↓ Skip to main content

Efficiency of hydrogen peroxide in improving disinfection of ICU rooms

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
patent
1 patent
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficiency of hydrogen peroxide in improving disinfection of ICU rooms
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0752-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Blazejewski, Frédéric Wallet, Anahita Rouzé, Rémi Le Guern, Sylvie Ponthieux, Julia Salleron, Saad Nseir

Abstract

IntroductionThe primary objective of this study was to determine the efficiency of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) techniques in disinfection of ICU rooms contaminated with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) after patient discharge. Secondary objectives included comparison of the efficiency of a vaporizator (HPV, Bioquell®) and an aerosolizer using H2O2, and peracetic acid (aHPP, Anios®) in MDRO environmental disinfection, and assessment of toxicity of these techniques.MethodsThis prospective cross-over study was conducted in five medical and surgical ICUs located in one University hospital, during a 12-week period. Routine terminal cleaning was followed by H2O2 disinfection. A total of 24 environmental bacteriological samplings were collected per room, from eight frequently touched surfaces, at three time-points: after patient discharge (T0), after terminal cleaning (T1) and after H2O2 disinfection (T2).ResultsIn total 182 rooms were studied, including 89 (49%) disinfected with aHPP and 93 (51%) with HPV. At T0, 15/182 (8%) rooms were contaminated with at least 1 MDRO (extended spectrum ß¿lactamase-producing Gram-negative bacilli 50%, imipenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii 29%, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 17%, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to ceftazidime or imipenem 4%). Routine terminal cleaning reduced environmental bacterial load (P <0.001) without efficiency on MDRO (15/182 (8%) rooms at T0 versus 11/182 (6%) at T1; P¿=¿0.371). H2O2 technologies were efficient for environmental MDRO decontamination (6% of rooms contaminated with MDRO at T1 versus 0.5% at T2, P¿=¿0.004). Patient characteristics were similar in aHPP and HPV groups. No significant difference was found between aHPP and HPV regarding the rate of rooms contaminated with MDRO at T2 (P¿=¿0.313). 42% of room occupants were MDRO carriers. The highest rate of rooms contaminated with MDRO was found in rooms where patients stayed for a longer period of time, and where a patient with MDRO was hospitalized. The residual concentration of H2O2 appears to be higher using aHPP, compared with HPV.ConclusionsH2O2 treatment is efficient in reducing MDRO contaminated rooms in the ICU. No significant difference was found between aHPP and HPV regarding their disinfection efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 16%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 25 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Chemistry 6 6%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 28 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2022.
All research outputs
#903,139
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#686
of 6,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,059
of 395,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,558 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.