Equine Skin Antisepsis Using an Alcohol-Based Rub.
Authors: Doyle Aimie J, Saab Matthew E, Lewis Krystina, McClure J Trenton
Journal: Journal of equine veterinary science
Summary
# Editorial Summary: Alcohol-Based Skin Antisepsis in Horses Whilst alcohol-based antiseptics have been thoroughly evaluated in human medicine, their efficacy and safety in equine practice remain poorly characterised. Doyle and colleagues conducted a controlled trial using an 80–90% ethanol preparation on clipped jugular venipuncture sites in horses, collecting bacterial samples before and after skin preparation and quantifying colony-forming units using automated plate reading and statistical analysis. The ethanol treatment achieved a mean 2.95 log₁₀ reduction in bacterial counts compared to saline controls (P = 0.0033), with no significant difference in efficacy between 90-second and 180-second contact times (P = 0.75); mild urticaria represented the only observed adverse reaction and occurred in both treated and control groups at similar rates. For practitioners performing routine venipuncture, intravenous catheterisation, or minor surgical preparations, these results support the use of 90-second alcohol-based antisepsis as an effective and well-tolerated alternative, potentially reducing preparation time without compromising bacterial reduction on equine skin.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •Alcohol-based antiseptics effectively reduce skin bacteria on horses at jugular vein sites; 90 seconds of contact time is sufficient, allowing faster procedural preparation
- •Mild skin reactions (urticaria) from alcohol antisepsis appear benign and comparable to saline control, indicating good safety profile for routine use
- •This evidence supports alcohol-based skin prep protocols in equine practice when asepsis is required for venipuncture or other surgical procedures
Key Findings
- •Alcohol-based antiseptic (ET-80% ethanol) produced mean 2.95 log10 reduction in bacterial colony-forming units on equine skin
- •ET was significantly more effective than sterile saline control (P = 0.0033)
- •No difference in bacterial reduction between 90-second and 180-second contact times (P = 0.75)
- •Mild urticaria was the only observed skin reaction and occurred in both treated and control groups without clinical significance