Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:00:22.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Antimicrobial Activity of Glucoprotamin: A Clinical Study of a New Disinfectant for Instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Andreas F. Widmer  and
Reno Frei
Andreas F. Widmer*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University of Basel Hospitals & Clinics, Basel, Switzerland
Reno Frei
Affiliation:
Bacteriology Laboratory, University of Basel Hospitals & Clinics, Basel, Switzerland
*
University Hospital Basel, Division of Hospital Epidemiology, Petersgraben 4, 4031 Basel, Switzerland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the in vitro efficacy of glucoprotamin for the disinfection of instruments.

Design:

Prospective observational study.

Setting:

University women's hospital.

Methods:

Instruments were immersed in saline solution after use, and glucoprotamin was added to a concentration of 1.5% before soaking for 60 minutes. Biocidal activity was determined by the difference in colony-forming units (CFU) on instruments before and after disinfection.

Results:

One hundred thirty-seven instruments were collected during 10 days and exposed to a 1.5% dilution of glucoprotamin without prior washing. Bioburden before disinfection ranged from 2 × 105 to 7.1 × 107 CFU per instrument. Average bacterial killing was 5.98 log10 CFU ± 0.48 under aerobic conditions and 6.75 log10 CFU ± 0.54 under anaerobic conditions, despite the presence of large amounts of proteins on instruments that were frequently bloody. No vegetative bacteria were isolated in any sample after disinfection.

Conclusion:

This clinical study confirmed excellent in vitro efficacy of glucoprotamin without prior removal of proteins and debris.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 24 , Issue 10 , October 2003 , pp. 762 - 764
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2003

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.Widmer, AF, Frei, R. Decontamination, disinfection, and sterilization. In: Murray, PR, Baron, EJ, Pfaller, M, Jorgensen, JH, Yolken, R, eds. Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 8th ed. Washington, DC: American Society of Microbiology Press; 2003:77–108.Google Scholar
2.Rutala, WA, Cole, EC. Ineffectiveness of hospital disinfectants against bacteria: a collaborative study. Infect Control 1987;8:501–506.Google Scholar
3.Sagripanti, JL, Bonifacino A Resistance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to liquid disinfectants on contaminated surfaces before formation of biofilms. J AOAC Int 2000;83:1415–1422.Google Scholar
4.Terleckyj, B, Axler, DA. Quantitative neutralization assay of fungicidal activity of disinfectants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1987;31:794–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Disch, K. Glucoprotamine: a new antimicrobial substance. Zentralbl Hyg Unweltmed 1994;196:357–365.Google Scholar
6.Meyer, B, Kluin, C. Efficacy of glucoprotamin containing disinfectants against different species of atypical mycobacteria. J Hosp Infect 1999;42:151–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Van Klingeren, B, Pullen, W. Glutaraldehyde resistant mycobacteria from endoscope washers. J Hosp Infect 1993;25:147–149.Google Scholar
8.Griffiths, PA, Babb, JR, Bradley, CR, Fraise, AP. Glutaraldehyde-resistant Mycobacterium chelonae from endoscope washer disinfectors. J Appl Microbiol 1997;82:519–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Spaulding, EH. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Block, S, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1968:517–531.Google Scholar