ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Some of the relatively newer, more efficacious, and potent topical wound dressing solutions include tetrachlorodecaoxide and super-oxidised solution. This study compares the efficacy and safety of these two drugs. METHODS: This is a block-randomised, double blind, parallel-arm, post-marketing study. One hundred fifty patients with ulcers (75 blocks uniform for sex, ulcer aetiology, diabetes mellitus, and wound area score) were randomised into the two treatment arms. Patients were observed for eight weeks with weekly assessments. One hundred and twenty patients completed the study. Wound healing was objectively assessed by measurement of wound area, scoring of wound exudation and tissue type, and using the pressure ulcer scale of healing Tool (validated for multiple wound aetiologies). Subjective improvement in pain was noted using a visual analogue scale. Both groups were compared using Mann–Whitney U test on all indicators. RESULTS: Difference in change in wound tissue type in the two groups was significant (α=0.05) by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analysis at the end of week two (ITT and PP, P0.05). No study-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Both drugs are efficacious. Tetrachlorodecaoxide yields healthy granulation tissue earlier. Both drugs appear to be safe for application.
Subject(s)
Humans , Arm , Bandages , Diabetes Mellitus , Granulation Tissue , Multiple Trauma , Pressure Ulcer , Ulcer , Wound Healing , Wounds and InjuriesABSTRACT
Background: Prevention of nosocomial infections, pre-operative and post-operative complications is directly linked with effective disinfection and decontamination. Microbial decontamination is the most serious challenge to the today's health care practice despite the abundance of disinfectants and chemicals as there are increasing reports of emergence of resistance to the action of commonly used disinfectants. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy of newer methods of asepsis for better patient management. Aim: This study was designed to evaluate the microbiocidal activity of superoxidized water (SOW) on common clinical isolates, ATCC strains, vegetative cells and spores of Bacillus subtilis. Materials and Methods: Bacterial suspensions were treated with SOW and deionized water (control). All the tubes were incubated at 37°C for 0.5, 2.5 and 5.0 min. The number of viable cells was counted. Results: All the clinical isolates and ATCC strains were killed within 0.5 min of exposure to the SOW. Vegetative cells and spores of B. subtilis were killed after 5.0 min. Conclusion: We conclude that SOW is an effective microbiocidal agent for routine hospital use.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Conventional disinfectants are expensive, hazardous, and often require long periods of exposure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new endoscopic disinfector (Cleantop(R)) that uses superoxidized water (SW) as a disinfectant. METHODS: Immediately after patient examinations, endoscopes were cleaned manually and disinfected with SW for seven minutes. Cultures were taken from valves (swabbing), biopsy channels (rinsing), and biopsy channels after brushing (rinsing). The results were compared with those of other disinfectants tested previously by the same culture methods. RESULTS: Of 12 endoscopes disinfected with SW, disinfection rates were 83.3%, 58.3% and 25% at valves, channels and channels after brushing, respectively. In no instances were more than 100 colony forming units (cfu) of bacteria recovered from each endoscope. SW was similar to peroxygen compound (33.3%, 50%, 50%) and 2% glutaraldehyde (100%, 16.7%, 16.7%) in its disinfectant effect, since 100 or more cfu of bacteria were recovered only from endoscopes disinfected with peroxygen compound. The number of bacterial recovered from endoscopes disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde was less than 10 cfu. CONCLUSIONS: Disinfection with SW appears to be an effective and time-saving alternative to conventional disinfectants.