Infection Prevention on Cu(e)
Infection Prevention on Cu(e)
Do these findings imply that we should run out and coat all of the surfaces in our hospitals with copper? Not yet; more evidence is needed, and some limitations of these studies should be explored as well.
First, these studies did not factor in cost, and given that the quantity of copper in a penny has more value by weight than 1 cent, cost is likely to be an important consideration. Second, although there is some mechanistic support for reducing the bacterial burden with copper, the reduction in HAIs was larger than might have been predicted on the basis of earlier studies of the role of the environment in transmission of HAIs.
Salgado and colleagues' findings may also be limited by the kinetic properties of objects in the ICUs; furniture, including copper-coated items, was often moved around for purposes of patient care. Furthermore, there were minor differences between the centers regarding which items in a patient room were coated with copper.
Finally, although HAI rates declined, this reduction was not associated with a reduction in length of stay or mortality. Previous studies of prevention of HAIs have shown reductions in mortality and length of stay. The lack of association in Salgado and colleagues' pilot study could be the result of the smaller sample size of only 614 patients. Other factors may have also contributed to this lack of association, and additional study is warranted.
Despite these limitations, these 2 studies suggest that there might be a benefit to an intervention that does not require auditing, enforcement, or new patterns of behavior. If future studies find similar associations, copper surfaces in healthcare settings could be another tool to prevent infections.
Abstract
Abstract
Viewpoint
Do these findings imply that we should run out and coat all of the surfaces in our hospitals with copper? Not yet; more evidence is needed, and some limitations of these studies should be explored as well.
First, these studies did not factor in cost, and given that the quantity of copper in a penny has more value by weight than 1 cent, cost is likely to be an important consideration. Second, although there is some mechanistic support for reducing the bacterial burden with copper, the reduction in HAIs was larger than might have been predicted on the basis of earlier studies of the role of the environment in transmission of HAIs.
Salgado and colleagues' findings may also be limited by the kinetic properties of objects in the ICUs; furniture, including copper-coated items, was often moved around for purposes of patient care. Furthermore, there were minor differences between the centers regarding which items in a patient room were coated with copper.
Finally, although HAI rates declined, this reduction was not associated with a reduction in length of stay or mortality. Previous studies of prevention of HAIs have shown reductions in mortality and length of stay. The lack of association in Salgado and colleagues' pilot study could be the result of the smaller sample size of only 614 patients. Other factors may have also contributed to this lack of association, and additional study is warranted.
Despite these limitations, these 2 studies suggest that there might be a benefit to an intervention that does not require auditing, enforcement, or new patterns of behavior. If future studies find similar associations, copper surfaces in healthcare settings could be another tool to prevent infections.
Abstract
Abstract
Source...