Equine Skin Antisepsis Using an Alcohol-Based Rub

Doyle, Aimie J.; Saab, Matthew E.; Lewis, None Krystina M.; McClure, J. Trenton

doi:10.1016/j.jevs.2019.06.004

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This study showed that 80% ethanol applied as a 90-second scrub to a clipped site on the distal limb of horses is not significantly different than the applied CHG antiseptic protocol at reducing bac- led to the recommendation that their use be restricted to situations where they cannot be replaced with a good alternative. 9 The results of this study and previous work 2,3 support the use of ethanol-based antisepsis for skin preparation prior to performing immediate, short-duration procedures in horses. This is now the current protocol in our institution.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…10 Our previous work determined there was no difference in log 10 CFU/mL reduction in aerobic bacterial counts whether ET was applied for a 90-second or 3-minute wet contact time. 2 Therefore, in all ET antiseptic groups, a 90-second wet contact time was used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have recently demonstrated that a 90-second ethanol-based antisepsis was well tolerated by equine skin and was effective at reducing bacterial counts over the jugular groove of horses. 2 In another study, low colony forming unit (CFU) counts and dermal tolerance on the equine abdomen were reported after treatment with a propanol-based antiseptic. 3 However, in that study, a reduction in CFU was not calculated, and the effectiveness of the product could not be inferred.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is little evidence regarding the tolerance and efficacy of ABR in other species. We have recently demonstrated that a 90‐second ethanol‐based antisepsis was well tolerated by equine skin and was effective at reducing bacterial counts over the jugular groove of horses 2 . In another study, low colony forming unit (CFU) counts and dermal tolerance on the equine abdomen were reported after treatment with a propanol‐based antiseptic 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis of the distal limbs of horses

Doyle

Saab

Lewis

et al. 2021

Equine Veterinary Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An alcohol-based rub has been confirmed effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin. Skin sites with expected high bacterial burden have not been tested or has a comparison to a common protocol been performed. Objectives:To determine if ethanol-based antisepsis reduces bacterial counts on the equine distal limb comparable to a current chlorhexidine scrub method and determine the most effective application technique for the product. Study design: Randomised trial.Methods: Forty-one horses were used in the study. By horse, each limb was randomly assigned to a treatment group: 5min scrub using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate to a clipped site (CHG); 90s scrub using 80% ethanol to a clipped site (ETC); 90s contact with 80% ethanol applied as a spray to a clipped site (ETS) and 90s scrub using 80% ethanol to an unclipped site (ETUC). Samples were collected pre-and post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were log 10 transformed and averaged between duplicates. A linear mixed model was used to compare mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction between groups. A cost-benefit analysis was performed.Results: There was no significant difference in mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction between CHG and ETC in either fore-or hindlimbs. In forelimbs, there was no significant difference in mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction between any groups. In hindlimbs, CHG had significantly greater mean log 10 CFU/mL reduction than ETUC and ETS. No significant difference in cost-benefit was found between CHG and ETC. Significant differences were noted between CHG and both ETUC and ETS.Main limitations: Researchers were not blinded to treatment group during sample collection. Conclusions:This study showed no significant difference in reduction in bacterial counts on the distal limb of horses between CHG and ethonol (ET) when applied as a scrub to a clipped site and there was no significant difference in cost-benefit between these treatments.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis of the distal limbs of horses

Doyle

Saab

Lewis

et al. 2021

Equine Veterinary Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, Aimie Doyle and colleagues in Canada aimed to determine whether an alcohol‐based antiseptic is effective at reducing bacterial counts on equine skin and the appropriate contact time without producing any adverse skin reactions .…”

Section: Skin Antisepsis Using An Alcohol‐based Rubmentioning

confidence: 99%

Highlights of recent clinically relevant papers

Wright¹

2019

Equine Veterinary Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To determine skin reaction, post‐treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post‐treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle. Study design Prospective, randomized experimental study. Animals Eighteen cows. Methods Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre‐, immediately post‐, and 1 hour post‐treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log10CFU/ml between groups. Results Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted. Conclusions Skin preparation with alcohol‐based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA. Clinical relevance Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol‐based antiseptics in cattle.

show abstract

Equine Skin Antisepsis Using an Alcohol-Based Rub

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis of the distal limbs of horses

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis of the distal limbs of horses

Highlights of recent clinically relevant papers

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol‐based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About