Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T00:35:55.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Three Biological Indicator Systems in Flash Sterilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Helen Rosen Kotilainen  and
Nelson M. Gantz
Helen Rosen Kotilainen*
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
Nelson M. Gantz
Affiliation:
Infection Control Department, University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts
*
Infection Control Dept., University of Massachusetts Medical Center, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01605
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An evaluation of two flash-sterilization-specific biological indicators (BI) and a traditional spore strip indicator was performed to assess sensitivity and reliability as reflected in survive/kill ratios. The Bis tested included: 3M's Attest® #1261, Amsco's Proof Flash™, and Castle® Tec Test. Survival after “come-up” time alone, (0 exposure) and one-, two-, and three-minute exposures at 273°F in a gravity displacement sterilizer was measured by media color change or turbidity after incubation at 55°C. Each cycle was replicated three times on two separate days with six of each BI per run. Positive Bis were subcultured as necessary. Proof Flash presented technical difficulties due to incomplete or impossible crushing of media vials, unexpected media color changes, and evaporation of media. Tec Test was not sufficiently resistant as survivors were not detected at any exposure time. The Attest had 100% survival at zero and one-minute exposures and 94% survival after the two-minute exposure. No survivors were detected after the three-minute exposure. Although each institution should evaluate Bis for their own use independently, the data indicate that Attest #1261 monitored the three-minute flash cycles more satisfactorily than the other Bis tested.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 8 , Issue 8 , August 1987 , pp. 311 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1987

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. Underwood, WB, Textbook of Sterilization, ed 2. Chicago, RR Donnelly & Sons Co, 1942, pp 91–93.Google Scholar
2. Garner, JS, Favero, MS, Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control 1985. Atlanta, US Government Printing Office, Centers for Disease Control, 1985, pp 10–13.Google Scholar
3. Perkins, JJ, Principles and Methods of Sterilization, ed 2. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas, 1980, pp 259–260.Google Scholar
4. Good Hospital Practice: Steam Sterilization Using the Unwrapped Method (Flash Sterilization), September 1985 revision. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Arlington, VA, 1985, p 32.Google Scholar
5. Tornello, JD, Flash sterilization, evaluating biological indicators. AORN J 1986;43:1289–1294.Google Scholar
6. Nyström, B, 1981 bioburden of non-disposables, in Gaughran, ER, Morrissey, RF (eds): Sterilization of Medical Products. Montreal, Multiscience Publications Ltd, 1981, pp 154–163.Google Scholar
7. Bruch, CW, Process control release, in Gaughran, ER, Morrissey, RF (eds): Sterilization of Medical Products. Montreal, Multiscience Publications Ltd, 1981, pp 107–115.Google Scholar
8. Kotilainen, HR, Gantz, NM, Biological sterilization monitors: A four year in-use evaluation of two systems. Infect Control 1985;6:451–455.Google Scholar