Published on 13th April 2012
Latest comparative research shows that hydrogen peroxide vapor (HPV) technology is more effective at reducing bacterial contamination in hospitals than ultra violet light-based (UVC) systems.
The head-to-head study, published in Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, was conducted by leading infection control practitioners at the Hospital of Saint Raphael and Yale University School of Medicine, both in New Haven, Connecticut. Their results showed that Bioquell’s HPV was significantly more effective for reducing biological contamination, including spores, in patient rooms compared with a UVC system. This was especially evident for areas that were out of direct line of sight of the UVC system. Overall, half of the surfaces contaminated with bacteria before exposure to UVC remained contaminated after UVC exposure.
Various locations within 15 patient rooms were studied. Of the 75 locations sampled prior to HPV decontamination, 70 (93%) yielded aerobic bacteria growth while after decontamination with HPV, 65 (93%) of the 70 locations yielded no growth (P < 0.0001). Of the 5 sites that yielded growth, there was a range of growth from 1 to 4 colony-forming units (CFUs) per plate. For UVC decontamination, 68 (91%) of the 75 sites sampled yielded bacterial growth before decontamination and 35 (51%) of the 68 sites yielded no growth after decontamination
(P < 0.0001). Of the 33 sites that yielded growth, there was a range of 2 to 160 CFUs per plate.
Of equal importance was the comparison of locations out of direct line of sight of the HPV and UVC equipment. Eleven of the 33 sites (33%) that yielded bacteria after UVC decontamination were samples taken from areas located in the patient’s room, while 22 of the 33 sites (67%) were located in the patient’s bathroom, out of direct line of sight of the UVC device (P < 0.0001). Effectiveness of HPV decontamination showed no difference based on location, indicating all areas were uniformly exposed.
In addition to the standard biological indicators (BIs) that used 6-log and 4-log Geobacillus stearothermophilus, Clostridium difficile indicators were also used. Here, the differences were also quite pronounced with the Bioquell system achieving a greater than 6-log C. difficile reduction compared with an average 2-log reduction for the UVC system.
Commenting on the research, James Salkeld, Head of Bioquell Healthcare said, “Our view, which is well supported by this independent research, is that Bioquell, which has demonstrated unsurpassed microbiological and unique clinical efficacy, should be used as an infection control tool for spores, resistant pathogens and in high acuity areas. This research shows that UV systems which exhibit comparatively poor efficacy and are beset by ‘shadowing’ issues, are not suitable when you need to ‘be sure’. As a patient, I know which process I would want to have been deployed in my room and believe that hospitals who choose to invest in automated systems have every right to expect full, three-dimensional decontamination, every time.”
The study compared the Bioquell HPV system and the Tru-D UVC system in a head to head study.
The full report can be accessed at http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/665326.