This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kampf, G. Articles by Kramer, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kampf, G. Articles by Kramer, A.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, October 2004, p. 863-893, Vol. 17, No. 4
0893-8512/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/CMR.17.4.863-893.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Epidemiologic Background of Hand Hygiene and Evaluation of the Most Important Agents for Scrubs and Rubs

Bode Chemie GmbH & Co., Scientific Affairs, Hamburg,¹ Institut für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald, Germany²

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Edwards, J., Patel, G., Wareham, D. W. (2007). Low concentrations of commercial alcohol hand rubs facilitate growth of and secretion of extracellular proteins by multidrug-resistant strains of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Med Microbiol 56: 1595-1599 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wong, M.-S., Chu, W.-C., Sun, D.-S., Huang, H.-S., Chen, J.-H., Tsai, P.-J., Lin, N.-T., Yu, M.-S., Hsu, S.-F., Wang, S.-L., Chang, H.-H. (2006). Visible-Light-Induced Bactericidal Activity of a Nitrogen-Doped Titanium Photocatalyst against Human Pathogens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72: 6111-6116 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mukherjee, P. K., Mohamed, S., Chandra, J., Kuhn, D., Liu, S., Antar, O. S., Munyon, R., Mitchell, A. P., Andes, D., Chance, M. R., Rouabhia, M., Ghannoum, M. A. (2006). Alcohol Dehydrogenase Restricts the Ability of the Pathogen Candida albicans To Form a Biofilm on Catheter Surfaces through an Ethanol-Based Mechanism. Infect. Immun. 74: 3804-3816 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kampf, G., Ostermeyer, C., Heeg, P., Paulson, D. (2006). Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis.. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 72: 3856-3861 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Poole, K. (2005). Efflux-mediated antimicrobial resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 56: 20-51 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Larson, E. L., Cimiotti, J., Haas, J., Parides, M., Nesin, M., Della-Latta, P., Saiman, L. (2005). Effect of Antiseptic Handwashing vs Alcohol Sanitizer on Health Care-Associated Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159: 377-383 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kampf, G., Ostermeyer, C. (2004). Influence of Applied Volume on Efficacy of 3-Minute Surgical Reference Disinfection Method prEN 12791. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70: 7066-7069 [Abstract] [Full Text]