Chlorhexidine-alcohol compared with povidone-iodine-alcohol skin antisepsis protocols in major cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial.
Whether skin disinfection of the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol in reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates after major cardiac surgery remains unclear.
CLEAN 2 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-arm, assessor-blind, superiority trial conducted in eight French hospitals. We randomly assigned adult patients undergoing major heart or aortic surgery via sternotomy, with or without saphenous vein or radial artery harvesting, to have all surgical sites disinfected with either 2% chlorhexidine-alcohol or 5% povidone-iodine-alcohol. The primary outcome was any resternotomy by day 90 or any reoperation at the peripheral surgical site by day 30.
Of 3242 patients (1621 in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1276 (78.7%) men] and 1621 in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1247 (76.9%) men], the percentage required reoperation within 90 days was similar (7.7% [125/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 7.5% [121/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 1.58-2.07], P = 0.79). The incidence of surgical site infections at the sternum or peripheral sites was similar (4% [65/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 3.3% [53/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.74 [95% CI - 0.55-2.03], P = 0.26). Length of hospital stay, intensive care unit or hospital readmission, mortality and surgical site adverse events were similar between the two groups.
Among patients requiring sternotomy for major heart or aortic surgery, skin disinfection at the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol was not superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol for reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates.
Boisson M
,Allain G
,Roussel JC
,d'Ostrevy N
,Burbassi S
,Demondion P
,Mertes PM
,Labaste F
,Kerforne T
,Rozec B
,Eljezi V
,Zannis K
,Leprince P
,Oulehri W
,Minville V
,Seguin S
,Loiodice A
,Ruckly S
,Lucet JC
,Timsit JF
,Mimoz O
,CLEAN 2 Study Group
... -
《-》
Preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in veterinary surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in veterinary surgery.
Systematic meta-analytical review according to PRISMA-P guidelines.
Studies comparing preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in veterinary surgery identified by systematic search between 1990 and 2020.
A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts was performed, followed by secondary searches of Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and relevant bibliographic articles. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the efficacy of skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine on SSI incidence and skin bacterial colonization, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model, with effect size calculated as risk ratio (RR) or mean standard deviation (MSD) with 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
Among 1067 publications that met the initial search criteria, 9 relevant studies were eligible for analysis. No difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI or skin bacterial colonization between preoperative asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine was found. Insufficient information and detail were frequent among studies and precluded a clear assessment of bias.
This study showed that asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine were comparable to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI and reducing skin bacterial colonization.
Given the limitations of the studies that were included in terms of both quality and quantity, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
Marchionatti E
,Constant C
,Steiner A
《-》
A randomized controlled trial of povidone-iodine application after skin closure for prevention of surgical site infection in emergency cesarean section.
To determine the effectiveness of povidone-iodine application after skin closure to prevent surgical site infection after an emergency cesarean section and to assess risk factors associated with surgical site infection.
A randomized controlled trial enrolled 352 pregnant women who required emergency cesarean delivery at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, from August 2018 to March 2019. Participants were randomly assigned to receive the povidone-iodine application at the incision after skin closure (n = 176) or without application (n = 176). Thirty-day surveillance of complications and adverse effects was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infection, which was compared between groups using the chi-squared test. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of the factors associated with surgical site infection were determined by logistic regression analysis.
There were no significant differences in the incidence of surgical site infection and adverse effects between the povidone-iodine and control groups (9.5% vs 7.1%, P = 0.430). The significant factor associated with surgical site infection was a long interval (≥60 min) from the administration of prophylactic antibiotics to the incision (adjusted OR 4.06, 95% CI 1.49-11.03).
The application of povidone-iodine after skin closure in an emergency cesarean section did not have the advantage of reducing the incidence of surgical site infection.
This study was registered in TCTR registry on March 10, 2018 with trial identification number: TCTR20180310002 (https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20180310002). The first participant was recruited on August 2, 2018.
Thaisriwong C
,Chaithongwongwatthana S
《-》
Interventions to prevent surgical site infection in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of hospital-acquired infection and affects up to a third of patients following surgical procedures. It is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. In the United Kingdom alone, it is estimated to add another £30 million to the cost of adult cardiac surgery. Although generic guidance for SSI prevention exists, this is not specific to adult cardiac surgery. Furthermore, many of the risk factors for SSI are prevalent within the cardiac surgery population. Despite this, there is currently no standard of care for SSI prevention in adults undergoing cardiac surgery throughout the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods of care, with variations in practice existing throughout from risk stratification, decontamination strategies and surveillance.
Primary objective: to assess the clinical effectiveness of pre-, intra-, and postoperative interventions in the prevention of cardiac SSI.
(i) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention interventions on morbidity, mortality, and resource use; (ii) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention care bundles on morbidity, mortality, and resource use.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, from inception) and Embase (Ovid, from inception) on 31 May 2021.
gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were also searched for ongoing or unpublished trials on 21 May 2021. No language restrictions were imposed.
We included RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce SSI in adults (≥ 18 years of age) who have undergone any cardiac surgery.
We followed the methods as per our published Cochrane protocol. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for SSI, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions for SSI, healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QoL), and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
A total of 118 studies involving 51,854 participants were included. Twenty-two interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery were identified. The risk of bias was judged to be high in the majority of studies. There was heterogeneity in the study populations and interventions; consequently, meta-analysis was not appropriate for many of the comparisons and these are presented as narrative summaries. We focused our reporting of findings on four comparisons deemed to be of great clinical relevance by all review authors. Decolonisation versus no decolonisation Pooled data from three studies (n = 1564) using preoperative topical oral/nasal decontamination in all patients demonstrated an uncertain direction of treatment effect in relation to total SSI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study reported that decolonisation likely results in little to no difference in superficial SSI (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence) and a reduction in deep SSI (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). The evidence on all-cause mortality from three studies (n = 1564) is very uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.84; I2 = 49%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) demonstrated that decolonisation may result in little to no difference in hospital readmission for SSI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) reported one case of temporary discolouration of teeth in the decolonisation arm (low-certainty-evidence. Reoperation for SSI was not reported. Tight glucose control versus standard glucose control Pooled data from seven studies (n = 880) showed that tight glucose control may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85; I2 = 29%; numbers need to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 13; very-low certainty evidence). Pooled data from seven studies (n = 3334) showed tight glucose control may reduce all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Based on four studies (n = 2793), there may be little to no difference in episodes of hypoglycaemia between tight control vs. standard control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.76; I2 = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, reoperation for SSI, or hospital readmission for SSI. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard dressings NPWT was assessed in two studies (n = 144) and it may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 80) reported reoperation for SSI. The relative effect could not be estimated. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, all-cause mortality, hospital readmission for SSI, or adverse effects. Topical antimicrobials versus no topical antimicrobials Five studies (n = 5382) evaluated topical gentamicin sponge, which may reduce total SSI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84; I2 = 48%; NNTB = 32), superficial SSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; I2 = 69%), and deep SSI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 4662) demonstrated that topical gentamicin sponge may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Reoperation for SSI, hospital readmission for SSI, and adverse effects were not reported in any included studies.
This review provides the broadest and most recent review of the current evidence base for interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Twenty-one interventions were identified across the perioperative period. Evidence is of low to very low certainty primarily due to significant heterogeneity in how interventions were implemented and the definitions of SSI used. Knowledge gaps have been identified across a number of practices that should represent key areas for future research. Efforts to standardise SSI outcome reporting are warranted.
Cardiothoracic Interdisciplinary Research Network
,Rogers LJ
,Vaja R
,Bleetman D
,Ali JM
,Rochon M
,Sanders J
,Tanner J
,Lamagni TL
,Talukder S
,Quijano-Campos JC
,Lai F
,Loubani M
,Murphy GJ
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》