Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:05:10.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Efficacy Evaluation of a Synergized Glutaraldehyde-Phenate Solution in Disinfecting Respiratory Therapy Equipment Contaminated During Patient Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Timothy R. Townsend ,
Siok-Bi Wee  and
Beryl Koblin
Timothy R. Townsend*
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Unit, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Siok-Bi Wee
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Unit, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
Beryl Koblin
Affiliation:
Hospital Epidemiology Unit, The Johns Hopkins Hospital and the Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Administration 229, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reusable, corrugated, expiratory limb ventilator tubing that had been in use for 24 hours, were randomly allocated to one of three groups: no treatment (N=36); detergent wash (N = 83); or a detergent wash followed by a 10 minute immersion in a 1:16 dilution of synergized glutaraldehyde-phenate solution which was reused for 30 days. (Between 10 and 22 tubes were tested in each five day interval during this 30-day period.) Tubes were quantitatively and qualitatively cultured. There were significant differences in both the percent of contaminated tubes (no treatment = 92%, detergent wash = 72%, glutaraldehyde-phenate = 0 to 20%) and numbers of microorganisms per tube (no treatment = 3.2 × 106, detergent wash = 1.3 x 104, glutaraldehyde-phenate = 0 to 182) between groups. There was no apparent decrease in glutaraldehyde-phenate's efficacy throughout the 30-day reuse period, and in the final five days of the reuse period it was completely effective.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , June 1982 , pp. 240 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1982

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. Reinarz, JA, et al. The potential role of inhalation therapy equipment in nosocomial pulmonary infection. J Clin Invest 1965;44:831–839.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Joseph, JM. Disease transmission by inefficiently sanitized anesthetizing apparatus. JAMA 1952;149:1196–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Buxton, AE, et al. Nosocomial respiratory tract infection and colonization with Acinetobacter calcoaceticus . Am J Med 1978;65:507–513.Google Scholar
4. Sanford, JP, Pierce, AK. Lower respiratory tract infections. In: Hospital Infections. Bennett, JV, Brackman, PS, eds. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1979, pp. 255–286.Google Scholar
5. Gorman, SP, Scott, EM, Russell, AD. A review: Antimicrobial activity, uses and mechanisms of action of glularaldehyde. J Appl Bacteriol 1980;48:161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Use-dilution method(2)—Official final action. In: Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 13th ed. Horwitz, W, ed. Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1980, pp. 58-59.Google Scholar
7. McPherson, K. Statistics: The problem of examining accumulating data more than once. N Engl J Med 1974;290:501–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Simmons, BP. Guidelines for hospital environmental control. Infection Control 1981:2:131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Leach, ED. A new synergized glutaraldehyde-phenate sterilizing solution and concentrated disinfectant. Infection Control 1981;2:26–30.Google Scholar
10. Manual for Clinical Microbiology. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, 1980.Google Scholar