Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T08:35:28.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

70% Alcohol Disinfection of Transducer Heads: Experimental Trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

George H. Talbot ,
Maureen Skros  and
Mary Provencher
George H. Talbot*
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Infection Control Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Maureen Skros
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Infection Control Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Mary Provencher
Affiliation:
Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, and the Infection Control Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
*
Infection Control Section, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated the feasibility of transducer head disinfection with 70% alcohol wipes. In the initial trial, nine gas-sterilized transducers were inoculated with an estimated 5 × 106 organisms of a clinical isolate of Enterobacter cloacae, mimicking a contaminated fluid couple. A sterile disposable transducer dome was attached to each transducer. The units were allowed to sit for 24 hours at room temperature; the domes were then removed. Three transducer heads were cultured prior to disinfection to ensure that viable organisms remained. Each transducer head was wiped clean with a single alcohol wipe, allowed to dry, and then cultured. All nine cultures showed growth of E. cloacae. A second series of trials with 54 transducers employed an identical protocol, except that each transducer head received not one, but two, applications of alcohol. In addition to E. cloacae (26 runs), Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans were employed in nine, nine and ten runs, respectively. Cultures of 53 of 54 transducer heads showed no growth; the single positive culture was attributed to an error in technique. These preliminary results suggest that the double-alcohol-wipe technique may be an easy, cost-effective, alternative or supplemental method of transducer head disinfection. However, we do not advocate routine implementation of this technique in patient care settings until clinical trials confirm its safety and efficacy.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 6 , June 1985 , pp. 237 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

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.Maki, D: Nosocomial bacteremia. An epidemiologic overview. Am J Med 1981: 70:719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Maki, D, Hassemer, C: Endemic rate of fluid contamination and related septicemia in arterial pressure monitoring. Am J Med 1981: 70:733–738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Cortez, L. Hadley, K. Schluter, I: Transducer-associated nosocomial primary bacteremia: Identification and control. Proceedings of the 19th Intersiieme Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Abstract 209. October 1-5. 1979.Google Scholar
4.Donowitz, LG, Marsik, FJ, Hoyt, JW. et al: Serratia marcescens bacteremia from contaminated pressure transducers. JAMA 1979; 242:1749–1751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Aduan, A, Iannini, P, Salaki, J: Nosocomial bacteremia associated with contaminated blood pressure transducers. Report of an outbreak and a review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 1980; 8:33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Buxton, A. Anderson, R. Klimek, J, et al: Failure of disposable dome to prevent septicemia acquired from contaminated pressure transducers. Chest 1978; 74:508–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Solomon, SL. Goodpasture, HW, Alexander, H, et al: Nosocomial Candida parapsilosis infections in a neonatal intensive care unit. Proceedings of (he 23rd Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. Abstract 815. October 24-26, 1983.Google Scholar
8.Simmons, B: Centers for Disease Control: Guideline for prevention of intravascular infections. Am J Infect Control 1983; 11:183–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Gordon, AS, Mowray, S. Cole, J: Microbiological isolation and pressure accuracy with disposable diaphragm domes for pressure monitoring. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. 16th Annual Meeting. 1981.Google Scholar
10.Lennette, EH, Balows, A. Hausler, WJ, Truant, JP (eds): Manual of Clinical Microbiology, ed 3. Washington, D.C., American Society for Microbiology.Google Scholar
11.Rose, R, Hunting, K, Townsend, T. et al : Morbidity and mortality and economics of hospital-acquired blood stream infections: A controlled study. South Med J 1977:70:1267–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Morton, HE: Alcohols, , in Block, SS (ed): Disinfection. Slerilization. and Presenvition. ed 3. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger. 1983. pp 225–239.Google Scholar