Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-jhk7w Total loading time: 0.407 Render date: 2021-04-20T17:19:40.508Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

Jennifer L. Cadnum
Affiliation:
Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Annette L. Jencson
Affiliation:
Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Scott A. Gestrich
Affiliation:
Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Scott H. Livingston
Affiliation:
Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Boris A. Karaman
Affiliation:
Radiology Department, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Kevin J. Benner
Affiliation:
Current, Powered by GE, Cleveland, Ohio
Brigid M. Wilson
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio
Curtis J. Donskey
Affiliation:
Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet (UV) light decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room.

Design

Laboratory evaluation.

Methods

We compared the efficacy of 8 UV decontamination devices with a 4-minute UV exposure time in reducing recovery of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and Clostridium difficile spores on steel disk carriers placed at 5 sites on a computed tomography patient table. Analysis of variance was used to compare reductions for the different devices. A spectrometer was used to obtain irradiance measurements for the devices.

Results

Four standard vertical tower low-pressure mercury devices achieved 2 log10CFU or greater reductions in VRE and MRSA and ~1 log10CFU reductions in C. difficile spores, whereas a pulsed-xenon device resulted in less reduction in the pathogens (P<.001). In comparison to the vertical tower low-pressure mercury devices, equal or greater reductions in the pathogens were achieved by 3 nonstandard low-pressure mercury devices that included either adjustable bulbs that could be oriented directly over the exam table, a robotic base allowing movement along the side of the table during operation, or 3 vertical towers operated simultaneously. The low-pressure mercury devices produced primarily UV-C light, whereas the pulsed-xenon device produced primarily UV-A and UV-B light. The time required to move the devices from the corner of the room and set up for operation varied from 18 to 59 seconds.

Conclusions

Many currently available UV devices could provide an effective and efficient adjunct to manual cleaning and disinfection in radiology procedure rooms.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
This work is classified, for copyright purposes, as a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

Cite this article: Cadnum JL, et al. (2019). A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2019, 40, 158–163. doi: 10.1017/ice.2018.296

References

1. Nerandzic, MM, Cadnum, JL, Pultz, MJ, Donskey, CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet radiation device for decontamination of Clostridium difficile and other healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Room decontamination with UV radiation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:10251029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Havill, NL, Moore, BA, Boyce, JM. Comparison of the microbiological efficacy of hydrogen peroxide vapor and ultraviolet light processes for room decontamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:507512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Zeber, JE, Pfeiffer, C, Baddley, JW, et al. Effect of pulsed xenon ultraviolet room disinfection devices on microbial counts for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and aerobic bacterial colonies. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:668673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Nerandzic, MM, Thota, P, Sankar, C T, et al. Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection system for reduction of healthcare-associated pathogens in hospital rooms. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:192197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Marra, AR, Schweizer, ML, Edmond, MB. No-touch disinfection methods to decrease multidrug-resistant organism infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:2031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Anderson, DJ, Chen, LF, Weber, DJ, et al. Enhanced terminal room disinfection and acquisition and infection caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile (the Benefits of Enhanced Terminal Room Disinfection study): a cluster-randomised, multicentre, crossover study. Lancet 2017;389:805814.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Anderson, DJ, Moehring, RW, Weber, DJ, et al. Effectiveness of targeted enhanced terminal room disinfection on hospital-wide acquisition and infection with multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridium difficile: a secondary analysis of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial with crossover design (BETR Disinfection). Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18:845853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Rutala, WA, Kanamori, H, Gergen, MF, et al. Enhanced disinfection leads to reduction of microbial contamination and a decrease in patient colonization and infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2018;39:11181121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mathew, JI, Cadnum, JL, Sankar, T, Jencson, AL, Kundrapu, S, Donskey, CJ. Evaluation of an enclosed ultraviolet-C radiation device for decontamination of mobile handheld devices. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:724726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Shaikh, AA, Ely, D, Cadnum, JL, et al. Evaluation of a low-intensity ultraviolet-C radiation device for decontamination of computer keyboards. Am J Infect Control 2016;44:705707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Alhmidi, H, Cadnum, JL, Piedrahita, CT, John, AR, Donskey, CJ. Evaluation of an automated ultraviolet-C light disinfection device and patient hand hygiene for reduction of pathogen transfer from interactive touchscreen computer kiosks. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:464467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Simmons, S, Dale, C Jr, Holt, J, Passey, DG, Stibich, M. Environmental effectiveness of pulsed-xenon light in the operating room. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46:10031008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. El Haddad, L, Ghantoji, SS, Stibich, M, Fleming, JB, Segal, C, Ware, KM, Chemaly, RF. Evaluation of a pulsed xenon ultraviolet disinfection system to decrease bacterial contamination in operating rooms. BMC Infect Dis 2017;17:672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Jencson, AL, Cadnum, JL, Wilson, BM, Donskey, CJ. Spores on wheels: wheelchairs are a potential vector for dissemination of pathogens in healthcare facilities. Am J Infect Control (in press).Google Scholar
16. Murray, SG, Yim, JWL, Croci, R, Rajkomar, A, Schmajuk, G, Khanna, R, Cucina, RJ. Using spatial and temporal mapping to identify nosocomial disease transmission of Clostridium difficile . JAMA Intern Med 2017;177:18631865.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Cadnum, JL, Shaikh, AA, Piedrahita, CT, et al. Relative resistance of the emerging fungal pathogen Candida auris and other Candida species to killing by ultraviolet light. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:9496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Nerandzic, MM, Donskey, CJ. Sensitizing Clostridium difficile Spores with germinants on skin and environmental surfaces represents a new strategy for reducing spores via ambient mechanisms. Pathog Immun 2017;2:404421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Cadnum, JL, Tomas, ME, Sankar, T, et al. Effect of variation in test methods on performance of ultraviolet-C radiation room decontamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:555560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Boyce, JM, Farrel, PA, Towle, D, Fekieta, R, Aniskiewicz, M. Impact of room location on UV-C irradiance and UV-C dosage and antimicrobial effect delivered by a mobile UV-C light device. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:667672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Masse, V, Hartley, MJ, Edmond, MB, Diekema, DJ. Comparing and optimizing ultraviolet germicidal irradiation systems use for patient room terminal disinfection: an exploratory study using radiometry and commercial test cards. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2018;7:29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Tande, BM, Pringle, TA, Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Weber, DJ. Understanding the effect of ultraviolet light intensity on disinfection performance through the use of ultraviolet measurements and simulation. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:11221124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 61
Total number of PDF views: 373 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th January 2019 - 20th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Linked content

Please note a has been issued for this article.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A comparison of the efficacy of multiple ultraviolet light room decontamination devices in a radiology procedure room
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *