• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

氯己定酒精与聚维酮碘:伊朗输血中心皮肤消毒剂的比较研究。

Chlorhexidine alcohol versus povidone-iodine: The comparative study of skin disinfectants at the blood transfusion centers of Iran.

机构信息

Blood Transfusion Research Center, High Institute for Research and Education in Transfusion Medicine, Tehran, Iran.

Blood Transfusion Research Center, High Institute for Research and Education in Transfusion Medicine, Tehran, Iran.

出版信息

Transfus Clin Biol. 2020 Apr;27(2):78-82. doi: 10.1016/j.tracli.2020.01.005. Epub 2020 Jan 18.

DOI:10.1016/j.tracli.2020.01.005
PMID:32008937
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The skin disinfection in the blood donor's arm is a key step to minimize the risk of microbial contamination at blood donation sessions. Current study aimed to compare the efficacy of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG/IPA) with povidone-Iodine (PI) at blood transfusion centers (BTCs) of Iran.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Blood donors were selected to evaluate three commercial CHG/IPA disinfectants (N=300), prior the application at BTCs, and to compare the rate of positive skin cultures between CHG/IPA and PI in 31 BTCs (N=8578). The rate of positivity for PI over a 5-year period was also investigated. After application of a two-step disinfection procedure, the biochemical characteristics were checked in accordance with the conventional bacteriological methods. The Z-test analysis was used to compare the deviation between the positive microbial culture ratios.

RESULT

No donors had a positive culture after disinfection during the evaluation study. There was no difference in the rate of positivity between PI and CHG/IPA after disinfection (P>0.05). The rate of positivity for PI from 2012 to 2017 showed a decreasing trend. The rate of positivity was significantly higher in winter rather than summer (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The disinfection efficacy of CHG/IPA was equivalent to that of PI. The 5-year monitoring of PI at BTCs showed that the improvement in the rate of positive skin cultures possibly due to effectiveness of correcting actions.

摘要

目的

在献血者手臂上进行皮肤消毒是降低献血过程中微生物污染风险的关键步骤。本研究旨在比较在伊朗输血中心(BTC)中,2%葡萄糖酸氯己定和 70%异丙醇(CHG/IPA)与聚维酮碘(PI)的消毒效果。

材料与方法

在将 CHG/IPA 应用于 BTC 之前,选择献血者来评估三种商业 CHG/IPA 消毒剂(N=300),并比较 CHG/IPA 和 PI 在 31 个 BTC(N=8578)中的皮肤培养阳性率。还调查了 PI 在 5 年内的阳性率。应用两步消毒程序后,按照常规细菌学方法检查生化特征。使用 Z 检验分析比较阳性微生物培养比例的偏差。

结果

在评估研究中,消毒后没有供体出现阳性培养。消毒后 PI 和 CHG/IPA 的阳性率没有差异(P>0.05)。2012 年至 2017 年期间,PI 的阳性率呈下降趋势。冬季的阳性率明显高于夏季(P<0.05)。

结论

CHG/IPA 的消毒效果与 PI 相当。BTC 对 PI 的 5 年监测表明,皮肤培养阳性率的提高可能是由于纠正措施的有效性。

相似文献

1
Chlorhexidine alcohol versus povidone-iodine: The comparative study of skin disinfectants at the blood transfusion centers of Iran.氯己定酒精与聚维酮碘:伊朗输血中心皮肤消毒剂的比较研究。
Transfus Clin Biol. 2020 Apr;27(2):78-82. doi: 10.1016/j.tracli.2020.01.005. Epub 2020 Jan 18.
2
Evaluation of two chlorhexidine-alcohol-based skin disinfectants in blood donation setting.两种基于氯己定-酒精的皮肤消毒剂在献血环境中的评估。
Vox Sang. 2014 May;106(4):316-21. doi: 10.1111/vox.12107.
3
Comparison of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate alcohol with 10% povidone-iodine for skin disinfection in children to prevent blood culture contamination.比较 0.5%葡萄糖酸氯己定酒精与 10%聚维酮碘用于儿童皮肤消毒以预防血培养污染。
J Infect Chemother. 2021 Jul;27(7):1027-1032. doi: 10.1016/j.jiac.2021.02.027. Epub 2021 Mar 13.
4
Alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs. povidone iodine in reducing skin colonization prior to regional anesthesia procedures.在区域麻醉手术前,酒精洗必泰与聚维酮碘在减少皮肤定植方面的比较。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2011 Jul;94(7):807-12.
5
Evaluation of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol skin disinfectant.对含2%葡萄糖酸氯己定的70%异丙醇皮肤消毒剂的评估。
J Hosp Infect. 2005 Dec;61(4):287-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jhin.2005.05.015. Epub 2005 Oct 10.
6
Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid.皮肤消毒剂的比较和 0.01%次氯酸的作用。
Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Sep 14;41(10):1170-1175. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjaa322.
7
An in vitro evaluation of disinfection protocols used for needleless connectors of central venous catheters.一种用于中心静脉导管无针连接器的消毒方案的体外评估。
Lett Appl Microbiol. 2013 Oct;57(4):282-7. doi: 10.1111/lam.12108. Epub 2013 Jun 7.
8
0.01% Hypochlorous Acid as an Alternative Skin Antiseptic: An In Vitro Comparison.0.01%次氯酸作为一种替代性皮肤消毒剂:体外比较
Dermatol Surg. 2018 Dec;44(12):1489-1493. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001594.
9
In situ and in vitro evaluation of two antiseptics for blood bank based on chlorhexidine gluconate/isopropyl alcohol and povidone-iodine.基于葡萄糖酸氯己定/异丙醇和聚维酮碘的两种血库用防腐剂的原位和体外评价
Transfus Apher Sci. 2024 Feb;63(1):103854. doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2023.103854. Epub 2023 Nov 25.
10
An evaluation of five protocols for surgical handwashing in relation to skin condition and microbial counts.关于皮肤状况和微生物计数对五种外科洗手方案的评估。
J Hosp Infect. 1997 May;36(1):49-65. doi: 10.1016/s0195-6701(97)90090-6.