Evaluation of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection device for impact on contamination levels of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Jinadatha C, Quezada R, Huber TW, Williams JB, Zeber JE, Copeland LA. Evaluation of a pulsed-xenon ultraviolet room disinfection device for impact on contamination levels of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. BMC infectious diseases. 2014 Apr 7; 14:187.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• IIR 12-347 – Evaluation of a Pulsed-Xenon Ultraviolet Room Disinfection Device

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-acquired infections with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are a significant cause of increased mortality, morbidity and additional health care costs in United States. Surface decontamination technologies that utilize pulsed xenon ultraviolet light (PPX-UV) may be effective at reducing microbial burden. The purpose of this study was to compare standard manual room-cleaning to PPX-UV disinfection technology for MRSA and bacterial heterotrophic plate counts (HPC) on high-touch surfaces in patient rooms. METHODS: Rooms vacated by patients that had a MRSA-positive polymerase chain reaction or culture during the current hospitalization and at least a 2-day stay were studied. 20 rooms were then treated according to one of two protocols: standard manual cleaning or PPX-UV. This study evaluated the reduction of MRSA and HPC taken from five high-touch surfaces in rooms vacated by MRSA-positive patients, as a function of cleaning by standard manual methods vs a PPX-UV area disinfection device. RESULTS: Colony counts in 20 rooms (10 per arm) prior to cleaning varied by cleaning protocol: for HPC, manual (mean? = 255, median? = 278, q1-q3 132-304) vs PPX-UV (mean? = 449, median? = 365, q1-q3 332-530), and for MRSA, manual (mean? = 127; median? = 28.5; q1-q3 8-143) vs PPX-UV (mean? = 108; median? = 123; q1-q3 14-183). PPX-UV was superior to manual cleaning for MRSA (adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR]? = 7; 95% CI < 1-41) and for HPC (IRR? = 13; 95% CI 4-48). CONCLUSION: PPX-UV technology appears to be superior to manual cleaning alone for MRSA and HPC. Incorporating 15 minutes of PPX-UV exposure time to current hospital room cleaning practice can improve the overall cleanliness of patient rooms with respect to selected micro-organisms.