氯己定与酒精类防腐剂对牛腰旁窝的比较。

Veterinary surgery : VS Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-31 DOI:10.1111/vsu.13878
Aimie J Doyle, Matthew E Saab, J Trenton McClure
{"title":"氯己定与酒精类防腐剂对牛腰旁窝的比较。","authors":"Aimie J Doyle,&nbsp;Matthew E Saab,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle.\",\"authors\":\"Aimie J Doyle,&nbsp;Matthew E Saab,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

目的:测定三种灭菌方案下牛体内需氧细菌菌落形成单位(CFU)的皮肤反应、处理后减少量(即时效果)和处理后1小时减少量(持续效果)。研究设计:前瞻性、随机实验研究。动物:十八头牛。方法:每个前腰椎窝3个部位被剪断,随机分为3个治疗组:5分钟4%葡萄糖酸氯己定磨砂(CHG);90秒80%乙醇擦洗(ET);90秒70%异丙醇擦洗(IPA)。在所有采样时间点和治疗后24小时监测所有部位的皮肤不良反应。样品在处理前、处理后立即和处理后1小时收集,并一式两份镀。细菌计数移位以消除零,转换log10并取平均值。采用方差分析比较两组间log10 CFU/ml平均减少量的差异。结果:与CHG相比,应用IPA (p = .001)和ET (p = .001)后,log10CFU/ml的降低更为明显。CHG比ET更能维持这种减少(p = 0.005),而IPA则不能。应用IPA或ET后,细菌负荷的立即和持续减少没有差异。没有注意到不良皮肤反应。结论:与CHG相比,用酒精基防腐剂制备皮肤具有良好的耐受性,并能立即减少细菌。在施用CHG后1小时,这种减少比ET持续得更好,但CHG和IPA之间没有差异。临床相关性:缺乏皮肤不良反应和性能为支持牛皮用酒精基防腐剂制备提供了证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信