https://www.infirmiere-canadienne.com/blogs/ic-contenu/2024/03/25/utilisation-sure-efficace-agents-antiseptiques
Alcohol and chlorhexidine: practical guidance for health-care workers
By Ali Bayrouti
March 25, 2024
istockphoto.com/Natali_Mis
Alcohol and chlorhexidine are easily accessible in most health-care environments. While both support infection control, they differ in their intended uses, mechanisms of action, spectrum of activity, residual effect, and potential adverse effects. The appropriate use and concentration of each depend on the clinical situation and the patient’s condition.
Takeaway messages
- Routine hand hygiene is paramount in preventing health-care-associated infections. Alcohol-based hand rubs are effective and provide a convenient option for hand hygiene in health-care settings when 3 mL is used for at least 15 seconds (85% weight/weight). Traditional handwashing with soap and water remains indicated when the hands are visibly soiled.
- Nurses can significantly reduce the spread of infections, improve outcomes and promote safe patient care by using antiseptics appropriately. Following manufacturer and institution recommended concentrations, contact times and application methods will best support evidence-based practice.
- Alcohol-based antiseptics can be used for hand hygiene and skin preparation before invasive procedures. Remain mindful that repeated use can cause skin dryness, irritation, and possibly dermatitis. Moisturizing creams can help prevent skin damage.
- Chlorhexidine is effective for surgical site preparation as well as central line insertion and oral care in varying concentrations. It has a prolonged residual effect and is less likely to cause skin irritation. Use with caution in patients with known allergies or skin sensitivities.
Alcohol and chlorhexidine are commonly used antiseptics that target pathogens and reduce the risk of infections. Although both substances effectively target and reduce microorganisms, they differ in mechanisms and properties. Nurses should be aware of these differences to guide clinical practice as both agents are readily available in practice. Nurses are optimally positioned to apply this knowledge appropriately to enhance patient outcomes and reduce the spread of infections in health-care settings.
The objective of this article is to educate practitioners in a summarized, easy-to-understand format and support evidence-based decision-making in clinical practice for safe patient care delivery. This article examines both antiseptics, reviews existing research on their profiles, effectiveness, and presents key facts about use of both products in clinical environments. The review considers indications for use, optimal concentrations and specific application methods, all of which, when employed correctly, contribute to enhanced safety.
Alcohol
| Topic |
Key points |
| Broad overview |
• Alcohol-based antiseptics mainly contain isopropanol, ethanol, n-propanol, or a combination as their active ingredient.
• Commonly used due to its accessibility, rapid onset of action, and affordability.
• Higher concentrations than recommended may be less potent as water is required to denature proteins.
• Products containing 60-95% alcohol are acceptable. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends formulations containing (volume/volume): 80% ethanol; 75% isopropyl alcohol
(Gold, Mirza, & Avva, 2022) |
| Mechanism of action |
• Denatures and coagulates proteins, disrupting the cell membrane of microbes affecting their viability.
(CDC, 2002, 2008) |
| Alcohol-based hand rubs (ABHRs) |
• Defined as alcohol-containing preparations for hand disinfection. Readily available and reduces the risk of pathogen transmission and health-care-associated infections (HAIs).
(Pires, Soule, Bellissimo-Rodrigues, Gayet-Ageron, & Pittet, 2017) |
| Effectiveness against microorganisms |
• Effective against a broad range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, some viruses, and fungi.
• Effective against commonly encountered methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
(CDC, 2002) |
| Effectiveness against viruses |
• Ethanol and propanol are effective agents against some viruses, including coronaviruses.
(Kampf, Todt, Pfaender, & Steinmann, 2020) |
| Recommended use in health-care settings |
• ABHRs do not replace handwashing but offer an efficient and effective option for convenient hand hygiene.
• Easy to use, available and proven effective. Used for hand hygiene skin preparation before injections, catheterizations and surgeries.
(CDC, 2016; World Health Organization, 2009) |
| Recommended concentration for hand sanitizing |
• The CDC recommends, at minimum, 60% alcohol solution when traditional handwashing is not available.
(CDC, 2023) |
| Amount of ABHR to apply |
• 3 mL of ABHR is generally recommended; however, the amount required for effective hand hygiene correlates to individual hand size, with larger hands requiring more hand rub.
(CDC, 2002; Voniatis, Bánsághi, Ferencz, & Haidegger, 2021) |
| Limitations of alcohol as an antiseptic |
• Repeated use can cause skin dryness, irritation, and dermatitis.
• Not recommended for medical/surgical instrument sterilization as alcohol lacks sporicidal activity.
(CDC, 2002, 2008) |
| Promoting compliance and preventing skin damage |
• Minimum contact time of 15 seconds
• Allow the solution to dry completely
• Moisturizing creams can prevent skin damage and irritation and promote compliance with hand hygiene.
(Harnoss et al., 2020; Pires et al., 2017) |
Chlorhexidine
| Topic |
Key points |
| Chlorhexidine |
• Broad-spectrum antiseptic and disinfectant with prolonged residual effect.
• Disrupts the cell membrane of microorganisms.
• Effective against different bacteria, fungi, and viruses.
(Buxser, 2021; Rutter & Macinga, 2013) |
| Skin tolerability |
• Can be safely used on intact skin.
• Irritant contact dermatitis may occur.
• Rare occurrence of allergic local reactions and anaphylaxis. Caution in patients with a history of allergies or documented skin sensitivities.
(CDC, 2002; Mimoz et al., 2015) |
| Central line insertion |
• Use of chlorhexidine-alcohol provides greater protection and lowers the risk of short-term catheter-related bloodstream infections.
• CDC recommends chlorhexidine-based antiseptic for skin preparation before insertion.
(CDC, 2011; Huang et al., 2013; Mimoz et al., 2015) |
| Oral care in critically ill patients |
• Reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.
• The CDC recommends 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash for oral care in mechanically ventilated patients. Oral care with chlorhexidine may reduce microbial colonization in this population.
(Kes et al., 2021; Labeau, Van de Vyver, Brusselaers, Vogelaers, & Blot, 2011) |
Discussion
Both chlorhexedine and alcohol are commonly used in health-care settings, individually and in combination to effectively reduce the risk of infection and pathogen transmission. Appropriate selection and use depend on multiple factors. The following table summarizes a comparison of the two antiseptics.
| Alcohol |
Chlorhexidine |
| Mechanism of action |
Denatures proteins in the cell membrane of microorganisms.
(CDC, 2002) |
Disrupts microbial cell membranes.
(Buxser, 2021) |
| Efficacy |
Some formulations may be less potent at higher concentrations.
Effective against a broad range of gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, some viruses, and fungi.
(CDC, 2002; Gold et al., 2022) |
Offers broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity.
Effective against different bacteria, fungi, and viruses.
(Buxser, 2021; Rutter & Macinga, 2013) |
| Residual effect |
None-to-weak residual effect.
(CDC, 2002) |
Prolonged residual effect.
(Buxser, 2021) |
Health-care providers should ensure that they are selecting the correct antiseptic and concentration for their intended use and should follow the recommended contact time for each product based on current guidelines.
When disinfecting with alcohol-based solutions, the CDC (2002) recommends a contact time of 30 seconds or longer for the solution to be effective against a broad range of microorganisms. Pires et al. (2017) conducted an experimental study focusing on the impact of hand-rubbing duration on the reduction of bacterial load on the hands of health-care workers. The investigated durations ranged from 10 to 60 seconds, and the reduction in bacterial load for each duration was assessed. The researchers found that hand rubbing for 15 seconds was not significantly different or inferior to 30 seconds in reducing bacterial counts. Longer durations did not provide additional benefits in terms of bacterial reduction. Similar findings were established by Harnoss et al. (2020). Such evidence suggests that 15 seconds of hand rubbing with ABHRs may be sufficient in ensuring effective hand hygiene.
Conclusion
Alcohol and chlorhexidine are easily accessible in most health-care environments. While both support infection control, they differ in their intended uses, mechanisms of action, spectrum of activity, residual effect, and potential adverse effects. The appropriate use and concentration of each depend on the clinical situation and the patient’s condition.
By reviewing the information in this article, nurses may enhance their knowledge of each product and improve health-care outcomes, including patient safety, by mitigating the risk of infection.
Declarations
The author affirms that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose and that no funding was received in support of this article.
References
Buxser, S. (2021). Has resistance to chlorhexidine increased among clinically-relevant bacteria? A systematic review of time course and subpopulation data. PLOS One, 16(8), e0256336. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256336
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2002). Guideline for hand hygiene in health-care settings. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 51(RR-16). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5116.pdf
CDC. (2008). Chemical disinfectants: Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/chemical.html
CDC. (2011). Summary of recommendations: Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/bsi/recommendations.html
CDC. (2016, September). Guide to infection prevention for outpatient settings: Minimum expectations for safe care. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/outpatient/guide.pdf
CDC. (2023, May 4). Show me the science – When & how to use hand sanitizer in community settings. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-sanitizer.html#:~:text=CDC%20recommends%20washing%20hands%20with,and%20spreading%20germs%20to%20others
Gold, N. A., Mirza, T. M., & Avva, U. (2022). Alcohol sanitizer. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing.
Harnoss, J. C., Dancer, S. J., Kaden, C. F., Baguhl, R., Kohlmann, T., Papke, R., … Kramer, A. (2020). Hand antisepsis without decreasing efficacy by shortening the rub-in time of alcohol-based handrubs to 15 seconds. Journal of Hospital Infection, 104(4), P419–P424. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2019.09.004
Huang, S. S., Septimus, E., Kleinman, K., Moody, J., Hickok, J., Avery, T. R., ... & Platt, R. (2013). Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(24), 2255–2265. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1207290
Kampf, G., Todt, D., Pfaender, S., & Steinmann, E. (2020). Persistence of coronaviruses on inanimate surfaces and their inactivation with biocidal agents. Journal of Hospital Infection, 104(3), P246–P251. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2020.01.022
Kes, D., Yildirim, T. A., Kuru, C., Pazarlioglu, F., Ciftci, T., & Ozdemir, M. (2021). Effect of 0.12% chlorhexidine use for oral care on ventilator-associated respiratory infections: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Trauma Nursing, 28(4), 228–234. Retrieved from https://nursing.ceconnection.com/ovidfiles/00043860-202107000-00005.pdf
Labeau, S. O., Van de Vyver, K., Brusselaers, N., Vogelaers, D., & Blot, S. I. (2011). Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 11(11), P845–P854. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70127-X
Mimoz, O., Lucet, J.-C., Kerforne, T., Pascal, J., Souweine, B., Goudet, V., ... & CLEAN Trial Investigators. (2015). Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular-catheter-related infection (CLEAN): An open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled two-by-two factorial trial. The Lancet, 383(10008), P2069–P2077. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00244-5
Pires, D., Soule, H., Bellissimo-Rodrigues, F., Gayet-Ageron, A., & Pittet, D. (2017). Hand hygiene with alcohol-based hand rub: How long is long enough? Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 38(5), 547–552. doi:10.1017/ice.2017.25
Rutter, J., & Macinga, D. R. (2013). Investigation of the residual activity of chlorhexidine gluconate using a novel method to simulate real-world conditions. American Journal of Infection Control, 41(6), S39. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2013.03.082
Voniatis, C., Bánsághi, S., Ferencz, A., & Haidegger, T. (2021). A large-scale investigation of alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) volume: Hand coverage correlations utilizing an innovative quantitative evaluation system. Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 10(49), 49. doi:10.1186/s13756-021-00917-8
World Health Organization. (2009). WHO guidelines on hand hygiene in health care: A summary. Retrieved from https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70126/WHO_IER_PSP_2009.07_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ali Bayrouti, RN, BN, is a rural and remote practice registered nurse in Alberta, Canada. He currently works as a charge RN covering emergency and acute medical/surgical care.
#practice
#clinical-practice
#health-care-associated-infections
#infection-prevention-and-control
#nursing-practice
#patient-care