Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization
Background: Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hy...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Infection control and hospital epidemiology 2020-10, Vol.41 (S1), p.s176-s177 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | s177 |
---|---|
container_issue | S1 |
container_start_page | s176 |
container_title | Infection control and hospital epidemiology |
container_volume | 41 |
creator | Rutala, William Gergen, Maria Sickbert-Bennett, Emily Weber, David Jay |
description | Background:
Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), and hydrogen peroxide plus ozone. This study is the first to evaluate the microbicidal activity of the FDA-cleared VHP sterilizer and other methods (Table 1) in the presence of salt and serum (10% FCS).
Methods:
Brushed stainless steel discs (test carriers) were inoculated with test microbes (Table 1) and subjected to 4 sterilization methods: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP.
Results:
Steam sterilization killed all 5 vegetative and 3 spore-forming test organisms in the presence of salt and serum (Table 1). Similarly, the ETO and the HPGP sterilizers inactivated the test organisms with a failure rate of 1.9% for each (ie, 6 of 310 for ETO and 5 of 270 for HPGP). Although steam had no failures compared to both ETO and HPGP, which demonstrated some failures for vegetative bacteria, there was no significant difference comparing the failure rate of steam to either ETO (
P
> .05) or HPGP (
P
> .05). However, the VHP system tested failed to inactivate all the test organisms in 76.3% of the tests (206 of 270;
P
< .00001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
This investigation demonstrated that steam sterilization was the most effective method, followed by ETO and HPGP and, lastly, VHP.
Funding:
None
Disclosures:
Dr. Rutala was a consultant to ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products) |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/ice.2020.707 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2898286425</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2898286425</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1467-c7425d083953c21f83434c5d66d4f1f701a0b9e1c925b3718f5cacb2224d620a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkEtPwzAQhC0EEqVw4wdE4kqKH3FsH6uqPKQiDhSJm-U4NnWV1MFOCuXX46hcOO1KM7Or-QC4RnCGIGJ3TpsZhhjOGGQnYIIoFXnJSXEKJpALkXNM3s_BRYxbCCETAk3A98K3nQqqd3uTLfeqGdLqd5m3Wb8x2bPTwVdOu1o12Vwnl-sPo7jyX_natJ1J0SGY7LU3wTXu55heG73Z-cZ_OBOz3o-qav97LsGZVU00V39zCt7ul-vFY756eXhazFe5RkXJcs0KTGvIiaBEY2RTG1JoWpdlXVhkGUQKVsIgLTCtCEPcUq10hTEu6hJDRabg5ni3C_5zMLGXWz-EXXopMRcc8zI9SK7boyvVjTEYK7vgWhUOEkE5spWJrRzZysSW_AKzvm5N</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2898286425</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization</title><source>ProQuest Central Essentials</source><source>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><source>ProQuest Central</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Rutala, William ; Gergen, Maria ; Sickbert-Bennett, Emily ; Weber, David Jay</creator><creatorcontrib>Rutala, William ; Gergen, Maria ; Sickbert-Bennett, Emily ; Weber, David Jay</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), and hydrogen peroxide plus ozone. This study is the first to evaluate the microbicidal activity of the FDA-cleared VHP sterilizer and other methods (Table 1) in the presence of salt and serum (10% FCS).
Methods:
Brushed stainless steel discs (test carriers) were inoculated with test microbes (Table 1) and subjected to 4 sterilization methods: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP.
Results:
Steam sterilization killed all 5 vegetative and 3 spore-forming test organisms in the presence of salt and serum (Table 1). Similarly, the ETO and the HPGP sterilizers inactivated the test organisms with a failure rate of 1.9% for each (ie, 6 of 310 for ETO and 5 of 270 for HPGP). Although steam had no failures compared to both ETO and HPGP, which demonstrated some failures for vegetative bacteria, there was no significant difference comparing the failure rate of steam to either ETO (
P
> .05) or HPGP (
P
> .05). However, the VHP system tested failed to inactivate all the test organisms in 76.3% of the tests (206 of 270;
P
< .00001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
This investigation demonstrated that steam sterilization was the most effective method, followed by ETO and HPGP and, lastly, VHP.
Funding:
None
Disclosures:
Dr. Rutala was a consultant to ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0899-823X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-6834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/ice.2020.707</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Disease control ; Heat ; Hydrogen peroxide ; Low temperature ; Steam ; Sterilization ; Test organisms</subject><ispartof>Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020-10, Vol.41 (S1), p.s176-s177</ispartof><rights>2020 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1467-c7425d083953c21f83434c5d66d4f1f701a0b9e1c925b3718f5cacb2224d620a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2898286425/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2898286425?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21388,21389,23256,27924,27925,33530,33703,33744,43659,43787,43805,64385,64389,72469,74104,74283,74302</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rutala, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gergen, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sickbert-Bennett, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, David Jay</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization</title><title>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</title><description>Background:
Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), and hydrogen peroxide plus ozone. This study is the first to evaluate the microbicidal activity of the FDA-cleared VHP sterilizer and other methods (Table 1) in the presence of salt and serum (10% FCS).
Methods:
Brushed stainless steel discs (test carriers) were inoculated with test microbes (Table 1) and subjected to 4 sterilization methods: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP.
Results:
Steam sterilization killed all 5 vegetative and 3 spore-forming test organisms in the presence of salt and serum (Table 1). Similarly, the ETO and the HPGP sterilizers inactivated the test organisms with a failure rate of 1.9% for each (ie, 6 of 310 for ETO and 5 of 270 for HPGP). Although steam had no failures compared to both ETO and HPGP, which demonstrated some failures for vegetative bacteria, there was no significant difference comparing the failure rate of steam to either ETO (
P
> .05) or HPGP (
P
> .05). However, the VHP system tested failed to inactivate all the test organisms in 76.3% of the tests (206 of 270;
P
< .00001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
This investigation demonstrated that steam sterilization was the most effective method, followed by ETO and HPGP and, lastly, VHP.
Funding:
None
Disclosures:
Dr. Rutala was a consultant to ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products)</description><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>Heat</subject><subject>Hydrogen peroxide</subject><subject>Low temperature</subject><subject>Steam</subject><subject>Sterilization</subject><subject>Test organisms</subject><issn>0899-823X</issn><issn>1559-6834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkEtPwzAQhC0EEqVw4wdE4kqKH3FsH6uqPKQiDhSJm-U4NnWV1MFOCuXX46hcOO1KM7Or-QC4RnCGIGJ3TpsZhhjOGGQnYIIoFXnJSXEKJpALkXNM3s_BRYxbCCETAk3A98K3nQqqd3uTLfeqGdLqd5m3Wb8x2bPTwVdOu1o12Vwnl-sPo7jyX_natJ1J0SGY7LU3wTXu55heG73Z-cZ_OBOz3o-qav97LsGZVU00V39zCt7ul-vFY756eXhazFe5RkXJcs0KTGvIiaBEY2RTG1JoWpdlXVhkGUQKVsIgLTCtCEPcUq10hTEu6hJDRabg5ni3C_5zMLGXWz-EXXopMRcc8zI9SK7boyvVjTEYK7vgWhUOEkE5spWJrRzZysSW_AKzvm5N</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>Rutala, William</creator><creator>Gergen, Maria</creator><creator>Sickbert-Bennett, Emily</creator><creator>Weber, David Jay</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization</title><author>Rutala, William ; Gergen, Maria ; Sickbert-Bennett, Emily ; Weber, David Jay</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1467-c7425d083953c21f83434c5d66d4f1f701a0b9e1c925b3718f5cacb2224d620a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>Heat</topic><topic>Hydrogen peroxide</topic><topic>Low temperature</topic><topic>Steam</topic><topic>Sterilization</topic><topic>Test organisms</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rutala, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gergen, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sickbert-Bennett, Emily</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weber, David Jay</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rutala, William</au><au>Gergen, Maria</au><au>Sickbert-Bennett, Emily</au><au>Weber, David Jay</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization</atitle><jtitle>Infection control and hospital epidemiology</jtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>S1</issue><spage>s176</spage><epage>s177</epage><pages>s176-s177</pages><issn>0899-823X</issn><eissn>1559-6834</eissn><abstract>Background:
Most medical and surgical devices used in healthcare facilities are made of materials that are sterilized by heat (ie, heat stable), primarily steam sterilization. Low-temperature sterilization methods developed for heat and moisture sensitive devices include ethylene oxide gas (ETO), hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP), and hydrogen peroxide plus ozone. This study is the first to evaluate the microbicidal activity of the FDA-cleared VHP sterilizer and other methods (Table 1) in the presence of salt and serum (10% FCS).
Methods:
Brushed stainless steel discs (test carriers) were inoculated with test microbes (Table 1) and subjected to 4 sterilization methods: steam, ETO, VHP and HPGP.
Results:
Steam sterilization killed all 5 vegetative and 3 spore-forming test organisms in the presence of salt and serum (Table 1). Similarly, the ETO and the HPGP sterilizers inactivated the test organisms with a failure rate of 1.9% for each (ie, 6 of 310 for ETO and 5 of 270 for HPGP). Although steam had no failures compared to both ETO and HPGP, which demonstrated some failures for vegetative bacteria, there was no significant difference comparing the failure rate of steam to either ETO (
P
> .05) or HPGP (
P
> .05). However, the VHP system tested failed to inactivate all the test organisms in 76.3% of the tests (206 of 270;
P
< .00001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
This investigation demonstrated that steam sterilization was the most effective method, followed by ETO and HPGP and, lastly, VHP.
Funding:
None
Disclosures:
Dr. Rutala was a consultant to ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products)</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/ice.2020.707</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0899-823X |
ispartof | Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020-10, Vol.41 (S1), p.s176-s177 |
issn | 0899-823X 1559-6834 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2898286425 |
source | ProQuest Central Essentials; ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland; ProQuest Central; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | Disease control Heat Hydrogen peroxide Low temperature Steam Sterilization Test organisms |
title | Comparative Evaluation of the Microbicidal Activity of Low-Temperature Sterilization Technologies to Steam Sterilization |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T04%3A31%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Microbicidal%20Activity%20of%20Low-Temperature%20Sterilization%20Technologies%20to%20Steam%20Sterilization&rft.jtitle=Infection%20control%20and%20hospital%20epidemiology&rft.au=Rutala,%20William&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=S1&rft.spage=s176&rft.epage=s177&rft.pages=s176-s177&rft.issn=0899-823X&rft.eissn=1559-6834&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/ice.2020.707&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2898286425%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2898286425&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |