Isopropyl alcohol compared with isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine as skin preparation for prevention of blood culture contamination.

Despite a number of studies on the efficacies of antiseptics for the prevention of blood culture contamination, it still remains unclear which antiseptic should be used. Although the combination of povidone-iodine and isopropyl alcohol has been traditionally used in many institutions, the application of povidone-iodine needs extra time, and there is little evidence that this combination could have an additive effect in reducing contamination rates. To elucidate the additive efficacy of povidone-iodine, we compared two antiseptics, 70% isopropyl alcohol only and 70% isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine, in a prospective, nonrandomized, and partially blinded study in a community hospital in Japan between 1 October 2007 and 21 March 2008. All blood samples for culture were drawn by first-year residents who received formal training on collection techniques. Skin antisepsis was performed with 70% isopropyl alcohol plus povidone-iodine on all inpatient wards and with only 70% isopropyl alcohol in the emergency department. For the group of specimens from inpatient wards cultured, 13 (0.46%) of 2,797 cultures were considered contaminated. For the group of specimens from the emergency department cultured, 12 (0.42%) of 2,856 cultures were considered contaminated. There was no significant difference in the contamination rates between the two groups (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 1.98; P = 0.80). In conclusion, the use of a single application of 70% isopropyl alcohol is a sufficient and a more cost- and time-effective method of obtaining blood samples for culture than the use of a combination of isopropyl alcohol and povidone-iodine. The extremely low contamination rates in both groups suggest that the type of antiseptic used may not be as important as the use of proper technique.