氯己定-酒精与聚维酮-碘用于皮肤防腐及血培养增血效果的比较

Hyekyung Kang, Seong Chun Kim, Sunjoo Kim
{"title":"氯己定-酒精与聚维酮-碘用于皮肤防腐及血培养增血效果的比较","authors":"Hyekyung Kang, Seong Chun Kim, Sunjoo Kim","doi":"10.5145/KJCM.2012.15.1.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Reducing skin contamination rate and improving the positive rate in blood culture is essential for the correct diagnosis and management of sepsis. Chlorhexidine-alcohol was compared with povidone-iodine for the efficiency of disinfection. Positive rates were compared between the collection of 10 mL and 20 mL of blood per sample. Methods: The study population included adult patients ≥ 18 years old requested for blood culture in the Emergency Department. Povidone-iodine (10%) was used for antiseptic skin preparation from March to June 2011, and 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol from July to October 2011. The standard for blood collection was 10 mL in the first period and 20 mL in the second period. The dedicated phlebotomists had been educated on the optimal skin preparation and sample collection. Results: After 10% povidone-iodine application, 31 of 2,755 samples (1.1%) were considered to be contaminated; whereas, a total of 60 of 3,064 samples (2.0%) were contaminated (P=0.011) after application of 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol. The positive rate of blood culture was 12.5% (345/2,755) in the first period versus 17.1% (524/3,064) in the second period (P <0.001). Conclusion: Both disinfectants appeared acceptable for skin preparation for blood culture collection, although chlorhexidine-alcohol had a higher contamination rate than povidone-iodine. The positive rate of blood culture was in accordance with the amount of sample collected. Continuous education and monitoring are needed for the proper collection and management of blood culture. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2012;15:37-42)","PeriodicalId":143093,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Chlorhexidine-Alcohol and Povidone-Iodine for Skin Antisepsis and the Effect of Increased Blood Volume in Blood Culture\",\"authors\":\"Hyekyung Kang, Seong Chun Kim, Sunjoo Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.5145/KJCM.2012.15.1.37\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Reducing skin contamination rate and improving the positive rate in blood culture is essential for the correct diagnosis and management of sepsis. Chlorhexidine-alcohol was compared with povidone-iodine for the efficiency of disinfection. Positive rates were compared between the collection of 10 mL and 20 mL of blood per sample. Methods: The study population included adult patients ≥ 18 years old requested for blood culture in the Emergency Department. Povidone-iodine (10%) was used for antiseptic skin preparation from March to June 2011, and 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol from July to October 2011. The standard for blood collection was 10 mL in the first period and 20 mL in the second period. The dedicated phlebotomists had been educated on the optimal skin preparation and sample collection. Results: After 10% povidone-iodine application, 31 of 2,755 samples (1.1%) were considered to be contaminated; whereas, a total of 60 of 3,064 samples (2.0%) were contaminated (P=0.011) after application of 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol. The positive rate of blood culture was 12.5% (345/2,755) in the first period versus 17.1% (524/3,064) in the second period (P <0.001). Conclusion: Both disinfectants appeared acceptable for skin preparation for blood culture collection, although chlorhexidine-alcohol had a higher contamination rate than povidone-iodine. The positive rate of blood culture was in accordance with the amount of sample collected. Continuous education and monitoring are needed for the proper collection and management of blood culture. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2012;15:37-42)\",\"PeriodicalId\":143093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2012.15.1.37\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Clinical Microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5145/KJCM.2012.15.1.37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:降低皮肤污染率,提高血培养阳性率对脓毒症的正确诊断和处理至关重要。对氯己定醇与聚维酮碘的消毒效果进行了比较。比较每个样本采集10 mL和20 mL血液的阳性率。方法:研究对象为急诊科要求进行血培养的≥18岁成年患者。2011年3月- 6月用聚维酮碘(10%)做皮肤消毒制剂,2011年7月- 10月用0.5%氯己定醇。第一期采血标准为10ml,第二期采血标准为20ml。专门的抽血师已经接受了关于最佳皮肤准备和样本收集的教育。结果:施用10%聚维酮碘后,2755份样品中有31份(1.1%)被认为污染;施用0.5%氯己定醇后,3064份样品中有60份(2.0%)被污染(P=0.011)。第一期血培养阳性率为12.5%(345/2,755),第二期血培养阳性率为17.1% (524/3,064)(P <0.001)。结论:两种消毒剂均可用于血液培养标本的皮肤制备,但氯己定-酒精的污染率高于聚维酮-碘。血培养阳性率与采集量呈正相关。为正确采集和管理血培养,需要持续的教育和监测。(韩国临床微生物杂志2012;15:37-42)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of Chlorhexidine-Alcohol and Povidone-Iodine for Skin Antisepsis and the Effect of Increased Blood Volume in Blood Culture
Background: Reducing skin contamination rate and improving the positive rate in blood culture is essential for the correct diagnosis and management of sepsis. Chlorhexidine-alcohol was compared with povidone-iodine for the efficiency of disinfection. Positive rates were compared between the collection of 10 mL and 20 mL of blood per sample. Methods: The study population included adult patients ≥ 18 years old requested for blood culture in the Emergency Department. Povidone-iodine (10%) was used for antiseptic skin preparation from March to June 2011, and 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol from July to October 2011. The standard for blood collection was 10 mL in the first period and 20 mL in the second period. The dedicated phlebotomists had been educated on the optimal skin preparation and sample collection. Results: After 10% povidone-iodine application, 31 of 2,755 samples (1.1%) were considered to be contaminated; whereas, a total of 60 of 3,064 samples (2.0%) were contaminated (P=0.011) after application of 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol. The positive rate of blood culture was 12.5% (345/2,755) in the first period versus 17.1% (524/3,064) in the second period (P <0.001). Conclusion: Both disinfectants appeared acceptable for skin preparation for blood culture collection, although chlorhexidine-alcohol had a higher contamination rate than povidone-iodine. The positive rate of blood culture was in accordance with the amount of sample collected. Continuous education and monitoring are needed for the proper collection and management of blood culture. (Korean J Clin Microbiol 2012;15:37-42)
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
期刊最新文献
Diversity of Integrons Carrying blaVIM-2 Cassette in Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter spp. A Case of Diabetic Foot Ulcer Caused by Arcanobacterium haemolyticum and Streptococcus agalactiae Haemophilus parainfluenzae Infective Endocarditis Confirmed by 16S rRNA Sequence Analysis from Culture Negative Tissue An Unusual Feature of Malaria: Exflagellated Microgametes of Malarial Parasites in Human Peripheral Blood Lung Abscess and Bacteremia Caused by Neisseria flavescens and Streptococcus sanguis in Patient with Idiopathic Hypereosinophilic Syndrome
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1