Decontamination of stethoscope membranes with chlorhexidine: Should it be recommended?

Álvarez, José Antonio; Ruiz, S.; Mosqueda, Juan L.; León, Ximena; Arreguín, Virginia; Macías, Alejandro E.; Macias, Juan H.

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2016.07.012

Cited by 14 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This supports previous findings in literature that stethoscopes harbor potential pathogenic organisms [4–8]. S. aureus is the most common potential pathogenic organism isolated from stethoscopes [5, 6, 8, 18]. Similarly in our study, MSSA and MRSA were the most common potential pathogenic organisms isolated (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Use of 90% ethanol to decontaminate stethoscopes in resource limited settings

Raghubanshi

Sapkota

Adhikari

et al. 2017

Antimicrob Resist Infect Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn developing countries like Nepal, 90% ethanol is cheap and is available in most hospitals. The unavailability of isopropyl alcohol (IPA) in these settings led us to compare the efficacy between 90% ethanol and isopropyl alcohol pads in reducing the bacterial contamination of diaphragm of stethoscope.MethodsA randomized blinded experimental study was carried out to determine the difference between cleaning stethoscopes with 90% ethanol and IPA. Cultures of diaphragm were taken before and after cleaning with one of the cleaning agent. Colony forming units (CFU) count and organism identification was done by a blinded investigator. CFU before and after cleaning were compared using Wilcoxon signed–rank test. Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the decrease in CFU count between the cleaning agents.ResultsAbout 30% of the stethoscopes harbored potential pathogens. Significant reduction in CFU was observed with both IPA (Wilcoxon signed–rank test, P value <0.001) and 90% ethanol (Wilcoxon signed–rank test, P value <0.001). Comparing median decrease in CFU between cleaning with IPA and with 90% ethanol, no significant difference was found (Mann Whitney U test; U = 1357, P value >0.05).ConclusionsBoth 90% ethanol and IPA are equally effective in decontaminating the diaphragm of stethoscope. Selection of agent should be done on the basis of cost and availability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Stethoscopes acting as vector may add to worry of critically ill patients in ICU. The CFU obtained in our study (median [IQR], 22.5 [7–48] and 17.5 [7–31]) is comparable to findings from other studies (median [IQR], 10 [3–42]) [18], (median [range], 22 [3–300] and 15 [1–200]) [8]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Use of 90% ethanol to decontaminate stethoscopes in resource limited settings

Raghubanshi

Sapkota

Adhikari

et al. 2017

Antimicrob Resist Infect Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(8) Was follow up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analyzed? (9) Were participants analyzed in the groups to which they were randomized? (10) Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups?…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The hands of healthcare professionals are the main vehicle for the transmission of microbes [3,8], but it is known that also contaminated medical devices (stethoscopes, otoscopes, and thermometers) can transmit microorganisms to patients [1, 2,5]. In particular, stethoscopes, which are considered the symbol of medicine, are widely used medical devices but, if they are not disinfected, they can cause cross-contamination [9,10]. Unfortunately, although these instruments are in direct contact with many patients every day, their proper disinfection is not an established practice [2,11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, although these instruments are in direct contact with many patients every day, their proper disinfection is not an established practice [2,11,12]. In addition, although the importance of careful disinfection of these tools has been repeatedly suggested [3,9,11,13], their disinfection is not yet common practice. For this reason, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published medical equipment disinfection guidelines to minimize the risk of cross infections.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Methods of Disinfecting Stethoscopes: Systematic Review

Napolitani

Battaglia

Moirano

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of various disinfection methods available for stethoscopes. In March 2019, we performed a search in PubMed and Scopus using the search terms: “reducing stethoscopes contamination” and “disinfection stethoscopes”; the Mesh terms used in PubMed were “Decontamination/methods” or “Disinfection/methods” and “Stethoscopes/microbiology”. Selection criteria were: English language; at least one disinfection method tested. A total of 253 publications were screened. After title, abstract, and full-text analysis, 17 papers were included in the systematic review. Ethanol at 90%, Ethanol-Based Hands Sanitizer (EBHS), triclosan, chlorhexidine, isopropyl alcohol, 66% ethyl alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and benzalkonium chloride have been proven to lower the presence of bacteria on stethoscopes’ surfaces. In addition, alcohol wipes show effective results. A wearable device emitting ultraviolet C by Light-Emitting Diode (LED) resulted efficacious against common microorganisms involved in Healthcare Associated Infections. The cover impregnated with silver ions seemed to be associated with significantly higher colony counts. Instead, copper stethoscopes surface reduced bacterial load. The disinfection of stethoscopes appears to be essential. There are many valid methods available; the choice depends on various factors, such as the cost, availability, and practicality.

show abstract