This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kiyoyama, T.
Right arrow Articles by Endo, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kiyoyama, T.
Right arrow Articles by Endo, K.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2009, p. 54-58, Vol. 47, No. 1
0095-1137/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01425-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Isopropyl Alcohol Compared with Isopropyl Alcohol plus Povidone-Iodine as Skin Preparation for Prevention of Blood Culture Contamination{triangledown}

Tomonori Kiyoyama,1* Yasuharu Tokuda,2 Soichi Shiiki,1 Teruyuki Hachiman,3 Teppei Shimasaki,1 and Kazuo Endo1

Department of Medicine, Okinawa Chubu Hospital, Okinawa, Japan,1 St. Luke's Life Science Institute, Tokyo, Japan,2 Microbiology Laboratory, Okinawa Chubu Hospital, Okinawa, Japan3

Received 24 July 2008/ Returned for modification 1 September 2008/ Accepted 17 October 2008

Despite a number of studies on the efficacies of antiseptics for the prevention of blood culture contamination, it still remains unclear which antiseptic should be used. Although the combination of povidone-iodine and isopropyl alcohol has been traditionally used in many institutions, the application of povidone-iodine needs extra time, and there is little evidence that this combination could have an additive effect in reducing contamination rates. To elucidate the additive efficacy of povidone-iodine, we compared two antiseptics, 70% isopropyl alcohol only and 70% isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine, in a prospective, nonrandomized, and partially blinded study in a community hospital in Japan between 1 October 2007 and 21 March 2008. All blood samples for culture were drawn by first-year residents who received formal training on collection techniques. Skin antisepsis was performed with 70% isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine on all inpatient wards and with only 70% isopropyl alcohol in the emergency department. For the group of specimens from inpatient wards cultured, 13 (0.46%) of 2,797 cultures were considered contaminated. For the group of specimens from the emergency department cultured, 12 (0.42%) of 2,856 cultures were considered contaminated. There was no significant difference in the contamination rates between the two groups (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 1.98; P = 0.80). In conclusion, the use of a single application of 70% isopropyl alcohol is a sufficient and a more cost- and time-effective method of obtaining blood samples for culture than the use of a combination of isopropyl alcohol and povidone-iodine. The extremely low contamination rates in both groups suggest that the type of antiseptic used may not be as important as the use of proper technique.

* Corresponding author. Present address: Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center, 16th Street at First Avenue, New York, NY 10003. Phone: (212) 420-3992. Fax: (212) 420-4615. E-mail: kiyoyama-tky{at}umin.ac.jp

{triangledown} Published ahead of print on 29 October 2008.

Journal of Clinical Microbiology, January 2009, p. 54-58, Vol. 47, No. 1
0095-1137/09/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/JCM.01425-08
Copyright © 2009, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.





Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology.   For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»