Advertisement

Erratum

    Published:March 22, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.03.012
        In the article “A comparison of the efficacy of 70% (v/v) isopropyl alcohol with either 0.5% (w/v) or 2% (w/v) chlorhexidine gluconate for skin preparation prior to harvest of the long saphenous vein used in coronary artery bypass grafting.” by Casey et al. in the August issue of the American Journal of Infection Control (2015;43:816-20) the incorrect alcohol contained within the 0.5% chlorhexidine solution was stated in error. Rather than 70% isopropyl alcohol, the solution contained 70% ethanol, however the product and manufacturer name was correct.
        The 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol comparator was selected as it was the standard of practice within the institution at that time.
        The comparative bactericidal activity of isopropyl alcohol and ethanol is the subject of much debate and is by no means conclusive. Indeed, in an article by Reichel et al (2009)
        • Reichel M.
        • Heisig P.
        • Kohlmann T.
        • Kampf G.
        Alcohols for skin antisepsis at clinically relevant skin sites.
        little difference was reported between the activity of ethanol and isopropyl alcohol.
        Whilst both solutions under test contained 70% alcohol and we consider there to be little evidence of any difference in bactericidal activity between these types of alcohol we acknowledge that it is possible that the difference in type of alcohol (as well as applicator) could have played a role in any differences observed during the study.

        Reference

          • Reichel M.
          • Heisig P.
          • Kohlmann T.
          • Kampf G.
          Alcohols for skin antisepsis at clinically relevant skin sites.
          Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2009; 53: 4778-4782

        Linked Article