Cargando…
Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid
BACKGROUND: Hypochlorous acid (HA) has both anti-microbial and wound-healing properties with a growing role for utilization in pre-procedural care on the face. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the antiseptic property of 0.01% HA solution, 5% povidone iodine (PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8438591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33247899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa322 |
_version_ | 1783752379026374656 |
---|---|
author | Tran, Ann Q Topilow, Nicole Rong, Andrew Persad, Patrice J Lee, Michael C Lee, James H Anagnostopoulos, Apostolos G Lee, Wendy W |
author_facet | Tran, Ann Q Topilow, Nicole Rong, Andrew Persad, Patrice J Lee, Michael C Lee, James H Anagnostopoulos, Apostolos G Lee, Wendy W |
author_sort | Tran, Ann Q |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Hypochlorous acid (HA) has both anti-microbial and wound-healing properties with a growing role for utilization in pre-procedural care on the face. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the antiseptic property of 0.01% HA solution, 5% povidone iodine (PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) antiseptic on facial skin. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center clinical trial. RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited. Bacterial growth was seen in CHG (10%), IPA (71%), PI (81%), and HA (95%) of specimens (P < 0.001). CHG had less growth compared with HA (P = <0.001), IPA (P = <0.001), and PI (P = <0.001). No difference in bacterial growth was noted between HA and IPA (P = 0.063) or HA and PI (P = 0.25). Significant differences in mono-microbial and poly-microbial growth were seen between HA and IPA (P = 0.046) and HA and CHG (P = <0.001). Staphylococcus epidermidis grew less frequently in CHG (10%), followed by IPA (29%), PI (71%), and HA (71%). Staphylococcus capitis grew less frequently in CHG (0%), followed by PI (14%), HA (24%), and IPA (29%). CONCLUSIONS: CHG reduced the bacterial growth compared with HA, PI, and IPA. However, HA, PI, and IPA had insignificant differences in bactericidal effects. Our study provides a supporting role of HA to be considered as an antiseptic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2: [Image: see text] |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8438591 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84385912021-09-15 Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid Tran, Ann Q Topilow, Nicole Rong, Andrew Persad, Patrice J Lee, Michael C Lee, James H Anagnostopoulos, Apostolos G Lee, Wendy W Aesthet Surg J Cosmetic Medicine BACKGROUND: Hypochlorous acid (HA) has both anti-microbial and wound-healing properties with a growing role for utilization in pre-procedural care on the face. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the antiseptic property of 0.01% HA solution, 5% povidone iodine (PI), 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), and 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) antiseptic on facial skin. METHODS: This was a prospective single-center clinical trial. RESULTS: A total of 21 participants were recruited. Bacterial growth was seen in CHG (10%), IPA (71%), PI (81%), and HA (95%) of specimens (P < 0.001). CHG had less growth compared with HA (P = <0.001), IPA (P = <0.001), and PI (P = <0.001). No difference in bacterial growth was noted between HA and IPA (P = 0.063) or HA and PI (P = 0.25). Significant differences in mono-microbial and poly-microbial growth were seen between HA and IPA (P = 0.046) and HA and CHG (P = <0.001). Staphylococcus epidermidis grew less frequently in CHG (10%), followed by IPA (29%), PI (71%), and HA (71%). Staphylococcus capitis grew less frequently in CHG (0%), followed by PI (14%), HA (24%), and IPA (29%). CONCLUSIONS: CHG reduced the bacterial growth compared with HA, PI, and IPA. However, HA, PI, and IPA had insignificant differences in bactericidal effects. Our study provides a supporting role of HA to be considered as an antiseptic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2: [Image: see text] Oxford University Press 2020-11-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8438591/ /pubmed/33247899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa322 Text en © 2020 The Aesthetic Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com |
spellingShingle | Cosmetic Medicine Tran, Ann Q Topilow, Nicole Rong, Andrew Persad, Patrice J Lee, Michael C Lee, James H Anagnostopoulos, Apostolos G Lee, Wendy W Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title | Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title_full | Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title_short | Comparison of Skin Antiseptic Agents and the Role of 0.01% Hypochlorous Acid |
title_sort | comparison of skin antiseptic agents and the role of 0.01% hypochlorous acid |
topic | Cosmetic Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8438591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33247899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjaa322 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tranannq comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT topilownicole comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT rongandrew comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT persadpatricej comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT leemichaelc comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT leejamesh comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT anagnostopoulosapostolosg comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid AT leewendyw comparisonofskinantisepticagentsandtheroleof001hypochlorousacid |