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》

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》

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 ... -  《-》

Aqueous olanexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine for surgical skin antisepsis on the incidence of surgical site infections after clean-contaminated surgery: a multicentre, prospective, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common problem after surgery. Although several guidelines have indicated the efficacy of antiseptics, such as chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine, in reducing SSI rate, the optimal recommendation is still not established. Olanexidine might have higher bactericidal activity than other antiseptic agents. However, no randomised study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanexidine over conventional antiseptics. We compared the effect of aqueous olanexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine on the incidence of SSI following clean-contaminated surgery. This was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, blinded-endpoint superiority trial for surgical skin antisepsis in clean-contaminated gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeries in four Japanese hospitals. Patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective clean-contaminated wound surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 replacement ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned to surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 1·5% olanexidine or surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 10% povidone-iodine before surgery. We used olanexidine in a ready-to-use applicator, and povidone-iodine was administered by a brush or by compression using pliers. Both antiseptics were applied from the papilla with a cranial limit and to the upper thigh with a caudal limit. The antiseptics were allowed to dry for 3 min, and then surgery started. Participants, some investigators, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. Participant enrolment was done by non-masked investigators. The primary outcome was 30-day SSI assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The surgical wound site of each participant was observed daily. After discharge, participants underwent at least one outpatient visit within 30 days after surgery. This trial is registered with University hospital Medical Information Network, 000031560. Between June 10, 2018, and April 18, 2019, 883 patients were assessed for eligibility. 587 patients were eligible and 294 received olanexidine and 293 received aqueous povidone-iodine before surgery. 30-day SSI occurred in 19 (7%) patients in the olanexidine group and 39 patients (13%) patients in the povidone-iodine group (adjusted risk difference -0·069; 90% CI -0·109 to -0·029; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 90% CI 0·30 to 0·74; p=0·002). Five patients (2%) in the olanexidine group and five (2%) in the povidone-iodine group developed adverse skin reactions (adjusted RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·29 to 3·40; p=1·00). Olanexidine significantly reduced the occurrence of overall SSI and superficial incisional SSI compared with aqueous povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Our results indicate that olanexidine might have a role to prevent SSI in patients who undergo clean-contaminated surgeries. Keio University and Ohyama Health Foundation.

Obara H ，Takeuchi M ，Kawakubo H ，Shinoda M ，Okabayashi K ，Hayashi K ，Sekimoto Y ，Maeda Y ，Kondo T ，Sato Y ，Kitagawa Y ... -  《-》

Povidone Iodine vs Chlorhexidine Gluconate in Alcohol for Preoperative Skin Antisepsis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Widmer AF ，Atkinson A ，Kuster SP ，Wolfensberger A ，Klimke S ，Sommerstein R ，Eckstein FS ，Schoenhoff F ，Beldi G ，Gutschow CA ，Marschall J ，Schweiger A ，Jent P ... -  《-》