Volume 7, Number 2—April 2001
THEME ISSUE
4th Decennial International Conference on Nosocomial and Healthcare-Associated Infections
State of the Art
New Disinfection and Sterilization Methods
William A. Rutala
and David J. Weber
and David J. Weber
Table 7
Comparison of new and standard disinfection and sterilization technologies
| Technology |
Comparison of new with standard technology |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| New | Standard | Advantages | Disadvantages | Future needs |
| OPA | Glutaraldehyde | -Shorter process time (12 vs 45 min) -No activation -Not a known irritant to eyes and nasal passages -No vapor ceiling limit -Weak odor | -Stains protein gray -Higher cost | -Additional studies of antimicrobial efficacy -Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use -Cost-effectiveness study -Verification of more cycles per solution than glutaraldehyde |
| Surfacine | Disinfectants (phenolics quaternary ammonium); Antiseptics (alcohol, iodophor, chlorhexidine gluconate) | -Antimicrobial persistence (>13 days) -May be used on animate and inanimate surfaces -Broad antimicrobial spectrum -Transfers active agent (silver) to microbes on demand without elution -Resistant to forming biofilm -No toxicity to mammalian cells | -Cost? | -Assess microbicidal activity against broad spectrum of pathogens -Demonstration of efficacy to reduce nosocomial infections -Human safety and toxicity data for use as an antiseptic -Demonstrate antimicrobial activity in presence of organic matter |
| Superoxidized water | High- or low-level disinfectants; antiseptics | -Basic materials (saline and electricity) inexpensive -End product not damaging to environment -Nontoxic to biological tissues | -Production equipment expensive due to monitoring -Endoscope compatibility unknown -Decreased efficacy in presence of organic matter -Limited-use life (must be freshly generated) | -Evaluation of endoscope compatibility -Cost-effectiveness study |
| Endoclens | None | -Device automatically cleans and sterilizes -Rapid cycle time (<30 min) -Tests endoscope for channel blockage and leaks -Advantages of automated process (e.g., consistent exposure to sterilant, filtered water rinse, operator convenience) | -Cost? -Used for immersible instruments only -Point-of-use system, no long-term storage | -Cost-effectiveness study -Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use -Assessment of microbicidal activity |
| EO rapid readout | 48-hr spore readout biological indicator | -Rapid (4-hr), reliable assessment of sterilization efficacy -Prevents recall of released sterilization loads | -Cost? -Not tested with EO and CO2 mixtures | -Cost-effectiveness study -Validation of claimed 100% sensitivity |
| Plasma sterilizer | Hydrogen peroxide gas plasma sterilizer | -Use of two hydrogen peroxide diffusion-plasma stage cycles is a more effective sterilization process -Reduced cycle time (45 min) -Various sized units available -Leaves no toxic residues | -Cost? -Endoscopes with lengths >40 cm or a diameter of <3 mm cannot be processed | -Cost effectiveness study -Study of effectiveness in actual clinical use |
Page created: April 17, 2012
Page updated: April 17, 2012
Page reviewed: April 17, 2012
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.