In situ and in vitro evaluation of two antiseptics for blood bank based on chlorhexidine gluconate/isopropyl alcohol and povidone-iodine.

Autor: Sánchez-Guzmán MJ; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico; Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Mexico City, Mexico., Loyola-Cruz MÁ; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico., López-Ornelas A; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico., Cruz-Cruz C; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico; Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Mexico City, Mexico., Durán-Manuel EM; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico; Sección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Mexico City, Mexico., Bello-López JM; División de Investigación, Hospital Juárez de México, Mexico City, Mexico. Electronic address: juanmanuelbello81@hotmail.com.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis [Transfus Apher Sci] 2024 Feb; Vol. 63 (1), pp. 103854. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Nov 25.
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2023.103854
Abstrakt: Background: Poor disinfection is the main cause of blood contamination, so its elimination is key to limiting the entry of bacteria into the collection system. With the advancement of antiseptic technology, antiseptics with sterile, disposable applicators are now available.
Aim: To evaluate in situ two antiseptics (with and without applicators) for blood banks and to demonstrate in vitro antiseptic activity on bacterial biofilms of importance in transfusion medicine.
Methods: Antiseptic A (2% sterile solution of chlorhexidine gluconate/70% isopropyl alcohol provided with applicator) and bulk antiseptic B (10% povidone-iodine) were evaluated. The deferred blood donor arms were subjected to disinfection with antiseptics A and B and the contralateral arms were cultured to determine the baseline bacterial load (control). Antiseptic activity was assessed by ANOVA and logaritmic reduction values (LRV) and percentage reduction values (PRV) were calculated. Finally, the in vitro activity of antiseptic A was analyzed by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) on biofilm models.
Results: Prior to disinfection tests, commensal and clinically important bacteria were identified; antiseptic A showed post-disinfection bacterial growth rates of zero compared to controls (p < 0.0001). The frequency of bacterial growth with antiseptic B was 74%. A significant difference was identified between both antiseptics, where antiseptic A showed higher activity (p < 0.5468). LRV and PRV were 0.6-2.5/100% and 0.3-1.7/66.7-99.7% for antiseptics A and B, respectively. Through CLSM, disinfectant A (without applicator) showed lower in vitro antiseptic activity on the tested biofilms at the exposure times recommended by the manufacturer.
Conclusions: Sterile solution of chlorhexidine gluconate/isopropyl alcohol with applicator showed advantages disinfection in deferred blood donors over povidone-iodine.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
(Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: