Cargando…

Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices

BACKGROUND: More evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dancer, Stephanie J., King, Marco-Felipe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33579386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00894-y
_version_ 1783650930268307456
author Dancer, Stephanie J.
King, Marco-Felipe
author_facet Dancer, Stephanie J.
King, Marco-Felipe
author_sort Dancer, Stephanie J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: More evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate published studies describing the effect of automated technologies delivering hydrogen peroxide (H202) or ultra-violet (UV) light on HAI rates. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using relevant search terms. Databases were scanned from January 2005 to March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcome after use of automated devices on healthcare surfaces. Information collected included device type, overall findings; hospital and ward data; study location, length and size; antimicrobial consumption; domestic monitoring; and infection control interventions. Study sponsorship and duplicate publications were also noted. RESULTS: While there are clear benefits from non-touch devices in vitro, we found insufficient objective assessment of patient outcome due to the before-and-after nature of 36 of 43 (84%) studies. Of 43 studies, 20 (47%) used hydrogen peroxide (14 for outbreaks) and 23 (53%) used UV technology (none for outbreaks). The most popular pathogen targeted, either alone or in combination with others, was Clostridium difficile (27 of 43 studies: 63%), followed by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16 of 43: 37%). Many owed funding and/or personnel to industry sponsorship (28 of 43: 65%) and most were confounded by concurrent infection control, antimicrobial stewardship and/or cleaning audit initiatives. Few contained data on device costs and rarely on comparable costs (1 of 43: 2%). There were expected relationships between the country hosting the study and location of device companies. None mentioned the potential for environmental damage, including effects on microbial survivors. CONCLUSION: There were mixed results for patient benefit from this review of automated devices using H202 or UV for surface decontamination. Most non-outbreak studies lacked an appropriate control group and were potentially compromised by industry sponsorship. Concern over HAI encourages delivery of powerful disinfectants for eliminating pathogens without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Routine use of these devices requires justification from standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7881692
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78816922021-02-17 Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices Dancer, Stephanie J. King, Marco-Felipe Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Review BACKGROUND: More evidence is emerging on the role of surface decontamination for reducing hospital-acquired infection (HAI). Timely and adequate removal of environmental pathogens leads to measurable clinical benefit in both routine and outbreak situations. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate published studies describing the effect of automated technologies delivering hydrogen peroxide (H202) or ultra-violet (UV) light on HAI rates. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using relevant search terms. Databases were scanned from January 2005 to March 2020 for studies reporting clinical outcome after use of automated devices on healthcare surfaces. Information collected included device type, overall findings; hospital and ward data; study location, length and size; antimicrobial consumption; domestic monitoring; and infection control interventions. Study sponsorship and duplicate publications were also noted. RESULTS: While there are clear benefits from non-touch devices in vitro, we found insufficient objective assessment of patient outcome due to the before-and-after nature of 36 of 43 (84%) studies. Of 43 studies, 20 (47%) used hydrogen peroxide (14 for outbreaks) and 23 (53%) used UV technology (none for outbreaks). The most popular pathogen targeted, either alone or in combination with others, was Clostridium difficile (27 of 43 studies: 63%), followed by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (16 of 43: 37%). Many owed funding and/or personnel to industry sponsorship (28 of 43: 65%) and most were confounded by concurrent infection control, antimicrobial stewardship and/or cleaning audit initiatives. Few contained data on device costs and rarely on comparable costs (1 of 43: 2%). There were expected relationships between the country hosting the study and location of device companies. None mentioned the potential for environmental damage, including effects on microbial survivors. CONCLUSION: There were mixed results for patient benefit from this review of automated devices using H202 or UV for surface decontamination. Most non-outbreak studies lacked an appropriate control group and were potentially compromised by industry sponsorship. Concern over HAI encourages delivery of powerful disinfectants for eliminating pathogens without appreciating toxicity or cost benefit. Routine use of these devices requires justification from standardized and controlled studies to understand how best to manage contaminated healthcare environments. BioMed Central 2021-02-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7881692/ /pubmed/33579386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00894-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Dancer, Stephanie J.
King, Marco-Felipe
Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title_full Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title_fullStr Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title_short Systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
title_sort systematic review on use, cost and clinical efficacy of automated decontamination devices
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7881692/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33579386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00894-y
work_keys_str_mv AT dancerstephaniej systematicreviewonusecostandclinicalefficacyofautomateddecontaminationdevices
AT kingmarcofelipe systematicreviewonusecostandclinicalefficacyofautomateddecontaminationdevices