infection control & hospital epidemiology july 2017, vol. 38, no. 7 commentary
Can Copper-Coated Surfaces Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections?
David J. Weber, MD, MPH;1,2 Jonathan A. Otter, PhD;3 William A. Rutala, PhD, MPH1,2
(See the article by Souli et al, on pages 765–771.) Despite dramatic decreases in the incidence of healthcare- associated infections (HAIs) in recent years, a large prevalence study of US acute-care hospitals estimated that ~722,000 HAIs occurred in 2011, resulting in ~75,000 deaths.1 Several decades ago, Weinstein2 theorized that pathogens causing HAIs in the intensive care unit (ICU) had several sources: the patients’ endogenous flora (40%–60%), cross-infection via the hands of healthcare personnel (HCP; 20%–40%), antibiotic-driven changes in flora (20%–25%), and other causes (including contamination of the environment; 20%).2 More recently, accumulating scientific evidence has indicated that contamina- tion of environmental surfaces in hospital rooms plays an importantroleinthetransmission of several key healthcare- associated pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylo- coccus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp (VRE), Clostridium difficile, Acinetobacter spp, and norovirus.3–6 In general, all of these pathogens share the following character- istics: ability to survive for prolonged periods of time on envir- onmental surfaces, ability to remain virulent after environmental exposure, frequent contamination of the hospital environment, ability to colonize patients, ability to contaminate or transiently colonize the hands of HCP, and transmission via the con- taminated hands of HCP.3–6 Evidence supporting the role of contaminated surfaces in the transmission of key healthcare- associated pathogens includes the following observations. (1) The surfaces in rooms of colonized or infected patients are frequently contaminated with the pathogen.3–6 (2) Contact with hospital-room surfaces or medical equipment byHCPfrequently leads to contamination of hands and/or gloves.6 (3) The patient admitted to a room previously occupied by a patient colonized or infected with a pathogen (eg, MRSA, VRE, C. difficile, Acinetobacter) has a substantially increased likelihood (ie, 39%– 353%) of developing colonization or infection with that patho- gen.6 (4) Improved terminal cleaning of rooms decreases environmental pathogens7 and the rate of individual patient colonization and/or infections; it also leads to a decreased facility-wide rate of colonization and/or infection.8
Unfortunately, inadequate terminal room disinfection is common.7 In fact, studies have demonstrated that <50% of room surfaces are cleaned.7 Therefore, and not surprisingly, many room surfaces remain contaminated with a multidrug- resistant organisms (MDROs) following terminal room disinfection.5,6 Although enhanced education of environ- mental service staff with feedback regarding cleaning effectiveness (eg, fluorescent dye) improves cleaning effec- tiveness, overall cleaning remains suboptimal.7 For this reason, “no-touch” methods of terminal room disinfection have been developed.9–14 No-touch methods that use ultraviolet (UV) light devices or hydrogen peroxide systems for terminal room disinfection when the occupant has been colonized or infected with a MDRO have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of the subsequent room occupant developing colonization and/ or an HAI.11,13 Importantly, some studies have demonstrated a facility-wide reduction of HAIs15,16; furthermore, these reductions were not related to improved hand hygiene or to environmental cleaning compliance.17,18 One of the limitations of currently available UV devices or hydrogen peroxide systems is that they can only be used for terminal disinfection because patients and HCP must evacuate the room prior to use. Because daily room disinfection has been shown to reduce contamination of HCP hands and gloves,19 there has been interest in developing “no-touch” methods for decreasing MDRO surface contamination on a continuous basis.9 Such methods have been reviewed and include self-disinfecting surfaces using heavy metals, light- activated photosensitizers, high-intensity narrow-spectrum light, low-dose continuous hydrogen peroxide, photocatalytic disinfection, bacteriophage-modified surfaces, and altered surface topography.12,14,20–22 Of these potential methods, the best studied is the use of heavy metals (eg, silver, copper) with copper-coated or impregnated surfaces; it is the only method that has been assessed in clinical trials.20–22 The studies assessing the effectiveness of no-touch methods
including self-disinfecting surfaces for disinfection of room surfaces in hospitals can be divided into 3 general approaches.
Affiliations: 1. Department of Hospital Epidemiology, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States; 2. Division of
Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States; 3. Imperial College London Health Protec- tion Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, and Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, Infection Prevention and Control, London, United Kingdom.
© 2017 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved. 0899-823X/2017/3807-0002. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.90 Received April 5, 2017; accepted April 9, 2017
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
