A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Chlorhexidine is a better antiseptic than povidone iodine and sodium hypochlorite because of its substantive effect. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared the antiseptic effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol, along with the sustained effects of chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine, and sodium hypochlorite.
  • In the first step, 30 volunteers' skin areas were tested for bacteria after applying either antiseptic or controls, showing no significant difference between the two antiseptics, but both were more effective than the controls.
  • The conclusion suggests that while all three antiseptics are effective for short-term use, chlorhexidine is particularly recommended for procedures needing prolonged action, like surgeries or catheter insertions.

Article Abstract

Background: The present study compared both the antiseptic efficacy of sodium hypochlorite against that of chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol and the substantive effect of chlorhexidine, povidone iodine, and sodium hypochlorite.

Methods: This was a 2-step study that included volunteers. In step 1, 4 skin areas were tested for bacteria in colony-forming units (CFU): 2 were controls to determine baseline bacteria or the effect of scrubbing, and 2 were treated with 10% hypochlorite or 2% chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol. Every subject was tested 4 times. The second step tested the substantive effect of 10% povidone-iodine and the aforementioned antiseptics.

Results: For the first step, 30 volunteers were studied, resulting in 120 determinations for each control and antiseptic. No differences between chlorhexidine gluconate (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) and sodium hypochlorite (median 115 CFU/cm(2)) were found. Both antiseptics were significantly different from rubbing control (317 CFU/cm(2)) and basal control (606 CFU/cm(2)). Only chlorhexidine showed a substantive effect.

Conclusion: We consider that chlorhexidine gluconate in isopropyl alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, and povidone-iodine is equally effective for procedures that do not require a long action. However, chlorhexidine is desirable for procedures such as catheter insertion, skin preparation for surgery, or handwashing prior to surgery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.10.002DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sodium hypochlorite
16
chlorhexidine gluconate
12
isopropyl alcohol
12
chlorhexidine
8
povidone iodine
8
iodine sodium
8
hypochlorite chlorhexidine
8
gluconate isopropyl
8
median 115
8
115 cfu/cm2
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!