This week's coverage in Infection Control Today centered on a common thread: the systems, partnerships, and data that let infection prevention teams catch problems before patients are harmed.
|Articles|September 18, 2017
Study Asserts Chlorhexidine Not an Essential Component in Alcohol-Based Surgical Hand Preparation
Advertisement
Surgical hand preparation is an essential part of modern surgery. Both alcohol-based and antiseptic detergent-based hand preparation are recommended practices, with a trend toward use of alcohol based handrubs. However, discussion has arisen whether chlorhexidine is a required ingredient in highly efficacious alcohol-based formulations, in view of providing sustained antimicrobial efficacy.
In a study by
The alcohol-only formulation (product A) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.96 ± 1.06 immediately after application and 1.67 ± 0.71 after 6 h. The chlorhexidine-alcohol combination (product B) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.42 ± 0.79 and 1.24 ± 0.90 immediately and after 6 h, respectively. The values for product A were significantly greater than those for product B at both measured time points (p ≤ 0.025 immediately after application and p ≤ 0.01 after 6 h).
An optimized alcohol-only formulation tested according to a modified EN 12791 protocol in 25 healthy volunteers outperformed a chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation both immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves, despite a much shorter application time. Thus, optimized alcohol-only formulations do not require chlorhexidine to achieve potent immediate and sustained efficacy. In conclusion, chlorhexidine is not an essential component for alcohol-based surgical hand preparation.
Reference: Hennig TJ, et al. Chlorhexidine is not an essential component in alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: a comparative study of two handrubs based on a modified EN 12791 test protocol. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control. 2017;6:96
Advertisement
Related to this article
Missing instruments and processing delays can strain OR–SPD relationships. At AORN 2026, John Kimsey, vice president of processing optimization and customer success for STERIS, discusses understanding root causes, exploring off-site reprocessing for ambulatory surgical centers, and using hands-on simulation to help surgical teams see sterile processing from a different perspective.
What might infection prevention rounds miss when visible conditions dominate the conversation? Tommy Davis, PhD, CMIP, a member of ICT's executive advisory board, makes the case for structured observations of clinical workflows, shared accountability, and greater attention to environmental services staff’s insights.
Artist and designer Matthew Caliman shares how personal loss inspired the Cleanup Crew, a handwashing education project using cartoon faucets, songs, and games to help families revisit an essential health message.
What Were the Biggest Infection Prevention Stories This Week? Ebola's Outpaced Response, Lyme Coinfection Data, and Sterile Processing Burnout Explained, and more
A shifting mask or fogged eyewear can interrupt focus when precision matters most. Dana Weaver Storm, MHA, BSN, RN, examines the challenges of prolonged surgical mask use and how perioperative leaders can support comfort, visibility, and consistent adherence.
What happens when one disinfectant cannot satisfy every IFU? At AHE in New Orleans, Diane Cullen discusses weighted risk assessment, documenting difficult decisions, and why infection prevention and EVS need to work together.
Turnover pressure can leave critical OR cleaning steps unfinished. Karen deKay, MSN, RN, EBP-C, CNOR, CIC, FAPIC, examines common gaps in environmental hygiene and how shared responsibilities, attention to disinfectant contact time, and ongoing education can help teams strengthen practices between cases.
Advertisement
Advertisement