The scientific reports reflect work carried out on our product which was originally called D-Stroy. Greenbridge has re-named this product Activ8 and has annotated all the reports to this effect purely for clarity. None of these name annotations are intended to change the facts or conclusions of the reports.
 

 

ACTIV8 REDUCES THE OCCURRENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MRSA AND VRE

   
 
Report carried out by: DR Peder Bo Nielson
  Director of Infection Prevention and Control
North West London Hospitals NHS Trust
   
  PREAMBLE

Active8 is a detergent with activity against bacteria, virus and fungi. Specifically, it has killing effect against MRSA, Clostridium difficile, and Norovirus, which makes it well suited for decontamination of hospital environment. The HPA have assessed the range of Active8 and have concluded that

• “[Active8] is an unusual product in that it is a product containing a cocktail of cleaning and disinfecting agents in a combination that has not been previously described”.

• “The combination of active agents includes alcohols, surfactant/wetting agents, halogens [iodofor] and quaternary ammonium compounds in an effective combination that provides a multilayered attack on bacteria, fungi and viruses within a low toxicological profile that is rare in an effective cleaning product.”

A recent Department of Health guideline regarding Clostridium difficile recommends the use of a chlorinated detergent in order to be efficient. Iodine belongs to the same group of halogens. It is less toxic and is less likely to damage the surfaces through corrosion.

The objective of this study was to assess whether Active8 can decontaminate clinical environment for multiresistant bacteria and specifically MRSA without causing physical damages of the inanimate surfaces.

 

METHODS

The study has a quasi-experimental design with microbiological screening of patients and environment for multi-resistant bacteria before the introduction of Active8 and again one month after. The introduction of Active8 was a straight replacement of the currently used cleaning detergent without any other changes in the cleaning programme.

The multiresistant bacteria recorded were MRSA, VRE, ESBL, Carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter and Clostridium difficile. In total, 130 and 120 samples respectively were collected and processed for the five bacteria mentioned.

The ward has 15 beds and the "PRE" – screening included 14 patients whilst the "POST"-screening included 11 patients. Patients were screened from Nose, throat and groins, and the inanimate sites are given in the table 1 (page 6).

 

RESULTS

Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus - MRSA
• The pre-screening showed one patient colonised with MRSA. Four environmental sites were contaminated with MRSA, however, they were not linked to the positive patient.
• The screening after introduction of Active8 showed only two bed sites and the sitting room with MRSA. They were linked to two patients repeatedly positive for MRSA within the last month. Another patient was carrier of MRSA, but the immediate environment was not contaminated with MRSA (figures on pages 4 and 5).

Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase producers - ESBL
• Initially no patients or sites had enterobacteriaceae ( coliforms ) resistant to 3rd generation cephalosporins (ESBL). The post screening revealed four sites with ESBL, but no patients were carrier of ESBL.

Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci (VRE)
• Initially two patients and five sites were positive which was reduced to no patients and three sites positive for VRE.

Acinetobacter baumanii resistant to carbapenems & Clostridium difficile
• None were isolated
• No damage to inanimate surfaces were seen.

 

DISCUSSION

Before the introduction of Active8 MRSA were found sporadically spread out in the ward without any links to patients carrying MRSA. After cleaning with Active8 this was changed and only the environment immediate around an MRSA positive patient were contaminated. Many patients are carrier of or infected by MRSA on admission. It is therefore to be expected that such patients will for a short time contaminate the immediate adjacent environment until the patients themselves have been decontaminated. The two patients in bed B1 and B2 were both heavily contaminated and MRSA has repeatedly been isolated during the preceding month. The occurrence of VRE were also reduced, however, some unexplained new contamination with ESBL was seen.

IN CONCLUSION, Active8 is effective in reducing the prevalence of MRSA and VRE without harming the physical environment.


TABLE 1

 
MRSA
ESBL
VRE
AREA
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Bed Frame
1
1
0
1
1
0
Floor around the bed
1
2
0
0
1
1
Locker
0
0
0
1
1
0
Light above the bed
0
1
0
1
3
1
Ledge of the rear of the bed
0
0
0
4
2
0
TV line, patient
1
0
0
0
2
0

Curtains

0

2

0
0
0
2

 
MRSA
ESBL
VRE
AREA
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
Nurses station
0
0
0
0
0
0
Medication trolley
0
0
0
0
0
0
Murses computer keyboard
1
0
0
0
0
0
Equipment room
0
0
0
0
0
1
Clean utility
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sluice
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mop
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bucket
0
0
0
0
0
0

Dressing trolley

0

0

0
0
0
0
Resus trolley
0
0
0
0
0
0
Patient sitting area
0
1
0
0
1
0
Medication room
0
0
0
0
0
0
Patient - pool
1
3
0
0
2
0

The isolation of MRSA, ESBL and VRE from patients and surfaces of equipment and inanimate objects

 
back to top  


 

Greenbridge Environmental Control Ltd.