Journal: Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control
Article Title: Can probiotics trigger a paradigm shift for cleaning healthcare environments? A narrative review
doi: 10.1186/s13756-024-01474-6
Figure Lengend Snippet: Overview of publications on cleaning intervention trials included in this narrative review. CFU, colony forming units., PCHS, Probiotic Cleaning Hygiene System. spp., subspecies
Article Snippet: 8 , Leistner, eClinicalMedicine, 2023 [ ] , 0.5% detergents containing 10 7 spores per ml B. subtilis (ATCC6051), megaterium (ATCC14581), B. licheniformis (ATCC12713), B. pumilus (ATCC14884), and. amyloliquefaciens (DSL13563-0) (by Chrisal) , 4 months , Soap-based arm: agent with non-ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants, and fragrances in a total concentration of 1% (Brial Top ® , Ecolab Inc.). Disinfectant arm: 2-phenoxyethanol (10%), 3-aminopropyldodecylamine (8%), benzalkonium chloride (7.5%) at a total concentration of 1.5%, with a contact time of 15 min (Incidin Pro ® , Ecolab Inc.) , 1 hospital, 18 wards, Germany , cRCT with cross-over design , 13.896 patients from 18 wards , Incidence density of HAI Incidence density of HAI with MDRO , Incidence density of HAI was similar between the reference group (soap), disinfectant and probiotics: 2.31 cases per 1000 exposure days for soap, 2.21 for disinfectant (IRR 0.95; 95% CI 0.69–1.31; p = 0.953) and 2.21 for probiotics (IRR 0.96; 95% CI 0.69–1.32; p = 0.955). Incidence density of MDRO infection was similar between the reference group (soap), disinfectant and probiotics: 0.53 cases per 1000 exposure days (0.32–0.84) for soap versus 0.49 (0.29–0.78) for disinfectant and versus 0.46 (0.26–0.76) for probiotics.
Techniques: Control, Environmental Sampling, In Vitro, Bioburden Testing, Infection, Microarray, Nested PCR, Countercurrent Chromatography, Sampling, Sterility, Concentration Assay, Sequencing, Multiplex Assay, Probiotics