PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Günter Kampf

Publications and source records attributed to Günter Kampf.

15 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Bacterial Infections↗
PubMed2006

Does a preceding hand wash and drying time after surgical hand disinfection influence the efficacy of a propanol-based hand rub?

BACKGROUND: Recently, a propanol-based hand rub has been described to exceed the efficacy requirements of the European standard EN 12791 in only 1.5 min significantly. But the effect of a 1 min preceding hand wash and the effect of one additional minute for evaporation of the alcohol after its application on the efficacy after a 1.5 min application time has never been studied. METHODS: We have investigated a propanol-based hand rub (Sterillium, based on 45% propan-2-ol, 30% propan-1-ol and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulfate) in three variations: with (A) and without (B) a 1 min hand wash before the disinfection of 1.5 min with immediate sampling after the disinfection; and (C) without a hand wash before the disinfection but with sampling 1 min after the disinfection. The efficacy of the three variations was compared to the reference treatment of EN 12791. All experiments were performed in a Latin-square design with 20 volunteers. Pre- and post-values (immediate and after 3 hr) were obtained according to EN 12791. RESULTS: The 3 min reference disinfection reduced resident hand bacteria on average by 1.8 log10 steps (immediate effect) and 1.4 log10-steps (sustained effect) respectively. Method A was equally effective as the reference (immediate efficacy: 1.5 log10-steps; sustained efficacy: 1.6 log10-steps). Method B seemed to be more effective (immediate efficacy: 2.3 log10-steps; sustained efficacy: 1.7 log10-steps). Method C revealed the best efficacy (immediate efficacy: 2.3 log10-steps; sustained efficacy: 2.0 log10-steps). A comparison of all three treatment variations and the reference treatment revealed a significant difference for the immediate efficacy (p = 0.026; Friedman test), but not for the sustained efficacy (p = 0.430). A post-hoc-test for the immediate efficacy indicated a significant difference between methods A and C (p < 0.05; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Hence, none of the treatment variations was significantly less effective than the reference treatment. CONCLUSION: An application of the propanol-based hand rub for 1.5 min after 1 min hand wash fulfills the efficacy requirements of EN 12791. The efficacy can be improved to some extent by omitting the preceding hand wash and by awaiting the evaporation of the alcohol which is clinical practice anyway. The preceding hand wash has the most negative effect on the immediate effect. Based on our data hands should not be routinely washed before the disinfection period unless there is a good reason for it such as visible soiling.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
PubMed2006

Effect of a 1 min hand wash on the bactericidal efficacy of consecutive surgical hand disinfection with standard alcohols and on skin hydration.

BACKGROUND: In most surgical theatres, a 1 min or even longer hand wash is routine as part of the pre-operative hand disinfection. But its benefit has recently been seen critically. METHODS: We have therefore investigated the effect of a 1 min hand wash on skin hydration and on the efficacy of consecutive surgical hand rubbing with three standard alcohols (60% propan-1-ol, 60% propan-2-ol, 80% ethanol; all v/v) on the resident hand flora. Three types of treatment were performed: (i) a 1 min pre-wash before surgical hand disinfection, (ii) no pre-wash before surgical hand disinfection and (iii) no pre-wash but use of a brush for 1 min during disinfection procedure. The efficacy of the alcohols was determined according to prEN 12791 with the same 20 volunteers in paired groups. To assess the effect of the hand wash on skin hydration, 10 volunteers washed their hands with sapo kalinus for 1 min and dried hands with a paper towel. Skin hydration was measured with a corneometer before the hand wash and subsequently up to 10 min thereafter both on the palm and dorsum of hands. We also tested the reduction of bacterial spores by a 15 s hand wash according to EN 1499 after artificial contamination of hands of 14 volunteers with spores of B. stearothermophilus. RESULTS: Propan-1-ol (60%) was most effective with a mean log10 reduction of 2.11, followed by ethanol (80%) with a mean log10 reduction of 1.76 and propan-2-ol (60%) with a mean log10 reduction of 0.57 (all immediate effect without hand wash). The efficacy of the alcohols was neither significantly improved nor impaired by a preceding 1 min hand wash, but there is a trend towards better efficacy on dry hands. Using a brush for 1 min during disinfection resulted in a better efficacy with all alcohols. An anaylsis of variance revealed that the immediate effect of ethanol (p = 0.013) and propan-2-ol (p = 0.001) is significantly influenced by the variation of treatments which is mainly explained by the effect of brushing during disinfection. But no significant difference between treatment variations was found in the sustained effect with any of the alcohols. Skin hydration increased significantly by a 1 min hand wash for up to 10 min despite drying hands with a paper towel. A 15 s hand wash reduced the number of bacterial spores significantly from log10 3.84 to log10 1.99 (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is no benefit of a hand wash as part of surgical hand disinfection except that a short hand wash of 15 s can effectively reduce spores. The best time for this short hand wash is at the beginning of work in hospital, but at the latest in the sluice of the operating theatre about 10 min before applying an alcohol-based hand rub to give the skin enough time to dry.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Regular use of a hand cream can attenuate skin dryness and roughness caused by frequent hand washing.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to determine the effect of the regular use of a hand cream after washing hands on skin hydration and skin roughness. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects washed hands and forearms with a neutral soap four times per day, for 2 minutes each time, for a total of two weeks. One part of them used a hand cream after each hand wash, the others did not (cross over design after a wash out period of two weeks). Skin roughness and skin hydration were determined on the forearms on days 2, 7, 9 and 14. For skin roughness, twelve silicon imprint per subject and time point were taken from the stratum corneum and assessed with a 3D skin analyzer for depth of the skin relief. For skin hydration, five measurements per subject and time point were taken with a corneometer. RESULTS: Washing hands lead to a gradual increase of skin roughness from 100 (baseline) to a maximum of 108.5 after 9 days. Use of a hand cream after each hand wash entailed a decrease of skin roughness which the lowest means after 2 (94.5) and 14 days (94.8). Skin hydration was gradually decreased after washing hands from 79 (baseline) to 65.5 after 14 days. The hand wash, followed by use of a hand cream, still decreased skin hydration after 2 days (76.1). Over the next 12 days, however, skin hydration did not change significantly (75.6 after 14 days). CONCLUSION: Repetitive and frequent hand washing increases skin dryness and roughness. Use of a hand cream immediately after each hand wash can confine both skin dryness and skin roughness. Regular use of skin care preparations should therefore help to prevent both dry and rough skin among healthcare workers in clinical practice.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed2006

Evaluation of six agglutination tests for Staphylococcus aureus identification depending upon local prevalence of meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA).

Most routine laboratory detection of Staphylococcus aureus isolates is based on rapid agglutination test systems. Failure of agglutination assays to identify meticillin-resistant S. aureus strains (MRSA) has been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate six commercially available agglutination tests for the detection of meticillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) and mecA-positive MRSA strains. The Dry Spot Staphytect Plus test (Oxoid), the Pastorex Staph Plus test (Bio-Rad), the Slidex Staph-Kit and Slidex Staph Plus test (bioMérieux), the Staphaurex Plus test (Remel) and the Staphylase Test (Oxoid) were used. As determined by pulsed field gel electrophoresis, 52 distinct MRSA strains from five countries, 83 MSSA strains and 150 coagulase-negative staphylococci were included. Species identification and determination of susceptibility patterns were performed using colony morphology, Gram stain, catalase testing, tube coagulase testing, DNase testing, mannitol fermentation, susceptibility testing towards oxacillin by Etest, coagulase gene PCR, fibrinogen receptor gene PCR and PCR of the mecA gene. Sensitivity of the agglutination tests ranged from 82.7 to 100.0 % for MRSA strains and 92.8 to 100.0 % for MSSA strains, respectively. Specificity of the test systems ranged from 91.3 to 99.1 %. None of the six agglutination assays produced correct reactions for all staphylococci tested. Only the Dry Spot Staphytect Plus test correctly identified all 52 MRSA strains. For the other tests kits, sensitivity of MRSA detection was lower than for MSSA isolates. Depending upon the local MRSA prevalence and the parameter of interest (sensitivity or specificity), these test systems may be useful for routine diagnostic purposes.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2006

Evaluation of two methods of determining the efficacies of two alcohol-based hand rubs for surgical hand antisepsis.

The antimicrobial efficacies of preparations for surgical hand antisepsis can be determined according to a European standard (prEN 12791 [EN]) and a U.S. standard (tentative final monograph for health care antiseptic drug products [TFM]). The U.S. method differs in the product application mode (hands and lower forearms, versus hands only in EN), the number of applications (11 over 5 days, versus a single application in EN), the sampling times (0, 3, and 6 h after application, versus 0 and 3 h in EN), the sampling methods (glove juice versus fingertip sampling in EN), and the outcome requirements (absolute bacterial reduction factor [RF], versus noninferiority to reference treatment in EN). We have studied the efficacies of two hand rubs according to both methods. One hand rub was based on 80% ethanol and applied for 2 min, and the other one was based on 45% propan-2-ol, 30% propan-1-ol, and 0.2% mecetronium etilsulfate and applied for 1.5 min. The ethanol-based hand rub was equally effective as the 3-min reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.97 +/- 0.89 versus 2.92 +/- 1.03, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.20 +/- 1.07 versus 2.47 +/- 1.25, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.99 log10 (day 1), 3.00 log10 (day 2), and 3.43 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. The propanol-based hand rub was even more effective than the reference disinfection of prEN 12791 in both the immediate (RFs, 2.35 +/- 0.99 versus 1.86 +/- 0.87, respectively) and sustained (RFs, 2.17 +/- 1.00 versus 1.50 +/- 1.26, respectively) effects. According to TFM, the immediate effects were 2.82 log10 (day 1), 3.29 log10 (day 2), and 3.25 log10 (day 5), and bacterial counts were still below baseline after 6 h. Some formulations have been reported to meet the efficacy requirements of one of the methods but not those of the other. That is why we conclude that, despite our results, meeting the efficacy requirements of one test method does not allow the claim that the requirements of the other test method are also met.

Disinfectants↗
PubMed2006

Do atopics tolerate alcohol-based hand rubs? A prospective, controlled, randomized double-blind clinical trial.

Alcohol-based hand rubs are used frequently in healthcare settings, but their tolerance among atopic subjects is unknown. The dermal tolerance to five alcohol-based hand rubs was assessed among atopic and non-atopic subjects in a repetitive occlusive patch test. In total, 54 subjects were analysed. One half of the subjects were atopic (modified Erlanger atopy score > or = 8), the other half were non-atopic. Treatments were controlled with water and 2% sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS). Treatment sites were assessed by visual inspection (tolerability score 0-4). Skin redness was determined with a chromameter. The overall mean tolerability to all five hand rubs was lower than or identical to the negative control (0.02+/-0.07) and significantly different from the SDS control (0.19+/-0.39). Skin redness was in the same range as for the negative control (0.15+/-0.8) which was significantly lower than the SDS control (1.35+/-1.6). A comparison of the atopic and non-atopic subjects revealed no significant difference. In conclusion, we found that tolerance to the five alcohol-based hand rubs was good among atopic and non-atopic subjects.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
PubMed2005

Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment.

BACKGROUND: Effective neutralization in testing hand hygiene preparations is considered to be a crucial element to ensure validity of the test results, especially with the difficulty to neutralize chlorhexidine gluconate. Aim of the study was to measure the effect of chemical neutralization under practical test conditions according to EN 1500. METHODS: We have investigated two ethanol-based hand rubs (product A, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate; product B, based on 85% ethanol). The efficacy of products (application of 3 ml for 30 s) was compared to 2-propanol 60% (v/v) (two 3 ml rubs of 30 s each) on hands artificially contaminated with Escherichia coli using a cross-over design with 15 volunteers. Pre-values were obtained by rubbing fingertips for 1 minute in liquid broth. Post-values were determined by sampling immediately after disinfection in liquid broth with and without neutralizers (0.5% lecithin, 4% polysorbate 20). RESULTS: The neutralizers were found to be effective and non-toxic. Without neutralization in the sampling fluid, the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.7 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 4.8 log10 (P = 0.001; ANOVA). With neutralization the reference disinfection reduced the test bacteria by 3.5 log10, product B by 3.3 log10 and product A by 2.7 log10 (P = 0.011; ANOVA). In comparison to the reference treatment Product B lead to a lower mean reduction than the reference disinfection but the difference was not significant (P > 0.1; Wilcoxon-Wilcox test). Without neutralizing agents in the sampling fluid, product A yielded a significantly higher reduction of test bacteria (4.8; P = 0.02) as compared to the situation with neutralizing agents (2.7; P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: The crucial step of neutralization lies in the sampling fluid itself in order to stop any residual bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity immediately after the application of the preparation, especially with chlorhexidine gluconate-containing preparations. This is particularly important at short application times such as the 30 s.

Chlorhexidine↗
PubMed2005

Efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection -- a controlled trial according to prEN 12791.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to determine the efficacy of two distinct ethanol-based hand rubs for surgical hand disinfection in a controlled cross-over trial according to prEN 12791. METHODS: 20 subjects were included. Hands were washed for 1 min with soap. The bacterial prevalue was obtained by rubbing finger tips in TSB for 1 min. Then, each subject treated the hands with the reference procedure (n-propanol, 60% v/v) or the product (Sterillium Rub, based on 80% ethanol; Avagard, based on 61% ethanol and 1% chlorhexidine gluconate) which were all applied in 3 to 4 portions each of 3 ml for a total of 3 min. Bacterial postvalues (immediate effect) were taken from one hand, the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After gloves were taken off the second postvalue was taken for the assessment of a sustained effect. RESULTS: Bacterial pre-values were between 4.38 +/- 0.66 and 4.46 +/- 0.71. Sterillium Rub achieved the required immediate (mean log10-reduction of 2.59 +/- 1.19) and sustained effect (1.73 +/- 1.08) compared with the reference treatment (immediate effect: 2.58 +/- 1.16; sustained effect: 1.67 +/- 0.96). Avagard, however, did not achieve the required immediate (1.82 +/- 1.40) and sustained effect (1.41 +/- 1.08) in comparison to the reference disinfection (immediate effect: 2.98 +/- 0.90; sustained effect: 2.56 +/- 1.17; p < 0.01; Wilcoxon test). CONCLUSION: Based on our data, Sterillium Rub can be regarded to be effective for surgical hand disinfection, but Avagard can not. The addition of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate to 61% ethanol (w/w) did not outweigh an ethanol concentration of 80% (w/w).

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
PubMed2005

Emollients in a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis.

The objective of this study is to determine the effect of emollients in a propanol-based hand rub on skin dryness and erythema. In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, 35 subjects participated; of them approximately half were atopic (modified Erlanger atopy score > or =8). 2 propanol-based formulations were tested in a repeated open application test, 1 contained a mixture of emollients (0.81%, w/w). 2 aliquots of 0.7 ml of each formulation were applied twice per day over 2 weeks to the cubital fossa of each subject after random assignment of the preparations. Treatment areas were assessed before each application and 3 days postfinal application by visual inspection for erythema and dryness according to a standard scale. The sum score over all assessment time-points served as primary parameter. The mean sum score for erythema and dryness was significantly lower for the hand rub with emollients (0.8 +/- 2.4) in comparison with that for the hand rub without emollients (1.5 +/- 3.5; P = 0.022; Wilcoxon signed rank test). A comparison of the atopic and non-atopic subjects revealed no significant difference for any of the products (P > 0.05; Mann-Whitney U-test). It is concluded that the addition of emollients to a propanol-based hand rub can significantly decrease irritant contact dermatitis under frequent-use conditions.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus with an antiseptic soap and nasal mupirocin among colonized patients--an open uncontrolled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Aim of the study was to determine the clinical efficacy of a new antiseptic liquid soap (Stellisept scrub), based on the combination of undecylenamidopropyltrimonium methosulphate (4%) and phenoxyethanol (2%), for eradication of MRSA among colonized patients who do not receive antibiotic therapy. METHODS: Over two years 50 MRSA patients in 6 hospitals were observed. Treatment was defined as the daily application of Stellisept scrub for the antiseptic body and hair wash (at least 60 s) in combination with nasal mupirocin. A treatment cycle was a minimum of 5 days treatment. Screening was carried out at least 48 h after the treatment cycle was finished, with 24 h between each of the requested three or more samplings, which included the nasopharynx, groin, axilla, perineum and other MRSA-positive skin areas. RESULTS: Fifteen cases were retrospectively excluded (lack of outcome documentation, concomitant antibiotic therapy, open wounds). All 35 patients had colonization with MRSA before antiseptic treatment on the skin, in the groin (80%), the axilla (25.7%), the perineum (20%) or other skin areas (14.3%). Colonization at more than one skin sites was found in 34.3%. Nasal colonization was found in 21 of 28 patients (75%), 7 patients were without nasal screening prior to the antiseptic treatment. After one treatment cycle MRSA was eradicated in 25 patients (71.4%), after a second cycle the total eradication rate was 91.4%, after a third cycle the rate increased to 94.2%. No patient discontinued the antiseptic treatment due to dermal intolerance of the product. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive eradication of MRSA carriage was observed with the antiseptic soap and mupirocin. The eradication rate was not biased by concomitant antibiotic treatment, screening during treatment or lack of evidence for colonization in contrast to other studies with other preparations.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2004

Influence of applied volume on efficacy of 3-minute surgical reference disinfection method prEN 12791.

For assessment of the efficacy of surgical hand disinfection, European reference method prEN 12791 prescribes that the hands must be kept wet with the reference alcohol for 3 min regardless of the applied volume. The aim of this study was to determine whether the applied volume of the reference disinfectant n-propanol (60%, vol/vol) influences the effect on the resident hand flora. Ten experiments with 200 reference disinfections were analyzed. Hands were washed for 1 min with soap. The bacterial prevalue was obtained by rubbing fingertips in tryptic soy broth for 1 min. After this, each subject treated the hands with n-propanol (60%, vol/vol) by using as many portions as necessary to keep hands wet for a total of 3 min. Bacterial postvalues (immediate effect) were obtained for one hand, and the other hand was gloved for 3 h. After the gloves were taken off, a second postvalue was obtained (sustained effect). Most surgical reference disinfections (73%) were achieved with 9 ml of the reference alcohol, followed by 12 ml (24%) and 6 ml (3%). There was no significant difference between the mean log10 reduction values for the three treatment groups, both in terms of the immediate effect (P = 0.333, as determined by analysis of variance) and in terms of the sustained effect (P = 0.442). A higher number of portions did not correlate with a higher reduction factor (for immediate effect, Pearson's correlation coefficient = -0.028 [P = 0.689]; for sustained effect, Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.059 [P = 0.404]). If the hands were kept wet with the reference alcohol for the total application time, the applied volume could vary, but this did not alter the efficacy.

1-Propanol↗
PubMed2004

Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.

The etiology of nosocomial infections, the frequency of contaminated hands with the different nosocomial pathogens, and the role of health care workers' hands during outbreaks suggest that a hand hygiene preparation should at least have activity against bacteria, yeasts, and coated viruses. The importance of efficacy in choosing the right hand hygiene product is reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline on hand hygiene (J. M. Boyce and D. Pittet, Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 51:1-45, 2002). The best antimicrobial efficacy can be achieved with ethanol (60 to 85%), isopropanol (60 to 80%), and n-propanol (60 to 80%). The activity is broad and immediate. Ethanol at high concentrations (e.g., 95%) is the most effective treatment against naked viruses, whereas n-propanol seems to be more effective against the resident bacterial flora. The combination of alcohols may have a synergistic effect. The antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine (2 to 4%) and triclosan (1 to 2%) is both lower and slower. Additionally, both agents have a risk of bacterial resistance, which is higher for chlorhexidine than triclosan. Their activity is often supported by the mechanical removal of pathogens during hand washing. Taking the antimicrobial efficacy and the mechanical removal together, they are still less effective than the alcohols. Plain soap and water has the lowest efficacy of all. In the new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline, promotion of alcohol-based hand rubs containing various emollients instead of irritating soaps and detergents is one strategy to reduce skin damage, dryness, and irritation. Irritant contact dermatitis is highest with preparations containing 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, less frequent with nonantimicrobial soaps and preparations containing lower concentrations of chlorhexidine gluconate, and lowest with well-formulated alcohol-based hand rubs containing emollients and other skin conditioners. Too few published data from comparative trials are available to reliably rank triclosan. Personnel should be reminded that it is neither necessary nor recommended to routinely wash hands after each application of an alcohol-based hand rub. Long-lasting improvement of compliance with hand hygiene protocols can be successful if an effective and accessible alcohol-based hand rub with a proven dermal tolerance and an excellent user acceptability is supplied, accompanied by education of health care workers and promotion of the use of the product.

Anti-Infective Agents, Local↗
PubMed2003

State-of-the-art hand hygiene in community medicine.

Hand hygiene becomes more important in community medicine not only since antibiotic resistant bacteria such as MRSA spread within the community. Hands may be colonized with transient microorganism in up to 75%. Among those transient pathogens S. aureus, C. difficile or the hepatitis C virus may be found. During patient care the number of microorganisms on the hands steadily increases. In addition hands may be contaminated with different kinds of germs even if only "clean" activities are carried out. Gloves may be worn but do not provide complete protection from contamination due to leaks. Therefore hands should always be treated after gloves are taken off. State-of-the-art treatment of hands is the hygienic hand disinfection with alcohol-based hand rubs. They are more effective, quicker to carry out, better tolerated by the skin, with a positive effect on compliance, and cost effective in comparison to antiseptic soaps based on chlorhexidine or triclosan and in comparison to normal non-medicated soaps. Healthy skin easily tolerates alcohol-based products from the beginning on. Only health care workers with an underlying irritative contact dermatitis which is often caused by bar or liquid antiseptic soaps may have difficulties to use alcohol-based products initially. In such a case treatment of the underlying skin condition is the way to go and not staying with a preparation which has caused the dermatitis. All this knowledge is now reflected in current guidelines on hand hygiene. Beside liquids alcohol-based gels can be used if they have an antimicrobial activity equal to alcohol-based liquid preparations. Hand hygiene remains the single most important tool to avoid cross transmission of microorganisms between patients. This state-of-the-art hand hygiene should also be emphasized more in community medicine. This review may help to go the first step into this direction.

Alcohols↗