Alcoholic Chlorhexidine or Alcoholic Iodine Skin Antisepsis (ACAISA): protocol for cluster randomised controlled trial of surgical skin preparation for the prevention of superficial wound complications in prosthetic hip and knee replacement surgery.

Wound complications following arthroplasty are associated with significant impact on the patient and healthcare system. Skin cleansing prior to surgical incision is a simple and effective method to prevent wound complications however, the question of which agent is superior for surgical skin antisepsis is unresolved. This cluster randomised controlled trial aims to compare the incidence of superficial wound complications in patients undergoing elective prosthetic hip or knee replacement surgery receiving surgical skin antisepsis with either: 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone in 70% alcohol. The trial will be conducted at an Australian tertiary, university affiliated hospital over a 3-year period involving 750 participants. Participants will be drawn from the surgical waiting list. Consent for this study will be 'opt-out' consent. On a given day, all eligible participants will have skin preparation either with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone iodine in 70% alcohol. The primary outcome is superficial wound complications (comprised of superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSI) and/or prolonged wound ooze) in the first 30 days following prosthetic joint replacement surgery. Secondary outcomes will include the incidence of wound complications according to the joint replaced, assessment of the causative agents of SSI and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary analysis is an intention-to-treat analysis including all participants who undergo randomisation and will be performed at the individual level taking into account the clustering effect. The study design and protocol was reviewed and approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-A 016/14 10/3/2014). Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learned forums. A written lay summary will be available to study participants on request. The trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12614000177651.

Peel TN ，Cheng AC ，Buising KL ，Dowsey MM ，Choong PF ... -  《BMJ Open》

Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for surgical site skin preparation in an elective arthroplasty (ACAISA) study: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Surgical site skin preparation is an effective method to prevent wound complications. The optimal agent has not been established, and guidelines contain conflicting recommendations. The aim of alcoholic chlorhexidine or alcoholic iodine skin antisepsis (ACAISA) was to assess the efficacy of surgical site skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (w/v) in 70% ethanol (v/v) to 1% iodine (w/v) in 70% ethanol (v/v). This was a cluster randomized, controlled, single-centre, assessor-blinded, superiority trial in patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty. Each surgeon had a set operating day and the unit of randomization was the day of surgery. The primary outcome was superficial wound complication, defined as a composite endpoint of superficial incisional surgical site infection and/or clinically significant wound ooze in the 30 days following arthroplasty. The secondary outcome was any surgical site infection, including prosthetic joint infection. Outcome ascertainment was undertaken by an independent verification panel. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat, performed at the individual level. Taking into account the clustering effect, analysis of primary and secondary outcomes was undertaken at the level of the surgeon. A total of 780 participants were included; 390 participants were allocated chlorhexidine-alcohol and 390 participants were allocated iodine-alcohol. There was no difference in superficial wound complications: 19 (4.9%) versus 15 (3.8%) respectively (OR 1.28; 95%CI 0.62, 2.63; p 0.50). There was an increased odds of surgical site infection in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group compared to iodine-alcohol: 12 (3.1%) versus four (1.0%) respectively (OR 3.06; 95%CI 1.26, 7.46; p 0.014). The odds of prosthetic joint infection were also increased in the chlorhexidine-alcohol arm compared with iodine-alcohol: seven (1.8%) versus two (0.5%) respectively (OR 3.55; 95%CI 1.20, 10.44; p 0.022). No difference was observed in the primary outcome of superficial wound complications when chlorhexidine-alcohol and iodine-alcohol were compared. However, on a secondary analysis, iodine-alcohol had greater efficacy than chlorhexidine-alcohol for preventing surgical site infection. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000177651.

Peel TN ，Dowsey MM ，Buising KL ，Cheng AC ，Choong PFM ... -  《-》

Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropanol and 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol for skin antisepsis in reducing surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery: the CLEAN 2 study protocol.

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the second most frequent cause of healthcare-associated infection worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Cardiac surgery is clean surgery with low incidence of SSI, ranging from 2% to 5%, but with potentially severe consequences.Perioperative skin antisepsis with an alcohol-based antiseptic solution is recommended to prevent SSI, but the superiority of chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol over povidone iodine (PVI)-alcohol, the two most common alcohol-based antiseptic solutions used worldwide, is controversial. We aim to evaluate whether 2% CHG-70% isopropanol is more effective than 5% PVI-69% ethanol in reducing the incidence of reoperation after cardiac surgery. The CLEAN 2 study is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial of 4100 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Patients will be randomised in 1:1 ratio to receive either 2% CHG-70% isopropanol or 5% PVI-69% ethanol for perioperative skin preparation. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients undergoing any re-sternotomy between day 0 and day 90 after initial surgery and/or any reoperation on saphenous vein/radial artery surgical site between day 0 and day 30 after initial surgery. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle. This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals. EudraCT 2017-005169-33 and NCT03560193.

Boisson M ，Corbi P ，Kerforne T ，Camilleri L ，Debauchez M ，Demondion P ，Eljezi V ，Flecher E ，Lepelletier D ，Leprince P ，Nesseler N ，Nizou JY ，Roussel JC ，Rozec B ，Ruckly S ，Lucet JC ，Timsit JF ，Mimoz O ... -  《BMJ Open》

Antisepsis of the skin before spinal surgery with povidone iodine-alcohol followed by chlorhexidine gluconate-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol applied twice for the prevention of contamination of the wound by bacteria: a randomised controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the sequential application of povidone iodine-alcohol (PVI) followed by chlorhexidine gluconate-alcohol (CHG) would reduce surgical wound contamination to a greater extent than PVI applied twice in patients undergoing spinal surgery. A single-centre, interventional, two arm, parallel group randomised controlled trial was undertaken, involving 407 patients who underwent elective spinal surgery. For 203 patients, the skin was disinfected before surgery using PVI (10% [w/w (1% w/w available iodine)] in 95% industrial denatured alcohol, povidone iodine; Videne Alcoholic Tincture) twice, and for 204 patients using PVI once followed by CHG (2% [w/v] chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% [v/v] isopropyl alcohol; Chloraprep with tint). The primary outcome measure was contamination of the wound determined by aerobic and anaerobic bacterial growth from samples taken after disinfection. The detection of viable bacteria in any one of the samples taken after disinfection (culture-positive) was significantly lower in the group treated with both PVI and CHG than in the group treated with PVI alone (59 (29.1%) versus 85 (41.7%), p = 0.009; odds ratio 0.574; 95% confidence interval, 0.380 to 0.866). Antisepsis of the skin with the sequential application of PVI and CHG more effectively reduces the contamination of a surgical wound than PVI alone. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1354-65.

Patrick S ，McDowell A ，Lee A ，Frau A ，Martin U ，Gardner E ，McLorinan G ，Eames N ... -  《-》

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing aqueous with alcoholic chlorhexidine antisepsis for the prevention of superficial surgical site infection after minor surgery in general practice: the AVALANCHE trial.

Surgical site infection (SSI) after minor skin excisions has a significant impact on patient morbidity and healthcare resources. Skin antisepsis prior to surgical incision is used to prevent SSI, and is performed routinely worldwide. However, in spite of the routine use of skin antisepsis, there is no consensus regarding which antiseptic agents are most effective. The AVALANCHE trial will compare Aqueous Versus Alcoholic Antisepsis with Chlorhexidine for Skin Excisions. The study design is a prospective, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with the aim of investigating the impact of two different antiseptic preparations on the incidence of superficial SSI in patients undergoing minor skin excisions. The intervention of 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% alcohol will be compared with that of 0.5% CHG in aqueous solution. The trial will be conducted in four Australian general practices over a 9-month period, with 920 participants to be recruited. Consecutive patients presenting for minor skin excisions will be eligible to participate. Randomisation will be on the level of the patient. The primary outcome is superficial SSI in the first 30 days following the excision. Secondary outcomes will be adverse effects, including anaphylaxis, skin irritation, contact dermatitis and rash and patterns of antibiotic resistance. The study has been approved by the James Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Findings will be disseminated in conference presentations and journals and through online electronic media. RCTs conducted in general practice differ from hospital-based projects in terms of feasibility, pragmatism and funding. The success of this trial will be cemented in the fact that the research question was established by a group of general practitioners who identified an interesting question which is relevant to their clinical practice and not answered by current evidence. ACTRN12615001045505; Pre-results.

Heal CF ，Charles D ，Hardy A ，Delpachitra M ，Banks J ，Wohlfahrt M ，Saednia S ，Buettner P ... -  《BMJ Open》