Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-trcsx Total loading time: 0.203 Render date: 2022-01-18T12:58:55.778Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution for Eradication of Clostridium difficile Spores

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

F. Barbut*
Affiliation:
National Reference Laboratory for Clostridium difficili, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
D. Menuet
Affiliation:
National Reference Laboratory for Clostridium difficili, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
M. Verachten
Affiliation:
Groupe hospitalier Henri Mondor-Albert Chenevier, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France
E. Girou
Affiliation:
Groupe hospitalier Henri Mondor-Albert Chenevier, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France
*
Hôpital Saint-Antoine, UHLIN, 184 rue du Faubourg Saint-Antoine, 75571 Paris Cedex 12 (frederic.barbut@sat.aphp.fr)

Abstract

Objective.

To compare a hydrogen peroxide dry-mist system and a 0.5% hypochlorite solution with respect to their ability to disinfect Clostridium difficile-contaminated surfaces in vitro and in situ.

Design.

Prospective, randomized, before-after trial.

Setting.

Two French hospitals affected by C. difficile.

Intervention.

In situ efficacy of disinfectants was assessed in rooms that had housed patients with C. difficile infection. A prospective study was performed at 2 hospitals that involved randomization of disinfection processes. When a patient with C. difficile infection was discharged, environmental contamination in the patient's room was evaluated before and after disinfection. Environmental surfaces were sampled for C. difficile by use of moistened swabs; swab samples were cultured on selective plates and in broth. Both disinfectants were tested in vitro with a spore-carrier test; in this test, 2 types of material, vinyl polychloride (representative of the room's floor) and laminate (representative of the room's furniture), were experimentally contaminated with spores from 3 C. difficile strains, including the epidemic clone ribotype 027-North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1.

Results.

There were 748 surface samples collected (360 from rooms treated with hydrogen peroxide and 388 from rooms treated with hypochlorite). Before disinfection, 46 (24%) of 194 samples obtained in the rooms randomized to hypochlorite treatment and 34 (19%) of 180 samples obtained in the rooms randomized to hydrogen peroxide treatment showed environmental contamination. After disinfection, 23 (12%) of 194 samples from hypochlorite-treated rooms and 4 (2%) of 180 samples from hydrogen peroxide treated rooms showed environmental contamination, a decrease in contamination of 50% after hypochlorite decontamination and 91% after hydrogen peroxide decontamination (P < .005). The in vitro activity of 0.5% hypochlorite was time dependent. The mean (±SD) reduction in initial log10 bacterial count was 4.32 ± 0.35 log10 colony-forming units after 10 minutes of exposure to hypochlorite and 4.18 ± 0.8 logl0 colony-forming units after 1 cycle of hydrogen peroxide decontamination.

Conclusion.

In situ experiments indicate that the hydrogen peroxide dry-mist disinfection system is significantly more effective than 0.5% sodium hypochlorite solution at eradicating С difficile spores and might represent a new alternative for disinfecting the rooms of patients with C. difficile infection.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2009

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.Barbut, F, Petit, JC. Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile-associated infections. Clin Microbiol Infect 2001;7:405410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Bartlett, JG. Narrative review: the new epidemic of Clostridium difficile-associated enteric disease. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:758764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.McFarland, LV, Mulligan, ME, Kwok, RY, Stamm, WE. Nosocomial acquisition of Clostridium difficile infection. N Engl J Med 1989;320:204210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Loo, VG, Poirier, L, Miller, MA, Oughton, M, et al.A predominantly clonal multi-institutional outbreak of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea with high morbidity and mortality. N Engl J Med 2005;353:24422449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.McDonald, LC, Killgore, GE, Thompson, A, et al. An epidemic, toxin gene-variant strain of Clostridium difficile. N Engl J Med 2005;353:24332441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Coignard, B, Barbut, F, Blanckaert, K, et al.Emergence of Clostridium difficile toxinotype III, PCR-ribotype 027-associated disease, France, 2006. Euro Surveill 2006;1LE0609141.Google Scholar
7.Réseau d'Alerte d'Investigation et de Surveillance des Infections Nosocomiales. Conduite à tenir: diagnostic, surveillance, investigation, prévention et contrôle des infections à Clostridium difficile. Saint-Maurice, France: Institut de Veille Sanitaire, 2006Google Scholar
8.Kuijper, E, Barbut, F, Brazier, J, et al.Update of Clostridium difficile infection due to PCR ribotype 027 in Europe. Euro Surveill 2008;13:31.Google Scholar
9.Kim, KH, Fekety, R, Batts, DH, et al.Isolation of Clostridium difficile from the environment and contacts of patients with antibiotic-associated colitis. J Infect Dis 1981;143:4250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Riggs, MM, Sethi, AK, Zabarsky, TF, Eckstein, EC, Jump, RL, Donskey, CJ. Asymptomatic carriers are a potential source for transmission of epidemic and nonepidemic Clostridium difficile strains among long-term care facility residents. Clin Infect Dis 2007;45:992998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Akerlund, T, Persson, I, Unemo, M, et al.Increased sporulation rate of epidemic Clostridium difficile type 027/NAP1. J Clin Microbiol 2008;46:15301533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Fawley, WN, Underwood, S, Freeman, J, et al.Efficacy of hospital cleaning agents and germicides against epidemic Clostridium difficile strains. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:920925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Wilcox, MH, Fawley, WN, Wigglesworth, N, Parnell, P, Verity, P, Freeman, J. Comparison of the effect of detergent versus hypochlorite cleaning on environmental contamination and incidence of Clostridium difficile infection. J Hosp Infect 2003;54:109114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Dubberke, E, Gerding, DN, Classen, D, et al.Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infection in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29 (supp 1):S81S92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Andersen, BM, Rasch, M, Hochlin, K, Jensen, FH, Wismar, P, Fredriksen, JE. Decontamination of rooms, medical equipment and ambulances using an aerosol of hydrogen peroxide disinfectant. J Hosp Infect 2006;62:149155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Shapey, S, Machin, K, Levi, K, Boswell, TC. Activity of a dry mist hydrogen peroxide system against environmental Clostridium difficile contamination in elderly care wards. J Hosp Infect 2008;70:136141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Otter, JA, French, GL. Survival of nosocomial bacteria and spores on surfaces and inactivation by hydrogen peroxide vapor. J Clin Microbiol 2009;47:205207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Johnston, MD, Lawson, S, Otter, JA. Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide vapour as a method for the decontamination of surfaces contaminated with Clostridium botulinum spores. J Microbiol Methods 2005;60:403411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Mayfield, JL, Leet, T, Miller, J, Mundy, LM. Environmental control to reduce transmission of Clostridium difficile. Clin Infect Dis 2000;31:9951000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Vonberg, RP, Kuijper, EJ, Wilcox, MH, et al.Infection control measures to limit the spread of Clostridium difficile. Clin Microbiol Infect 2008;14(suppl 5):220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Majcher, MR, Bernard, KA, Sattar, SA. Identification by quantitative carrier test of surrogate spore-forming bacteria to assess sporicidal chemicals for use against Bacillus anthracis. Appl Environ Microbiol 2008;74:676681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Wullt, M, Odenholt, I, Walder, M. Activity of three disinfectants and acidified nitrite against Clostridium difficile spores. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2003;24:765768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Verity, P, Wilcox, MH, Fawley, W, Parnell, P. Prospective evaluation of environmental contamination by Clostridium difficile in isolation side rooms. J Hosp Infect 2001;49:204209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Samore, MH, Venkataraman, L, DeGirolami, PC, Arbeit, RD, Karchmer, AW. Clinical and molecular epidemiology of sporadic and clustered cases of nosocomial Clostridium difficile diarrhea. Am J Med 1996;100:3240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Eckstein, BC, Adams, DA, Eckstein, EC, et al.Reduction of Clostridium difficile and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus contamination of environmental surfaces after an intervention to improve cleaning methods. BMC Infect Dis 2007;7:61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Kaatz, GW, Gitlin, SD, Schaberg, DR, et al.Acquisition of Clostridium difficile from the hospital environment. Am J Epidemiol 1988;127:12891294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.McMullen, KM, Zack, J, Coopersmith, CM, Kollef, M, Dubberke, E, Warren, DK. Use of hypochlorite solution to decrease rates of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2007;28:205207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Dubberke, ER, Reske, KA, Olsen, MA, et al.Evaluation of Clostridium difficile-associated disease pressure as a risk factor for C difficile-associated disease. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:10921097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Wilcox, MH, Fawley, WN. Hospital disinfectants and spore formation by Clostridium difficile. Lancet 2000;356:1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.Boyce, JM. Environmental contamination makes an important contribution to hospital infection. J Hosp Infect 2007;65(suppl 2):5054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Boyce, JM, Havill, NL, Otter, JA, et al.Impact of hydrogen peroxide vapor room decontamination on Clostridium difficile environmental contamination and transmission in a healthcare Setting. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2008;29:723729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Otter, JA, French, GL, Adams, NM, Watling, D, Parks, MJ. Hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination in an overcrowded tertiary care referral centre: some practical answers. J Hosp Infect 2006;62:384385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Omidbakhsh, N, Sattar, SA. Broad-spectrum microbicidal activity, toxicologic assessment, and materials compatibility of a new generation of accelerated hydrogen peroxide-based environmental surface disinfectant. Am J Infect Control 2006;34:251257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Perez, J, Springthorpe, VS, Sattar, SA. Activity of selected oxidizing microbicides against the spores of Clostridium difficile, relevance to environmental control. Am J Infect Control 2005;33:320325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
123
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution for Eradication of Clostridium difficile Spores
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution for Eradication of Clostridium difficile Spores
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Comparison of the Efficacy of a Hydrogen Peroxide Dry-Mist Disinfection System and Sodium Hypochlorite Solution for Eradication of Clostridium difficile Spores
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *