Inanimate surfaces have often been described as the source for outbreaks of nosocomial infections. The aim of this review is to summarize data on the persistence of different nosocomial pathogens on inanimate surfaces. The literature was systematically reviewed in MedLine without language restrictions. In addition, cited articles in a report were assessed and standard textbooks on the topic were reviewed. All reports with experimental evidence on the duration of persistence of a nosocomial pathogen on any type of surface were included. Most gram-positive bacteria, such as Enterococcus spp. (including VRE), Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), or Streptococcus pyogenes, survive for months on dry surfaces. Many gram-negative species, such as Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, or Shigella spp., can also survive for months. A few others, such as Bordetella pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae, Proteus vulgaris, or Vibrio cholerae, however, persist only for days. Mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and spore-forming bacteria, including Clostridium difficile, can also survive for months on surfaces. Candida albicans as the most important nosocomial fungal pathogen can survive up to 4 months on surfaces. Persistence of other yeasts, such as Torulopsis glabrata, was described to be similar (5 months) or shorter (Candida parapsilosis, 14 days). Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza, SARS or rhino virus, can persist on surfaces for a few days. Viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, polio- or rota virus, persist for approximately 2 months. Blood-borne viruses, such as HBV or HIV, can persist for more than one week. Herpes viruses, such as CMV or HSV type 1 and 2, have been shown to persist from only a few hours up to 7 days. The most common nosocomial pathogens may well survive or persist on surfaces for months and can thereby be a continuous source of transmission if no regular preventive surface disinfection is performed.

To assess the suitability of an antiseptic agent, both the microbicidal activity and the cytotoxic effect must be taken into consideration to derive biocompatible antibacterial agents. We defined the biocompatibility index (BI) by measuring the antibacterial activity against the test organisms Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus and, in parallel, the cytotoxicity on cultured murine fibroblasts. The antiseptic agents tested were benzalkonium chloride (BAC), cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), mild silver protein (MSP), octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT), polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB), povidone iodine in solution [PVP-I(s)], povidone iodine in ointment [PVP-I(o)], silver nitrate (AgNO₃), silver (I) sulfadiazine (SSD) and triclosan (TRI). Assays were carried out for 30 min of exposure at 37°C in the presence of cell culture medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum. The resulting dimensionless BI was defined as the ratio of the concentration at which 50% of the murine fibroblasts are damaged and the microbicidal effect producing at least 3 log₁₀ (99.9%) reduction. The resulting rank ordering of BI for the ratio of fibroblast cytotoxicity to E. coli toxicity was OCT > PHMB > CHX > PVP-I(o) > PVP-I(s) > BAC > CPC > TRI > MSP and that to S. aureus was OCT > PHMB > CHX > CPC > PVP-I(o) > BAC > PVP(s) > TRI > MSP. OCT and PHMB were the most suitable agents with a BI greater than 1. The BI presented may be a useful tool to evaluate antiseptic agents for use in clinical practice.

The rate of microscopic incomplete resections of gastrointestinal cancers including pancreatic cancer has not changed considerably over the past years. Future intra-operative applications of tissue tolerable plasmas (TTP) could help to address this problem. Plasma is generated by feeding energy, like electrical discharges, to gases. The development of non-thermal atmospheric plasmas displaying spectra of temperature within or just above physiological ranges allows biological or medical applications of plasmas.

The main target of the combination of octenidine with phenoxyethanol (Octenisept®) is the antisepsis of acute wounds, whereas polyhexanide combined with polyethylene glycol in Ringer solution (Lavasept®) is the agent of choice for antisepsis of chronic wounds and burns. Because comparative data for both agents on the effects on wound healing are lacking, we investigated the influence of preparations based on polyhexanide and octenidine versus placebo (Ringer solution) in experimental superficial aseptic skin wounds (n = 108) of 20 mm diameter, using a double-blind, randomised, stratified, controlled, parallel-group design in piglets. Computerised planimetry and histopathological methods were used for the assessment of wound healing. Histologically, no significant differences could be verified at any time between the 3 groups. However, in the early phase (day 9 after wounding), the octenidine-based product retarded wound contraction to a significantly greater extent than placebo and polyhexanide, whereas in the later phase (days 18 and 28), polyhexanide promoted contraction significantly more than did placebo and octenidine. The consequence is complete wound closure after 22.9 days using polyhexanide, in comparison to the placebo after 24.1 days (p < 0.05) and octenidine after 28.3 days (no statistical difference to placebo). This may be explained by the better tolerance of polyhexanide in vitro, which was demonstrated with dose and time dependence in cytotoxicity tests on human amnion cells.

Background: Despite the increasing promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs and the worldwide use of ethanol-based hand rubs in hospitals only few studies have specifically addressed the issue of ethanol absorption when repeatedly applied to human skin. The aim of this study was to assess if ethanol absorption occurs during hygienic and surgical hand disinfection using three different alcohol-based hand-rubs, and to quantify absorption levels in humans. Methods: Twelve volunteers applied three hand-rubs containing 95% (hand-rub A), 85% (hand-rub B) and 55% ethanol (hand-rub C; all w/w). For hygienic hand disinfection, 4 mL were applied 20 times for 30 s, with 1 minute break between applications. For surgical hand disinfection, 20 mL of each hand rub was applied to hands and arms up to the level of the elbow 10 times for 3 minutes, with a break of 5 minutes between applications. Blood concentrations of ethanol and acetaldehyde were determined immediately prior and up to 90 minutes after application using head space gas chromatography. Results: The median of absorbed ethanol after hygienic hand disinfection was 1365 mg (A), 630 mg (B), and 358 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 2.3% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.9% (C). After surgical hand disinfection, the median of absorbed ethanol was 1067 mg (A), 1542 mg (B), and 477 mg (C). The proportion of absorbed ethanol was 0.7% (A), 1.1% (B), and 0.5% (C). The highest median acetaldehyde concentration after 20 hygienic hand disinfections was 0.57 mg/L (hand-rub C, after 30 min), after 10 surgical hand disinfections 3.99 mg/L (hand-rub A, after 20 minutes). Conclusion: The overall dermal and pulmonary absorption of ethanol was below toxic levels in humans and allows the conclusion that the use of the evaluated ethanol-based hand-rubs is safe.