Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of the Role of Novel Aprotic Dimethyl Sulfoxide in Cutaneous Antisepsis Protocols Prior to Blood Donor Phlebotomy with Isopropyl Alcohol, Povidone Iodine or Chlorhexidine

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Hematology and Blood Transfusion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study was planned to measure the reduction of the load of bacterial flora on the blood donor’s arm quantitatively using a three step protocol of donor arm cleansing incorporating either 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) or 5% w/v povidone iodine (PVI, 0.5% w/v available iodine) or 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) with or without the addition of 5% dimethyl sufloxide (DMSO). Single blind randomized study after obtaining ethical clearance, using the Miles and Misra technique for quantification and matrix assisted laser desorption ionization-mass spectrometry for identification of colony morphotypes on blood donor’s skin. The mean pre-cleansing colony forming units (CFUs) was 89,318 and mean post-cleansing CFUs was 132, with a mean reduction of 99.85% with a mean log reduction of 3.24 (95% CI 2.01–4.47) at a P value of <0.0001. The post-cleansing CFUs was reduced to zero in all 34 samples in the protocol using CHG with DMSO, in 23 of 31 samples in the protocol using PVI with DMSO and 19 of 29 samples in the protocol using IPA with DMSO. The difference in means of the reduction of CFUs in protocols using CHG with DMSO compared with protocols using PVI or IPA with DMSO and PVI or IPA without DMSO was statistically significant with P value of 0.006, 0.0009, 0.015 and 0.05 respectively. The enhanced cutaneous antisepsis effect of CHG when complimented with DMSO in presence of IPA using the three step protocol of donor arm cleansing could stimulate more research and utilization of this as an additional safety towards the prevention of the problem of bacterial contamination of blood and blood components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. EcEntegtart MG (1956) Dangerous contaminants in stored blood. Lancet 271:909–911

    Google Scholar 

  2. Pittman M (1953) A study of bacteria implicated in transfusion reactions and bacteria isolated from blood products. J Lab Clin Med 42:273–288

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Novak M (1939) Preservation of stored blood with sulfanilamide. JAMA 113:2227–2229

    Google Scholar 

  4. Strumia MM, McGraw JJ (1941) Frozen and dried plasma for civil and military use. JAMA 116:2378–2382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gibson T, Norris W (1958) Skin fragments removed by injection needles. Lancet 2:983–985

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wagner SJ, Friedman LI, Dodd RY (1994) Transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis. Clin Microbiol Rev 7:290–302

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Morrow JF, Braine HG, Kickler TS et al (1991) Septic reactions to platelet transfusions. A persistent problem. JAMA 266:555–558

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Asher D, Atterbury CLJ, Chapman C, Cohen H, Jones H, Love EM et al; on behalf of the Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) Steering Group: The 2000/2001 annual SHOT report. http:///www.shotuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SHOTReport-00–01.pdf

  9. Puckett A, Davison G, Entwistle CC, Barbara JAJ (1992) Post transfusion septicaemia 1980–89: importance of donor arm cleansing. J Clin Pathol 45:155–157

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. McDonald CP, Lowe P, Roy A, Robbins S, Hartley S, Harrison JF et al (2001) Evaluation of donor arm disinfection techniques. Vox Sang 80:135–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perez P, Bruneau C, Chassaigne M, Salmi LR, Noel L, Allouch P et al (2002) Multivariate analysis of determinants of bacterial contamination of whole-blood donations. Vox Sang 82:55–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Follea G, Saint-Laurent P, Bigey F, Gayet S, Bientz M, Cazenave JP (1997) Quantitative bacteriological evaluation of a method for skin disinfection in blood donors. Transfus Clin Biol 4:523–531

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Goldman M, Roy G, Frechette N, Decary F, Massicotte L, Delage G (1997) Evaluation of donor skin disinfection methods. Transfusion 37:309–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schreiber GB, Arduino MJ, Holt SC, Carson LA, Banerjee SN, Jarvis WR (2001) Transfusion-transmitted bacterial infection in the United States, 1998 through 2000. Transfusion 41:1493–1499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stainsby D, Cohen H, Jones H, Knowles S, Milkins C, Charpman C et al (2003) Serious hazards of transfusion (SHOT). SHOT annual report, pp 1–88

  16. Perez P, Salmi LR, Follea G, Schmit JL, de Barbeyrac B, Sudre P et al (2001) Determinants of transfusion associated bacterial contamination: results of the French BACTHEM case-control study. Transfusion 41:862

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Annual SHOT Report 2014 Supplementary Information Chapter 17: Transfusion-transmitted infections (TTI). http://www.shotuk.org/wp-content/uploads/Chapter-17-TTI-Supplementary-Information-2014.pdf

  18. Miles AA, Misra SS, Irwin JO (1938) The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J Hyg (Lond) 38:732–749

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. McDonald C, McGuane S, Thomas J, Hartley S, Robbins S, Roy A et al (2010) A novel rapid and effective donor arm disinfection method. Transfusion 50:53–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wong PY, Colville VL, White V, Walker HM, Morris RA, Microbial Contamination and Infection Control Subcommittee, Australian Red Cross Blood Service (2004) Validation and assessment of a blood-donor arm disinfectant containing chlorhexidine and alcohol. Transfusion 44:1238–1242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM et al (2010) Chlorhexidine–alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 362:18–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Adler MT, Brigger KR, Bishop KD, Mastrobattista JM (2012) Comparison of bactericidal properties of alcohol-based chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine prior toamniocentesis. Am J Perinatol 29:455–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tschudin-Sutter S, Frei R, Egli-Gany D, Eckstein F, Valderrabano V, Dangel M et al (2012) No risk of surgical site infections from residual bacteria after disinfection with povidone-iodine-alcoholin 1014 cases: a prospective observational study. Ann Surg 255:565–569

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sistla SC, Prabhu G, Sistla S, Sadasivan J (2010) Minimizing wound contamination in a ‘clean’ surgery: comparison of chlorhexidine-ethanol and povidone-iodine. Chemotherapy 56:261–2677

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Girard R, Comby C, Jacques D (2012) Alcoholic povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine-based antiseptic for the prevention of central venous catheter-related infections: in-use comparison. J Infect Public Health 5:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tarrand JJ, LaSala PR, Han XY, Rolston KV, Kontoyiannis DP (2012) Dimethyl sulfoxide enhances effectiveness of skin antiseptics and reduces contamination rates of blood cultures. J Clin Microbiol 50:1552–1557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Transfusion Medicine, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India

    Suchet Sachdev, Deepak Pahwa, Anuradha Kalra, Ratti Ram Sharma & Neelam Marwaha

  2. Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, 160012, India

    Nandini Sethuraman, Vikas Gautam & Pallab Ray

Authors
  1. Suchet Sachdev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nandini Sethuraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vikas Gautam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Deepak Pahwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anuradha Kalra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ratti Ram Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Neelam Marwaha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Pallab Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suchet Sachdev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors disclose no conflicts of interest and no financial funding from any commercial organisation. The study was funded by PGIMER, Chandigarh, India.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sachdev, S., Sethuraman, N., Gautam, V. et al. Evaluation of the Role of Novel Aprotic Dimethyl Sulfoxide in Cutaneous Antisepsis Protocols Prior to Blood Donor Phlebotomy with Isopropyl Alcohol, Povidone Iodine or Chlorhexidine. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 34, 132–137 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0816-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12288-017-0816-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation