Antimicrobial surface coating in the emergency department as protective technology for infection control (ASEPTIC): a pilot randomized controlled trial.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Lenard Cheng, Shun Yee Low, Yuru Boon, Carmen Goh, Abigail Ng, Alexander Jet Yue Ng, Joshua Teo, Nur Humaira Johari, Yong Hao Pua, Mui Teng Chua, Win Sen Kuan
{"title":"Antimicrobial surface coating in the emergency department as protective technology for infection control (ASEPTIC): a pilot randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Lenard Cheng, Shun Yee Low, Yuru Boon, Carmen Goh, Abigail Ng, Alexander Jet Yue Ng, Joshua Teo, Nur Humaira Johari, Yong Hao Pua, Mui Teng Chua, Win Sen Kuan","doi":"10.1186/s13756-024-01481-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>We examined the effectiveness of an antimicrobial surface coating for continual disinfection of high touch-frequency surfaces in the emergency department (ED).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a preliminary observation identifying stretcher rails as the surface with highest touch-frequency in the ED, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 96 stretcher rails. The stretchers were randomized to receive an antimicrobial surface coating or placebo coating. Routine cleaning of stretchers subsequently continued as per hospital protocol in both arms. Sampling for total aerobic, gram-positive halophilic, gram-negative and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria was performed pre- and post-treatment at 24 h, 7 days and 180 days. Individuals who applied the coating and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated arms. The primary outcome is contamination of antimicrobial versus placebo rails measured as colony forming units per cm<sup>2</sup>(CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline total aerobic bacteria was comparable between placebo and intervention arms (0.84 versus 1.32 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, P = 0.235). Total aerobic bacteria contamination was significantly lower on antimicrobial versus placebo rails at 24 h (0.61 versus 1.01 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, median difference 0.40 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 1.01 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>). There was a non-statistically significant tendency for contamination to be lower on antimicrobial versus placebo rails at 7 days (1.15 versus 1.50 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, median difference 0.35 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.28 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>), but higher at 180 days (2.06 versus 1.84 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, median difference - 0.22 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.78 CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate an antimicrobial surface coating on high touch-frequency surfaces in the emergency department. Total aerobic bacteria found on antimicrobial-coated patient transport stretcher rails was significantly lower than placebo rails at 24 h.</p>","PeriodicalId":7950,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","volume":"13 1","pages":"129"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11520898/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-024-01481-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objective: We examined the effectiveness of an antimicrobial surface coating for continual disinfection of high touch-frequency surfaces in the emergency department (ED).

Methods: Following a preliminary observation identifying stretcher rails as the surface with highest touch-frequency in the ED, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 96 stretcher rails. The stretchers were randomized to receive an antimicrobial surface coating or placebo coating. Routine cleaning of stretchers subsequently continued as per hospital protocol in both arms. Sampling for total aerobic, gram-positive halophilic, gram-negative and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteria was performed pre- and post-treatment at 24 h, 7 days and 180 days. Individuals who applied the coating and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated arms. The primary outcome is contamination of antimicrobial versus placebo rails measured as colony forming units per cm2(CFU/cm2).

Results: Baseline total aerobic bacteria was comparable between placebo and intervention arms (0.84 versus 1.32 CFU/cm2, P = 0.235). Total aerobic bacteria contamination was significantly lower on antimicrobial versus placebo rails at 24 h (0.61 versus 1.01 CFU/cm2, median difference 0.40 CFU/cm2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01 to 1.01 CFU/cm2). There was a non-statistically significant tendency for contamination to be lower on antimicrobial versus placebo rails at 7 days (1.15 versus 1.50 CFU/cm2, median difference 0.35 CFU/cm2, 95% CI -0.64 to 1.28 CFU/cm2), but higher at 180 days (2.06 versus 1.84 CFU/cm2, median difference - 0.22 CFU/cm2, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.78 CFU/cm2).

Conclusion: This is the first double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to evaluate an antimicrobial surface coating on high touch-frequency surfaces in the emergency department. Total aerobic bacteria found on antimicrobial-coated patient transport stretcher rails was significantly lower than placebo rails at 24 h.

急诊科抗菌表面涂层作为感染控制保护技术(ASEPTIC):随机对照试验。
研究目的我们研究了抗菌表面涂层对急诊科(ED)高接触频率表面进行持续消毒的效果:经过初步观察,我们发现担架栏杆是急诊室中接触频率最高的表面,于是我们对 96 个担架栏杆进行了随机对照试验。担架被随机分配为抗菌表面涂层或安慰剂涂层。随后,两组担架均按照医院规定进行常规清洁。在治疗前和治疗后的 24 小时、7 天和 180 天,分别对总需氧菌、革兰氏阳性嗜卤菌、革兰氏阴性菌和耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌进行采样。涂抹涂层的人员和结果评估人员对所分配的臂盲。主要结果是以每平方厘米菌落形成单位(CFU/cm2)来衡量抗菌剂与安慰剂的污染情况:结果:安慰剂组和干预组的基线需氧菌总数相当(0.84 对 1.32 CFU/cm2,P = 0.235)。24 小时后,抗菌剂与安慰剂护栏上的需氧菌污染总数明显降低(0.61 CFU/cm2 与 1.01 CFU/cm2,中位数差异为 0.40 CFU/cm2,95% 置信区间 [CI] 为 0.01 至 1.01 CFU/cm2)。在7天时,抗菌剂与安慰剂护栏的污染程度有差异(1.15 CFU/cm2 与 1.50 CFU/cm2,中位差异为 0.35 CFU/cm2,95% CI -0.64 至 1.28 CFU/cm2),但在180天时污染程度较高(2.06 CFU/cm2 与 1.84 CFU/cm2,中位差异为 -0.22 CFU/cm2,95% CI -1.19 至 0.78 CFU/cm2):这是首个评估急诊科高频触摸表面抗菌涂层的双盲、安慰剂对照随机试验。24 小时后,在涂有抗菌剂的病人运送担架栏杆上发现的需氧菌总数明显低于安慰剂栏杆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH -INFECTIOUS DISEASES
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
3.60%
发文量
140
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control is a global forum for all those working on the prevention, diagnostic and treatment of health-care associated infections and antimicrobial resistance development in all health-care settings. The journal covers a broad spectrum of preeminent practices and best available data to the top interventional and translational research, and innovative developments in the field of infection control.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信