{"title":"Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle.","authors":"Aimie J Doyle, Matthew E Saab, J Trenton McClure","doi":"10.1111/vsu.13878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine skin reaction, post-treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post-treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Prospective, randomized experimental study.</p><p><strong>Animals: </strong>Eighteen cows.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre-, immediately post-, and 1 hour post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log<sub>10</sub> transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log<sub>10</sub> CFU/ml between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics in cattle.</p>","PeriodicalId":123280,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary surgery : VS","volume":" ","pages":"1191-1195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary surgery : VS","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vsu.13878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To determine skin reaction, post-treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post-treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle.
Study design: Prospective, randomized experimental study.
Animals: Eighteen cows.
Methods: Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre-, immediately post-, and 1 hour post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log10 CFU/ml between groups.
Results: Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted.
Conclusions: Skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA.
Clinical relevance: Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics in cattle.