Advertisement

Ethanol-based cleanser versus isopropyl alcohol to decontaminate stethoscopes

Published:February 02, 2009DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.08.006
      Approximately 1 in 20 hospital admissions is complicated by a health care–associated infection. Stethoscopes may play a role in spreading nosocomial infections. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an ethanol-based cleanser (EBC) compared with isopropyl alcohol pads in reducing bacterial contamination of stethoscope diaphragms. Stethoscopes were cultured from medical professionals on 4 medical floors before and after cleaning with either EBC or isopropyl alcohol pads. The numbers of colony-forming units (cfu) grown were compared between the 2 cleaners and to baseline values. A total of 99 stethoscopes were cultured (49 EBC; 50 isopropyl alcohol), and all were positive for growth. After cleaning, 28.28% of the stethoscopes were growth-free (12 EBC; 16 isopropyl alcohol). Cleaning with EBC and isopropyl alcohol pads significantly reduced the cfu counts (by 92.8% and 92.5%, respectively), but neither was found to be statistically superior (F = 1.22; P = .2721). Cleaning a stethoscope diaphragm using either EBC or isopropyl alcohol led to a significant reduction in bacterial growth in culture. As an extension of the hand, a stethoscope should be cleaned with the same frequency as the hands. The simultaneous cleaning of hands and stethoscope may further increase compliance with current standards.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Infection Control
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Klevens R.M.
        • Edwards J.R.
        • Richards Jr., C.L.
        • Horan T.C.
        • Gaynes R.P.
        • Pollock D.A.
        • et al.
        (2002). Estimating health care–associated infections and deaths in US.
        hospitals. 2002; (Available from: AccessedApril 7, 2008)
        • Marinella M.
        • Pierson C.
        • Chenoweth C.
        The stethoscope: a potential source of nosocomial infection?.
        Arch Intern Med. 1997; 157: 786-790
        • Leprat R.
        • Minary P.
        • Devaux V.
        • de Wazière B.
        • Dupond J.
        • Talon D.
        Why, when, and how to clean stethoscopes.
        J Hosp Infect. 1998; 39: 80-82
        • Smith M.
        • Mathewson J.
        • Ulert I.
        • Scerpella E.
        • Ericsson C.
        Contaminated stethoscopes revisited.
        Arch Intern Med. 1996; 156: 82-84
        • Cohen H.
        • Amir J.
        • Matalon A.
        • Mayan R.
        • Beni S.
        • Barzilai A.
        Stethoscopes and otoscopes: a potential vector of infection?.
        Fam Pract. 1997; 14: 446-449
        • Saloojee H.
        • Steenhoff A.
        The health professional's role in preventing nosocomial infections.
        Postgrad Med J. 2001; 77: 16-19
        • Guinto C.
        • Bottone E.
        • Raffalli J.
        • Montecalvo M.
        • Wormser G.
        Evaluation of dedicated stethoscopes as a potential source of nosocomial pathogens.
        Am J Infect Control. 2002; 30: 499-502