 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. Some formulations have been reported to meet the efficacy requirements of one of the methods but not those of the other. That is why we conclude that, despite our results, meeting the efficacy requirements of one test method does not allow the claim that the requirements of the other test method are also met.
机译:可以根据欧洲标准(prEN 12791 [EN])和美国标准(关于卫生保健杀菌药物的暂定最终专论[TFM])确定用于手术手消毒的制剂的抗菌功效。 US方法在产品应用模式(手和下前臂,仅在EN中为手),应用次数(5天为11,而在EN中为单次应用),采样时间(0、3和6)方面有所不同施用后1 h,在EN中为0和3 h),采样方法(在EN中为手套汁与指尖采样)和结果要求(绝对细菌减少因子[RF],与在EN中不逊色于参考治疗)。我们已经根据这两种方法研究了两次搓手的功效。一只手以80%乙醇为基础擦拭2分钟,另一只手以45%丙-2-醇,30%丙-1-醇和0.2%乙磺酸硫酸西雌ium酯擦拭1.5分钟。基于乙醇的手部擦拭与prEN 12791的3分钟参考消毒在即时(RF,分别为2.97±0.89和2.92±1.03)和持续(RF,分别为2.20±1.07和2.47±1.25)中均有效。 )效果。根据TFM,即时影响为2.99 log10(第1天),3.00 log10(第2天)和3.43 log10(第5天),并且细菌计数在6小时后仍低于基线。在立即(RF,分别为2.35±0.99和1.86±0.87)和持续(RF,分别为2.17±1.00和1.50±1.26)效果方面,基于丙醇的手擦比prEN 12791的参考消毒更加有效。 。根据TFM,即时影响为2.82 log10(第1天),3.29 log10(第2天)和3.25 log10(第5天),并且细菌计数在6小时后仍低于基线。据报道,某些制剂满足一种方法的功效要求,但不能满足另一种方法的功效要求。这就是为什么我们得出结论,尽管得出了结果,但满足一种测试方法的功效要求并不能声称也满足另一种测试方法的要求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号