A new hydrogen peroxide--based medical-device detergent with germicidal properties: comparison with enzymatic cleaners.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the cleaning and bacterial killing ability of a new non-enzyme-based formulation (killing detergent solution [KDS]) compared with commercially available enzymatic detergents that included Metrizyme (Metrex Research Division of Sybron Canada Ltd. Morrisburg, Ontario) and Gzyme (Germiphene Corp, Brantford, Ontario). KDS is a hydrogen peroxide-based detergent formulation that combines cleaning efficacy with the ability to kill microorganisms. The KDS formulation helps ensure the protection of the health care worker from infectious risk during the soaking and cleaning stages of medical device reprocessing and reduces the bioburden on devices before sterilization/disinfection. METHODS Test organisms that included Enterococcus faecalis, Salmonella choleraesuis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were suspended in artificial test soil (ATS-B; patent submitted), inoculated at 10(6) colonyforming units per carrier and dried overnight before detergent exposure. The ATS-B mimics the blood, protein, carbohydrate, and endotoxin levels of patient-used medical devices. Plastic lumen carriers and a flexible colonoscope were used for surface and simulated-use testing, respectively. RESULTS The results for the microbial challenge dried onto polyvinyl chloride (PVC) carriers demonstrated that the ability of KDS to remove protein, blood, carbohydrate, and endotoxin from surface test carriers was as effective as the enzyme detergents that were evaluated. Furthermore, KDS was able to effect approximately a 5-Log(10) reduction in microbial loads with a 3-minute exposure at room temperature, whereas none of the other detergents were as effective. In simulated-use testing of a soiled colonoscope, KDS was significantly better at ensuring microbial killing compared with Gzyme and Metrizyme and was equivalent to the enzymatic detergents in cleaning ability. CONCLUSIONS In summary the KDS has excellent microbial-killing ability in 3-minute exposures at room temperature and cleans as well as the existing enzymatic detergent formulations that were tested.

[1]  Gina Pugliese,et al.  Safety and Cleaning of Medical Materials and Devices , 2000, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[2]  C. Woodley,et al.  Transmission of a highly drug-resistant strain (strain W1) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Community outbreak and nosocomial transmission via a contaminated bronchoscope. , 1997, JAMA.

[3]  H. Chan-Myers,et al.  Natural bioburden levels detected on rigid lumened medical devices before and after cleaning. , 1997, American journal of infection control.

[4]  R. Chaisson,et al.  Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a fiberoptic bronchoscope identification by dna fingerprinting , 1997 .

[5]  C. Alvarado,et al.  APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Association for Professionals in Infection Control. , 1993, American journal of infection control.

[6]  N. S. Chu,et al.  Levels of naturally occurring microorganisms on surgical instruments after clinical use and after washing. , 1999, American journal of infection control.

[7]  D. Sitter,et al.  In-hospital evaluation of orthophthalaldehyde as a high level disinfectant for flexible endoscopes☆ , 1994, Journal of Hospital Infection.

[8]  M. Alfa,et al.  Worst-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. , 1999, American journal of infection control.

[9]  W. Rutala,et al.  Levels of microbial contamination on surgical instruments. , 1998, American journal of infection control.

[10]  Y. Cossart,et al.  Detection of persistent vegetative bacteria and amplified viral nucleic acid from in-use testing of gastrointestinal endoscopes. , 1998, The Journal of hospital infection.

[11]  D. Gerding,et al.  Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system resulting from use of a contaminated endoscope. , 1987, Gastroenterology.

[12]  G. Pacepavicius,et al.  Simple technique for estimation of biofilm accumulation , 1994, Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology.

[13]  Hand washing, cleaning, disinfection and sterilization in health care. , 1998, Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada.

[14]  P. Nicholson,et al.  Quantification of facial contamination with blood during orthopaedic procedures. , 2000, The Journal of hospital infection.

[15]  W. Rutala.  APIC guideline for selection and use of disinfectants. 1994, 1995, and 1996 APIC Guidelines Committee. Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. , 1990, American journal of infection control.

[16]  M. Alfa,et al.  Comparison of Ion Plasma, Vaporized Hydrogen Peroxide, and 100% Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers to the 12/88 Ethylene Oxide Gas Sterilizer , 1996, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[17]  A. D. Russell,et al.  Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance , 1999, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[18]  N S Chu,et al.  Natural bioburden levels detected on flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after clinical use and manual cleaning. , 1998, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[19]  M. Reichelderfer,et al.  APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Association for Professionals in Infection Control. , 2000 .

[20]  M. Asaka,et al.  Direct Evidence by DNA Fingerprinting that Endoscopic Cross-Infection of Helicobacter pylori Is a Cause of Postendoscopic Acute Gastritis , 2000, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.