Veterinary surgery : VS · 2022
Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle.
Randomized Controlled Trial, VeterinaryСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doyle Aimie J, Saab Matthew E, McClure J Trenton
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine skin reaction, post-treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post-treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized experimental study.
ANIMALS: Eighteen cows.
METHODS: Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre-, immediately post-, and 1 hour post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log10 CFU/ml between groups.
RESULTS: Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics in cattle.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized experimental study.
ANIMALS: Eighteen cows.
METHODS: Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre-, immediately post-, and 1 hour post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log10 CFU/ml between groups.
RESULTS: Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics in cattle.