Evaluating different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in an automated room disinfection system.

UNLABELLED: A comparative study was made on the efficacy of 5, 10 and 35% weight by weight (w/w) hydrogen peroxide solutions when applied using an automated room disinfection system. Six-log biological indicators of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Geobacillus stearothermophilus were produced on stainless steel coupons and placed within a large, sealed, environmentally controlled enclosure. Five percent hydrogen peroxide was distributed throughout the enclosure using a Bioquell hydrogen peroxide vapour generator (BQ-50) for 40 min and left to reside for a further 200 min. Biological indicators were removed at 10-min intervals throughout the first 120 min of the process. The experiment was repeated for 10 and 35% hydrogen peroxide solutions. Five percent and 10% hydrogen peroxide solutions failed to achieve any reduction of MRSA, but achieved full kill of G. stearothermophilus spores at 70 and 40 min respectively. Thirty-five percent hydrogen peroxide achieved a 6-log reduction of MRSA after 30 min and full kill of G. stearothermophilus at 20 min. The concentration of 5% hydrogen peroxide within the enclosure after the 200-min dwell was measured at 9·0 ppm. This level exceeds the 15-min Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL) for hydrogen peroxide of 2·0 ppm. Users of automated hydrogen peroxide disinfection systems should review system efficacy and room re-entry protocols in light of these results. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This research allows hospital infection control teams to consider the impact and risks of using low concentrations of hydrogen peroxide for disinfection within their facilities, and to question automated room disinfection system providers on the efficacy claims they make. The evidence that low concentration hydrogen peroxide solutions do not rapidly, autonomously break down, is in contradiction to the claims made by some hydrogen peroxide equipment providers and raises serious health and safety concerns. Facilities using hydrogen peroxide systems that claim autonomous break down of hydrogen peroxide should introduce monitoring procedures to ensure rooms are safe for re-entry and patient occupation.

Aqueous oxygen peroxide treatment of VLUs in a primary care-based randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a novel aqueous oxygen peroxide (AOP) wound therapy (BioxyQuell) in a multi-centre, primary care-based, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial, monitoring long-term healing outcomes over 12 months. METHOD: Sixty-one patients with chronic, stable venous leg ulceration were treated with either AOP solution or sterile water placebo applied as a lavage over 2 weeks. The patients' wounds were dressed weekly and assessed fortnightly over the following 6 weeks. Patients who completed the initial 8-week trial were invited into a 10-month follow-up trial. The primary endpoints of the study were wound healing at 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months and 12 months, and wound size reduction during the treatment phase. Secondary endpoints were reductions in wound bioburden and pain. RESULTS: Patients treated with AOP were more likely to heal at 6 months (p=0.014) and 12 months (p=0.006), but not at 8 weeks (p=0.979) or 12 weeks (p=0.263). Patients treated with AOP had greater wound area reduction (p=0.015), reductions in pain measured on a 100-point scale (p=0.001) and wound bioburden reduction (p=0.005) during the treatment phase. CONCLUSION: The addition of AOP treatment provides substantial benefits to patients with chronic venous leg ulceration compared with current best practice.

Tackling contamination of the hospital environment by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): a comparison between conventional terminal cleaning and hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination.

The hospital environment can sometimes harbour methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) but is not generally regarded as a major source of MRSA infection. We conducted a prospective study in surgical wards of a London teaching hospital affected by MRSA, and compared the effectiveness of standard cleaning with a new method of hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination. MRSA contamination, measured by surface swabbing was compared before and after terminal cleaning that complied with UK national standards, or hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination. All isolation rooms, ward bays and bathrooms tested were contaminated with MRSA and several antibiogram types were identified. MRSA was common in sites that might transfer organisms to the hands of staff and was isolated from areas and bed frames used by non-MRSA patients. Seventy-four percent of 359 swabs taken before cleaning yielded MRSA, 70% by direct plating. After cleaning, all areas remained contaminated, with 66% of 124 swabs yielding MRSA, 74% by direct plating. In contrast, after exposing six rooms to hydrogen peroxide vapour, only one of 85 (1.2%) swabs yielded MRSA, by enrichment culture only. The hospital environment can become extensively contaminated with MRSA that is not eliminated by standard cleaning methods. In contrast, hydrogen peroxide vapour decontamination is a highly effective method of eradicating MRSA from rooms, furniture and equipment. Further work is needed to determine the importance of environmental contamination with MRSA and the effect on hospital infection rates of effective decontamination.