Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:28:09.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of a Rapid Readout Biological Indicator for Flash Sterilization with Three Biological Indicators and Three Chemical Indicators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

William A. Rutala ,
Maria F. Gergen  and
David J. Weber
William A. Rutala*
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Maria F. Gergen
Affiliation:
Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
David J. Weber
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
*
547 Burnett Womack Building, CB #7030, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 275997030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Flash sterilization is most commonly used for emergency sterilization of unwrapped items in a gravity displacement sterilizer for three minutes. Sterilization quality assurance is monitored by biological indicators that require a 24-hour incubation prior to reading. In this study, we compared a new biological indicator that provides results within 60 minutes with three conventional, 24-hour biological indicators for monitoring flash sterilization and three chemical indicators.

Design:

Conventional biological indicators tested included the conventional Attest 1261, Proof Flash and Assert, while the rapid readout indicator tested was Attest 1291. Attest Rapid Readout detects the presence of a Bacillus stearothermophilus enzyme by reading a fluorescent product that is produced by the enzymatic break-down of a nonfluorescent substrate. Chemical indicators tested included Comply, Incheque, and Thermalog S. Survival at 132°C in a gravity displacement sterilizer was measured by media color change after incubation for 24 hours at 56°C for the three conventional biological indicators, fluorescence at 60 minutes for the Attest Rapid Readout biological indicator, and color change for the chemical indicators. Each exposure time was replicated four times with 10 of each biological and chemical indicator per run.

Results:

The conventional biological indicators (Attest, Proof Flash, and Assert) had 90%, 48%, and 40% spore survival at two minutes exposure; 23%, 3%, and 0% at three minutes exposure; and 3%, 0%, and 0% at four minutes exposure respectively. The Attest Rapid Readout biological indicator had 88%, 33%, and 0% enzyme activity detectable at 2, 3, and 4 minutes exposure. The chemical indicators Comply, Incheque, and Thermalog S revealed sterilization failure rates of 100%, 100%, and 100% at 0 minutes exposure; 100%, 100%, and 45% at one minute; 0%, 0%, and 28% at two minutes exposure; 0%, 0%, and 18% at three minutes exposure; and 0%, 0%, and 0% at four minutes exposure, respectively.

Conclusion:

The sensitivity of the Attest Rapid Readout parallels the conventional biological indicators. These data suggest that a 60-minute rapid readout biological indicator is equivalent to the 24-hour biological indicators. If further studies demonstrate that a four-minute flash sterilization cycle provides a needed safety margin to ensure sterilization, then consideration should be given to requiring a four-minute flash sterilization cycle. Chemical indicators were too sensitive to the processing conditions (eg, steam) and are inadequate to ensure adequate sterilization.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 14 , Issue 7 , July 1993 , pp. 390 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1993

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. Rutala, WA APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. Infect Control 1990;18:99–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Greene, VW Control of sterilisation process. In: Russell, AD, Hugo, WB, Ayliffe, GAJ, eds. Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Reservation, and Sterilisation. Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1982.Google Scholar
3. Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices. sterilization and disinfection. AORN J 1987;45:44.Google Scholar
4. Garner, JS, Favero, MS. Guidelines for Handwashing and Environmental Control. CDC publication no. 85-923404. Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control, 1985.Google Scholar
5. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Good Hospital Practice: Steam Sterilization Using the Unwrapped Method. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, 1986.Google Scholar
6. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Accreditation Manual for Hospitals. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditationbf Healthcare Organizations; 1992.Google Scholar
7. Kotilainen, HR, Gantz, NM. An evaluation of three biological indicator systems in flash sterilization. Infect Control 1987;8:311–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Rutala, WA. Disinfection and flash sterilization in the operating room. Journal of Ophthalmic Nursing and Technology 1991;10:106–115.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Vesley, D, Langholz, AC, Rohlfmg, SR, Foltz, WE. Flourimetric detection of a Bacillus stearothermophilus spore-bound enzyme, alpha-D-glucosidase, for rapid indication of flash sterilization failure. Appl Environ Microbial 1992;58:717–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Maki, DG, Hassemer, CA Flash sterilization: carefully measured haste. Infect Control 1987;8:307–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Rhame, FS. The inanimate environment. In: Bennett, JV Brachman, PS, eds. Hospital Infections. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and co.. 1992.Google Scholar