Preoperative decolonization to reduce infections in urgent lower extremity repairs

Staphylococcus aureus colonization and surgical site infections among patients undergoing surgical fixation for acute fractures

OBJECTIVES

To identify risk factors for methicillin-susceptible (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) nasal carriage and surgical site infection (SSI) among patients undergoing fracture fixation procedures who were included in a quality improvement protocol involving screening patients for S. aureus nasal carriage and treating carriers with intranasal mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Level 1 trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

1,254 adults who underwent operative fixation of 1,298 extremity or pelvis fractures between 8/1/2014 - 7/31/2017.

METHODS

We calculated rates of S. aureus nasal carriage and SSI. We used multivariable stepwise logistic regression and selected the final models based on Akaike information criterion.

RESULTS

Of the 1,040 screened first procedures, 262 (25.19%) were performed on S. aureus nasal carriers: 211 (20.29%) on MSSA carriers and 51 (4.90%) on MRSA carriers. Long-term care facility residence (odds ratio [OR] 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-9.76) was associated with MRSA nasal carriage. After adjusting for statistically and clinically significant variables, MRSA carriage was significantly associated with any SSI (OR 4.58; 95% CI 1.63-12.88), S. aureus SSI (OR 10.11; 95% CI 3.25-31.42), and MRSA SSI (OR 27.25; 95% CI 5.33-139.24), whereas MSSA carriage was not. Among S. aureus carriers, any chlorhexidine use was documented for 232 (88.55%), and any intranasal mupirocin was documented for 85 (40.28%) MSSA carriers and 33 (64.71%) MRSA carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

MRSA carriage was associated with a significant risk of SSI after operative fracture fixation. Many carriers did not undergo decolonization, suggesting that a simplified decolonization protocol is needed.

Staphylococcus aureus colonisation and strategies for decolonisation

Staphylococcus aureus is a leading cause of death by infectious diseases worldwide. Treatment of S aureus infections is difficult due to widespread antibiotic resistance, necessitating alternative approaches and measures for prevention of infection. Because S aureus infections commonly arise from asymptomatic colonisation, decolonisation is considered a key approach for their prevention. Current decolonisation procedures include antibiotic-based and antiseptic-based eradication of S aureus from the nose and skin. However, despite the widespread implementation and partial success of such measures, S aureus infection rates remain worrisome, and resistance to decolonisation agents is on the rise. In this Review we outline the epidemiology and mechanisms of S aureus colonisation, describe how colonisation underlies infection, and discuss current and novel approaches for S aureus decolonisation, with a focus on the latest findings on probiotic strategies and the intestinal S aureus colonisation site.

Nasal decolonization: What antimicrobials and antiseptics are most effective before surgery and in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Staphylococcus aureus colonization is a key risk factor for S. aureus infections in surgical patients and in hospitalized patients. Many studies have assessed various decolonization agents, protocols, and settings. This review summarizes key findings about nasal decolonization for 2 different patient populations: patients undergoing surgery and patients hospitalized in intensive care units.

METHODS

We reviewed major studies related to decolonization of patients colonized with S. aureus and who were either undergoing surgical procedures or were hospitalized in intensive care units. We focused on recent studies, particularly randomized controlled trials and robust quasi-experimental trials. We also reviewed select non-randomized trials when more rigorous trials were limited.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

Mupirocin is the best-studied agent for decolonization. Its use reduces the risk of surgical site infection following orthopedic surgery (strongest data) and cardiac surgery. Mupirocin decolonization also reduces the incidence of S. aureus clinical cultures in the intensive care unit. Povidone-iodine is less well-studied. Current data suggest that it decreases the risk of surgical site infections after orthopedic surgical procedures. In contrast, povidone-iodine is less effective than mupirocin for reducing the incidence of S aureus clinical cultures in the intensive care unit. Both mupirocin and povidone-iodine have important limitations, highlighting the need for future decolonization research.

Effectiveness and acceptability of intranasal povidone-iodine decolonization among fracture fixation surgery patients to reduce Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization

We evaluated povidone-iodine (PVI) decolonization among 51 fracture-fixation surgery patients. PVI was applied twice on the day of surgery. Patients were tested for S. aureus nasal colonization and surveyed. Mean S. aureus concentrations decreased from 3.13 to 1.15 CFU/mL (P = .03). Also, 86% of patients stated that they felt neutral or positive about their PVI experience.

Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute-care hospitals: 2022 Update

The intent of this document is to highlight practical recommendations in a concise format designed to assist acute-care hospitals in implementing and prioritizing their surgical-site infection (SSI) prevention efforts. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Surgical Site Infections in Acute Care Hospitals published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

The Utility of Perioperative Products for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Total Knee Arthroplasty and Lower Extremity Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most prevalent and devastating complications following lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Strategies to reduce the rates can be divided into preoperative, perioperatives, and postoperative measures. A multicenter trial is underway to evaluate the efficacy of implementing a bundled care program for SSI prevention in lower extremity TJA including: (1) nasal decolonization; (2) surgical skin antisepsis; (3) antimicrobial incise draping; (4) temperature management; and (5) negative-pressure wound therapy for selected high-risk patients. The purposes of this systematic review were to provide a background and then to summarize the available evidence pertaining to each of these SSI-reduction strategies with special emphasis on total knee arthroplasty. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. Five individual literature searches were performed to identify studies evaluating nasal decolonization temperature management, surgical skin antisepsis, antimicrobial incise draping, and negative-pressure wound therapy. The highest level of evidence reports was used in each product review, and if there were insufficient arthroplasty papers on the particular topic, then papers were further culled from the surgical specialties to form the basis for the review. There was sufficient literature to assess all of the various prophylactic and preventative techniques. All five products used in the bundled program were supported for use as prophylactic agents or for the direct reduction of SSIs in both level I and II studies. This systematic review showed that various pre-, intra-, and postoperative strategies are efficacious in decreasing the risks of SSIs following lower extremity TJA procedures. Thus, including them in the armamentarium for SSI-reduction strategies for hip and knee arthroplasty surgeons should decrease the incidence of infections. We expect that the combined use of these products in an upcoming study will support these findings and may further enhance the reduction of total knee arthroplasty SSIs in a synergistic manner.

Do Preoperative Nasal Antiseptic Swabs Reduce the Rate of Surgical Site Infections After Adult Thoracolumbar Spine Surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a major complication after adult spinal surgery. We investigated whether adding preoperative nasal decontamination by antiseptic swab (skin and nasal antiseptic povidone-iodine, SNA-PI) to our antimicrobial protocol reduces the SSI rate among our patients undergoing thoracolumbar spinal surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all adult thoracolumbar spinal surgeries performed between June 2015 and May 2017 at a single hospital. Patients were divided into those who received nasal decontamination (SNA-PI+) and those who did not (SNA-PI-). SSI rates and responsible pathogens were compared between the cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 1,555 surgeries with nasal decontamination (SNA-PI+) and 1,423 surgeries without (SNA-PI-) were included. The SSI rate in the SNA-PI+ group was 13 of 1,555 (0.8%) versus 10 of 1,423 (0.7%) for SNA-PI- group (P = 0.68). The infection rate was the highest among posterior instrumented fusions in the SNA-PI+ group (1.4%). Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was responsible for 70% of infections in the SNA-PI- group and 38% in the SNA-PI+ group (P = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine nasal antiseptic swab before spine surgery did not affect the overall rate of SSI in thoracolumbar spinal surgeries. The incidence of methicillin-sensitive S aureus was lower in patients who received nasal decontamination (5/1,555, 0.3%) compared with those who did not (7/1,423, 0.5%); however, this result was not statistically significant (P = 0.57).

Preoperative Intranasal Decolonization with Topical Povidone-Iodine Antiseptic and the Incidence of Surgical Site Infection: A Review

Surgical site infection (SSI) occurs at the incisional site of a surgical procedure and usually involves the skin. The use of antibacterial courses to manage SSIs is still very challenging in clinical settings. When not used appropriately, antibacterial agents can lead to increased rates of adverse events. However, various antibacterial agents that can destroy the growth of bacteria are now available. This article aims to discuss the role of preoperative intranasal decolonization with topical povidone-iodine antiseptic in the incidence of SSI based on a review of the literature. Topical bactericidal agents can be administered intranasally before surgery to eliminate potentially harmful bacteria, including antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Therefore, a few studies have recommended the use of intranasal povidone-iodine solution in the clinical setting; however, it also appears to be a promising antiseptic regimen for preoperative decontamination in patients planned to undergo surgery. Povidone-iodine is a commonly used medical antiseptic agent that is used by surgeons to promote wound healing and prevent postoperative bacterial infections. Chlorhexidine gluconate is both an antiseptic and a disinfectant, which is used to clean the skin and surgical instruments. Our review of the literature on studies on the effectiveness of intranasal povidone-iodine in the reduction of intranasal bacterial colonization and the prevention of SSI identified only 5 controlled clinical studies. One study, however, showed increased effectiveness in preventing SSI when topical intranasal povidone-iodine was combined with the use of chlorhexidine gluconate washcloths. Further large-scale controlled clinical studies are needed before proper guidelines can be made.

Nasal povidone-iodine implementation for preventing surgical site infections: Perspectives of surgical nurses

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative nasal decolonization of surgical patients with nasal povidone-iodine (PI) has potential to eliminate pathogenic organisms responsible for surgical site infections. However, data on implementation of PI for quality improvement in clinical practice is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of intranasal PI solution application by surgical nurses using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) conceptual framework.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using the i-PARIHS framework to frame questions and guide interview content areas, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews of pre- and post-operative care nurses in two facilities. We analyzed the data using deductive content analysis to evaluate nurses' experience and perceptions on preoperative intranasal PI solution decolonization implementation. Open coding was used to analyze the data to ensure all relevant information was captured.

RESULTS

Each facility adopted a different quality improvement implementation strategy. The mode of facilitation, training, and educational materials provided to the nurses varied by facility. Barriers identified included lack of effective communication, insufficient information and lack of systematic implementation protocol. Action taken to mitigate some of the barriers included a collaboration between the study team and nurses to develop a systematic written protocol. The training assisted nurses to systematically follow the implementation protocol smoothly to ensure PI administration compliance, and to meet the goal of the facilities. Nurses' observations and feedback showed that PI did not cause any adverse effects on patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that PI implementation was feasible and acceptable by nurses and could be extended to other facilities. However further studies are required to ensure standardization of PI application.

Repurposing 0.5% povidone iodine solution in otorhinolaryngology practice in Covid 19 pandemic

SARS CoV 2 is very much homologous in structure to SARS CoV. Review of literature suggests the in-vitro virucidal action of povidone iodine in SARS CoV and MERS. The oropharynx and nasopharynx are target sites of SARS CoV 2. A significant proportion of COVID 19 sufferers are asymptomatic, but shedding these viral particles, PVP-I has been shown to be a safe therapy when used as a mouthwash or taken nasally or used during ophthalmic surgeries.

AIMS

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 0.5% PVP-I solution is prepared from commercially available 10% PVP-I solution. Patients were instructed to put 0.5% PVP-I drops in nose and rinse mouth with gargle prior examinations for 30 s. For endoscopic procedure (nasal and throat) nasal douching and gargling to be started one day prior. Douching and rinsing to be repeated just before procedures. Nasal packing with 0.5% PVP-I along with 4% xylocaine/adrenaline solution, tolerability and any allergic reaction noted.

RESULTS

The patient and health care workers tolerated the 0.5%. No allergy was noted.

CONCLUSION

We propose the use of 0.5% PVP-I in healthcare workers and their patients to minimise the risk of spread of the disease in addition to the recommended PPE.

Povidone Iodine: Properties, Mechanisms of Action, and Role in Infection Control and Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization

Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used agents for decolonization are intranasal mupirocin 2% ointment and chlorhexidine wash, but the increasing emergence of resistance and treatment failure has underscored the need for alternative therapies. This article discusses povidone iodine (PVP-I) as an alternative decolonization agent and is based on literature reviewed during an expert's workshop on resistance and MRSA decolonization. Compared to chlorhexidine and mupirocin, respectively, PVP-I 10 and 7.5% solutions demonstrated rapid and superior bactericidal activity against MRSA in in vitro and ex vivo studies. Notably, PVP-I 10 and 5% solutions were also active against both chlorhexidine-resistant and mupirocin-resistant strains, respectively. Unlike chlorhexidine and mupirocin, available reports have not observed a link between PVP-I and the induction of bacterial resistance or cross-resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics. These preclinical findings also translate into clinical decolonization, where intranasal PVP-I significantly improved the efficacy of chlorhexidine wash and was as effective as mupirocin in reducing surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery. Overall, these qualities of PVP-I make it a useful alternative decolonizing agent for the prevention of S. aureus infections, but additional experimental and clinical data are required to further evaluate the use of PVP-I in this setting.

Nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus is a risk factor for ventricular assist device infection in the first year after implantation: A prospective, single-centre, cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess, whether S. aureus nasal colonization is a risk factor for infections in patients with durable ventricular assist device (VAD).

METHODS

Prospective, single-centre, cohort study (i) ascertaining S. aureus nasal colonization status of patients admitted for VAD-implantation and detecting time to first episode of VAD-specific or -related infection according to International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation criteria during follow-up and (ii) comparing whole genomes of S. aureus from baseline colonization and later infection.

RESULTS

Among 49 patients (17 colonized, 32 non-colonized), S. aureus VAD-infections occurred with long latency after implantation (inter quartile range 76-217 days), but occurred earlier (log-rank test P = 0.006) and were more common (9/17, 52.9% vs. 4/32, 12.5%, P = 0.005; incidence rates 2.81 vs. 0.61/1000 patient days; incidence rate ratio 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.30-20.65, P = 0.009) among those nasally colonized with S. aureus before implantation. We found a similar but less pronounced effect of colonization status when analysing its effect on all types of VAD-infections (10/17, 58.8% vs. 7/32, 21.9%, P = 0.01). These findings remained robust when adjusting for potential confounders and restricting the analysis to 'proven infections'. 75% (6/8) of paired S. aureus samples from colonization and VAD-infection showed concordant whole genomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with durable VAD, S. aureus nasal colonization is a source of endogenous infection, often occurring months after device-implantation and affecting mostly the driveline. Hygiene measures interrupting the endogenous route of transmission in VAD-patients colonized with S. aureus long-term may about half the burden of infections and require clinical scrutiny.