A comparison of pre-operative bathing with chlorhexidine-detergent and non-medicated soap in the prevention of wound infection

Photodisinfection of material surfaces and bacterial skin infections by a detergent loaded with curcumin

The development of technologies and therapeutic strategies is needed to combat skin infections and pathogenic microorganisms present on material surfaces that are still responsible for serious public health problems. In this study, detergents loaded with curcumin were prepared by a simple approach and characterized by UV-vis spectroscopy and fluorescence spectroscopy. Their antibacterial photodynamic effects were evaluated against Staphylococcus aureus in planktonic medium and in vivo (skin infection model), and showed a reduction up to 8 logs and 2 logs, respectively. Additionally, the curcumin-detergents were applied on photodisinfection of material surfaces such as wood, rubber, and stainless steel resulting in an efficient photoinactivation up to 3 logs. These developed detergents loaded with curcumin can improve the decontamination of material surfaces and skin infections (in vivo) when illuminated.

Are preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate showers associated with a reduction in surgical site infection following craniotomy? A retrospective cohort analysis of 3126 surgical procedures

OBJECTIVE

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a complication linked to increased costs and length of hospital stay. Prevention of SSI is important to reduce its burden on individual patients and the healthcare system. The authors aimed to assess the efficacy of preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) showers on SSI rates following cranial surgery.

METHODS

In November 2013, a preoperative CHG shower protocol was implemented at the authors' institution. A total of 3126 surgical procedures were analyzed, encompassing a time frame from April 2012 to April 2016. Cohorts before and after implementation of the CHG shower protocol were evaluated for differences in SSI rates.

RESULTS

The overall SSI rate was 0.6%. No significant differences (p = 0.11) were observed between the rate of SSI of the 892 patients in the preimplementation cohort (0.2%) and that of the 2234 patients in the postimplementation cohort (0.8%). Following multivariable analysis, implementation of preoperative CHG showers was not associated with decreased SSI (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 0.67-13.1; p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study, according to sample size, to examine the association between CHG showers and SSI following craniotomy. CHG showers did not significantly alter the risk of SSI after a cranial procedure.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Chlorhexidine-based decolonization to reduce healthcare-associated infections and multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs): who, what, where, when, and why?

Body surface decolonization with chlorhexidine bathing and nasal mupirocin has become a simple solution for prevention of healthcare-associated infections. The clinical trial evidence for this practice will be reviewed to understand who benefits from this practice, for what reasons, and at what times. The method of bathing and nasal decolonization will also be discussed as proper application is needed for maximal effectiveness. Finally, the conflict between current effectiveness and future potential for fueling resistance is considered.

Update to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection (2017): A summary, review, and strategies for implementation

Surgical site infections remain a common cause of morbidity, mortality, and increased length of stay and cost amongst hospitalized patients in the United States. This article summarizes the evidence used to inform the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection (2017), and highlights key updates and new recommendations. We also present specific suggestions for how infection preventionists can play a central role in guideline implementation by translating these recommendations into evidence-based policies and practices in their facility.

No Clear Benefit of Chlorhexidine Use at Home Before Surgical Preparation

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of home use of chlorhexidine before surgery to reduce bacterial colonization. However, these studies have provided conflicting evidence about the potential efficacy of this strategy in decreasing bacterial loads and infection rates across surgical populations, and no prior study has analyzed the benefit of this intervention before spine surgery. We prospectively analyzed the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes for decreasing bacterial counts on the posterior neck.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy adults participated in this prospective study. The right side of each participant's neck was wiped twice (the night before and the morning of the experiment) with chlorhexidine gluconate wipes. The left side was used as the control region. Bacterial swabs were obtained as a baseline upon enrollment in the study, then upon arrival at the hospital, and, finally, after both sides of the neck had received standard preoperative scrubbing.

RESULTS

All patients had positive baseline bacterial growth (median >1,000 colonies/mL). When chlorhexidine gluconate wipes were used, decreased bacterial counts were noted before the preoperative scrub, but this finding was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). All patients had zero bacteria identified on either side of their neck after completion of the preoperative scrub.

CONCLUSION

At-home use of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes did not decrease the topical bacterial burden. Therefore, using chlorhexidine gluconate wipes at home before surgery may offer no added benefit.

Preoperative bathing of the surgical site with chlorhexidine for infection prevention: Systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine is recommended as a measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) despite uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the intervention. This review aimed to assess the effect of bathing with 4% chlorhexidine on the prevention of SSIs in clean surgeries compared with bathing with placebo solution or soap.

METHODS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews and the Cochrane manual were followed. Sources were MEDLINE and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases and manual search of references from evaluated studies. We included randomized studies evaluating clean surgical wounds and reporting SSIs after preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

A total of 243 primary studies were identified and 8 were considered methodologically appropriate based on the Jadad Scale. Data were gathered from 10,655 patients. The global SSI rate was 7.2%. The SSI rate for chlorhexidine bathing, placebo, and soap without antiseptic groups was 7.1%, 9.1%, and 5.1%, respectively. A significant reduction in the infection rates was not found in the comparison between patients subjected to preoperative bathing with 4% chlorhexidine versus placebo solution (relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.09). The same absence of benefit was observed comparing chlorhexidine bathing with soap (relative risk, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess the effect of preoperative chlorhexidine bathing on infection rates following clean surgery before the incorporation of this intervention in health care services.

Use of Chlorhexidine Preparations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic because of its rapid and persistent action. It is well tolerated and available in different formulations at various concentrations. Chlorhexidine can be used for pre-operative skin cleansing, surgical site preparation, hand antisepsis of the surgical team and intra-articular irrigation of infected joints. The optimal intra-articular concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate in irrigation solution is 2%, to provide a persistent decrease in biofilm formation, though cytotoxicity might be an issue. Although chlorhexidine is relatively cheap, routine use of chlorhexidine without evidence of clear benefits can lead to unnecessary costs, adverse effects and even emergence of resistance. This review focuses on the current applications of various chlorhexidine formulations in TJA. As the treatment of PJI is challenging and expensive, effective preparations of chlorhexidine could help in the prevention and control of PJI.

Preoperative Chlorhexidine Gluconate Use Can Increase Risk for Surgical Site Infections after Ventral Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

There is varying evidence about the use of preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate to decrease surgical site infection for elective surgery. This intervention has never been studied in ventral hernia repair, the most common general surgery procedure in the US. We aimed to determine whether preoperative chlorhexidine gluconate decreases the risk of 30-day wound morbidity in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing ventral hernia repair in the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative were separated into 2 groups: 1 group received preoperative chlorhexidine scrub and the other did not. The 2 groups were evaluated for 30-day wound morbidity, including surgical site occurrence (SSO), surgical site infection (SSI), and SSO requiring procedural intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate regression analysis and propensity score modeling. Multiple factors were controlled for statistical analysis, including patient-related factors and operative factors.

RESULTS

In total, 3,924 patients were included for comparison. After multivariate logistic regression modeling, the preoperative chlorhexidine scrub group had a higher incidence of SSOs (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61) and SSIs (OR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.07). After propensity score modeling, the increased risk of SSO and SSI persisted (SSO: OR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.70; SSI: OR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.011 to 2.072, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital chlorhexidine gluconate scrub appears to increase the risk of 30-day wound morbidity in patients undergoing ventral hernia repair. These findings suggest that the generalized use of prehospital chlorhexidine might not be desirable for all surgical populations.

New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are among the most preventable health-care-associated infections and are a substantial burden to health-care systems and service payers worldwide in terms of patient morbidity, mortality, and additional costs. SSI prevention is complex and requires the integration of a range of measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations of national guidelines have been identified. Given the burden of SSIs worldwide, the numerous gaps in evidence-based guidance, and the need for standardisation and a global approach, WHO decided to prioritise the development of evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSIs. The guidelines take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences. On the basis of systematic literature reviews and expert consensus, we present 13 recommendations on preoperative preventive measures.

Evidence-based Practices in Infection Control

Abstract Evidence can be obtained from clinical trials and bacteriological studies. The latter consist mainly of measuring reductions in colonization, or reductions in bacterial counts on naturally or artificially contaminated surfaces, following the introduction of the measure to be tested. Controlled clinical trials usually provide the best evidence, but are infrequently carried out due to the large number of subjects required, low initial infection rates and a multiplicity of associated factors. Bacteriological studies can be carried out more easily and can often provide statistically significant results not readily available in clinical studies, but they require care in interpretation. Studies involving bacterial counts in the inanimate environment are particularly likely to give misleading results, but have often provided useful confirmatory evidence in eliminating rituals.

Latitude of the study place and age of the patient are associated with incidence of mediastinitis and microbiology in open-heart surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to summarize the pooled frequency of mediastinitis following open-heart surgery caused by Gram-positive bacteria, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Gram-negative bacteria.

DESIGN

This study was a systematic review and a meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective cohort studies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the literature, and a total of 97 cohort studies were identified. Random-effect model was used to synthesize the results. Heterogeneity between studies was examined by subgroup and meta-regression analyses, considering study and patient-level variables. Small-study effect was evaluated.

RESULTS

Substantial heterogeneity was present. The estimated incidence of mediastinitis evaluated from 97 studies was 1.58% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.42, 1.75) and that of Gram-positive bacteria, Gram-negative bacteria, and MRSA bacteria evaluated from 63 studies was 0.90% (95% CI 0.81, 1.21), 0.24% (95% CI 0.18, 0.32), and 0.08% (95% CI 0.05, 0.12), respectively. A meta-regression pinpointed negative association between the frequency of mediastinitis and latitude of study place and positive association between the frequency of mediastinitis and the age of the patient at operation. Multivariate meta-regression showed that prospective cohort design and age of the patients and latitude of study place together or in combination accounted for 17% of heterogeneity for end point frequency of mediastinitis, 16.3% for Gram-positive bacteria, 14.7% for Gram-negative bacteria, and 23.3% for MRSA bacteria.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this study suggests the importance of latitude of study place and advanced age as risk factors of mediastinitis. Latitude is a marker of thermally regulated bacterial virulence and other local surgical practice. There is concern of increasing risk of mediastinitis and of MRSA in elderly patients undergoing sternotomy.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Preoperative chlorhexidine shower or bath for prevention of surgical site infection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine showering is frequently recommended as an important preoperative measure to prevent surgical site infection (SSI). However, the efficacy of this approach is uncertain.

METHODS

A search of electronic databases was undertaken to identify prospective controlled trials evaluating whole-body preoperative bathing with chlorhexidine versus placebo or no bath for prevention of SSI. Summary risk ratios were calculated using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and a Mantel-Haenzel dichotomous effects model.

RESULTS

Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria with a total of 17,932 patients: 7,952 patients received a chlorhexidine bath, and 9,980 patients were allocated to various comparator groups. Overall, 6.8% of patients developed SSI in the chlorhexidine group compared with 7.2% of patients in the comparator groups. Chlorhexidine bathing did not significantly reduce overall incidence of SSI when compared with soap, placebo, or no shower or bath (relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.05, P = .19).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis of available clinical trials suggests no appreciable benefit of preoperative whole-body chlorhexidine bathing for prevention of SSI. However, most studies omitted details of chlorhexidine application. Better designed trials with a specified duration and frequency of exposure to chlorhexidine are needed to determine whether preoperative whole-body chlorhexidine bathing reduces SSI.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections.

SEARCH METHODS

For this fourth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 29 June 2012); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2012 Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to June Week 3 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations June 27, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2012 Week 25), EBSCO CINAHL (1882 to 21 June 2012) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fourth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

A quick and effective method of limb preparation with health, safety and efficiency benefits

INTRODUCTION

Pre-operative limb preparation (PLP) usually involves lifting the limb and holding it in a fixed 'static' posture for several minutes. This is hazardous to theatre staff. Furthermore, 'painting' the limb can be time consuming and difficult areas such as between toes and fingers may remain unsterile. We demonstrate the time efficiency and asepsis achieved using the 'sterile bag' preparation technique. An additional advantage is the ability to prepare and anaesthetise a limb prior to theatre, increasing efficiency substantially for units with a large throughput of cases, such as day-case hand surgery lists.

METHODS

We monitored the duration of PLP in 20 patients using the 'sterile bag' technique compared to 20 patients using a conventional 'painting' method. Additionally, microbiology samples acquired from prepared upper limbs of 27 sequential patients operated on by a single surgeon over a two-month period were sent for culture immediately prior to commencement of surgery.

RESULTS

The mean duration of the 'sterile bag' PLP was significantly lower than that of the conventional method (24 seconds vs 85 seconds, p=0.045). The technique can take as little as ten seconds (n=1). Final microbiology reports showed no growth for any of the 27 patients from whom a culture sample was taken.

CONCLUSIONS

The sterile bag technique is effective in achieving asepsis, has the potential to increase theatre efficiency and reduces manual handling hazards compared to the conventional method. It is now taught to all theatre staff in our hospital during manual handling training. It can be undertaken in approximately ten seconds with practice for the upper limb.

The role of perioperative care in reducing rates of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is defined as any strain of Staphylococcus aureus resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics, including the penicillins and cephalosporins. Over the past ten years the UK has seen a dramatic increase in MRSA prevalence in healthcare facilities and the community, with an estimated 30-50% of healthy adults thought to be colonised with MRSA. Surgical patients are among those at highest risk. With potential sequelae including septicaemia, septic shock, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, meningitis, pneumonia or endocarditis, it is vital that all care facilities have up to date evidence-based guidelines to tackle this problem. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current evidence supporting some of the key perioperative measures which may be implemented in preventing MRSA.

Surgical site infection, preoperative body washing and hair removal

Estimates suggest one in 20 patients develop an infection following surgery, costing the NHS around pounds 1bn each year (SSHAIP 2004). This article discusses surgical site infections and the commonest bacteria which cause them. It then explores two practices, preoperative body washing and preoperative hairremoval, and their effect on bacterial reduction and surgical site infection.

Chlorhexidine - Pharmacology and Clinical Applications

chlorhexidine is a widely used skin antisepsis preparation and is an ingredient in toothpaste and mouthwash. It is an especially effective antiseptic when combined with alcohol. Its antimicrobial effects persist because it is binds strongly to proteins in the skin and mucosa, making it an effective antiseptic ingredient for handwashing, skin preparation for surgery and the placement of intravascular access. Catheters impregnated with chlorhexidine and antimicrobial agents can reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections. Contact dermatitis related to chlorhexidine is not common in health care workers. The incidence of contact dermatitis to chlorhexidine in atopic patients is approximately 2.5 to 5.4%. Acute hypersensitivity reactions to chlorhexidine are often not recognised and therefore may be underreported. This review discusses the pharmacology, microbiology, clinical applications and adverse effects of chlorhexidine.

Use of a surgical preparation and sterile dressing change during office visit treatment of chronic foot and ankle wounds decreases the incidence of infection and treatment costs

Foot and ankle surgeons work with a patient population burdened by multiple factors that adversely affect wound healing and the ability to combat infection. As a result, many of these patients are seen for treatment of chronic ulcerations on their lower extremities that are highly susceptible to colonization and possible progression to a limb- and/or life-threatening infection. The Limb Preservation Service at the Madigan Army Medical Center hypothesized that implementation of a standardized protocol involving a formal physician-directed surgical preparation of the affected lower extremity and a physician-applied sterile dressing at each outpatient clinic appointment would reduce the incidence of infection, use of systemic antibiosis, and thus the requirement for frequent follow-up office appointments. Initiation of this protocol resulted in the reduction of infection to the extent that antibiotic need was eliminated. The frequency of office visits required for follow-up was also significantly reduced. This is key in treating a patient population in which the financial burden to treat chronic wounds and associated infections represents a large portion of the health care money spent for their medical care.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The second smaller study found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for the prevention of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2005) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in patients undergoing surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for selection, trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials involving a total of 10,007 participants were included. Three of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub). Three trials involving 7691 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with a placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 0.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Two trials of 1092 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing. No difference was found in the postoperative SSI rate between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.58).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence of no benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.

Relationship between skin microbial counts and surgical site infection after neurosurgery

A prospective study was performed to describe the density of bacterial counts on the skin of neurosurgical patients and examine the association between total colony-forming unit (cfu) counts of skin flora at the operative site and surgical site infection (SSI). Two skin cultures were obtained, immediately before and after skin preparation, from the operative sites of 609 neurosurgical patients. SSI surveillance that used Centers for Disease Control/National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance definitions was performed. Predictors for high bacterial counts and SSI among craniotomies were analyzed by means of logistic regression. Neither pre- nor postpreparation counts were associated with SSI. Other SSI risk factors were obesity (relative risk [RR], 2.5), duration of surgery (RR, 1.3 for every additional 30 minutes) and age (RR, 0.7 for each additional 10 years). Duration of skin preparation was not correlated with postpreparation cfu counts. We were unable to detect an association between preoperative bacterial skin counts and SSI.

Hygiene of the skin: when is clean too clean?

Skin hygiene, particularly of the hands, is a primary mechanism for reducing contact and fecal-oral transmission of infectious agents. Widespread use of antimicrobial products has prompted concern about emergence of resistance to antiseptics and damage to the skin barrier associated with frequent washing. This article reviews evidence for the relationship between skin hygiene and infection, the effects of washing on skin integrity, and recommendations for skin care practices.

Applying the principles of infection control to wound care

Human skin in healthy adults is inhospitable organisms. A wound may occur from any accidental or deliberate trauma that breaks the surface of the skin. Once this line of defence is broken there is a risk of infection. All soft tissue injuries, whether chronic, traumatic or surgical, involve the same basic biochemical and cellular processes. This article looks at the risk factors associated with healing of such wounds. The principles of asepsis, wound cleansing agents, choice of dressings and the taking of wound swabs are considered.

Skin hygiene and infection prevention: more of the same or different approaches?

The purpose of this article is to review research indicating a link between hand hygiene and nosocomial infections and the effects of hand care practices on skin integrity and to make recommendations for potential changes in clinical practice and for further research regarding hand hygiene practices. Despite some methodological flaws and data gaps, evidence for a causal relationship between hand hygiene and reduced transmission of infections is convincing, but frequent handwashing causes skin damage, with resultant changes in microbial flora, increased skin shedding, and risk of transmission of microorganisms, suggesting that some traditional hand hygiene practices warrant reexamination. Some recommended changes in practice include use of waterless alcohol-based products rather than detergent-based antiseptics, modifications in lengthy surgical scrub protocols, and incorporation of moisturizers into skin care regimens of health care professionals.

Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The "Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999" presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.1,2 Part I, "Surgical Site Infection: An Overview," describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis. Part II, "Recommendations for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection," represents the consensus of the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) regarding strategies for the prevention of SSIs.3 Whenever possible, the recommendations in Part II are based on data from well-designed scientific studies. However, there are a limited number of studies that clearly validate risk factors and prevention measures for SSI. By necessity, available studies have often been conducted in narrowly defined patient populations or for specific kinds of operations, making generalization of their findings to all specialties and types of operations potentially problematic. This is especially true regarding the implementation of SSI prevention measures. Finally, some of the infection control practices routinely used by surgical teams cannot be rigorously studied for ethical or logistical reasons (e.g., wearing vs not wearing gloves). Thus, some of the recommendations in Part II are based on a strong theoretical rationale and suggestive evidence in the absence of confirmatory scientific knowledge.It has been estimated that approximately 75% of all operations in the United States will be performed in "ambulatory," "same-day," or "outpatient" operating rooms by the turn of the century.4 In recommending various SSI prevention methods, this document makes no distinction between surgical care delivered in such settings and that provided in conventional inpatient operating rooms. This document is primarily intended for use by surgeons, operating room nurses, postoperative inpatient and clinic nurses, infection control professionals, anesthesiologists, healthcare epidemiologists, and other personnel directly responsible for the prevention of nosocomial infections. This document does not: Specifically address issues unique to burns, trauma, transplant procedures, or transmission of bloodborne pathogens from healthcare worker to patient, nor does it specifically address details of SSI prevention in pediatric surgical practice. It has been recently shown in a multicenter study of pediatric surgical patients that characteristics related to the operations are more important than those related to the physiologic status of the patients.5 In general, all SSI prevention measures effective in adult surgical care are indicated in pediatric surgical care. Specifically address procedures performed outside of the operating room (e.g., endoscopic procedures), nor does it provide guidance for infection prevention for invasive procedures such as cardiac catheterization or interventional radiology. Nonetheless, it is likely that many SSI prevention strategies also could be applied or adapted to reduce infectious complications associated with these procedures. Specifically recommend SSI prevention methods unique to minimally invasive operations (i.e., laparoscopic surgery). Available SSI surveillance data indicate that laparoscopic operations generally have a lower or comparable SSI risk when contrasted to open operations.6-11 SSI prevention measures applicable in open operations (e.g., open cholecystectomy) are indicated for their laparoscopic counterparts (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Recommend specific antiseptic agents for patient preoperative skin preparations or for healthcare worker hand/forearm antisepsis. Hospitals should choose from products recommended for these activitie

Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee

The “Guideline for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 1999” presents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s recommendations for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs), formerly called surgical wound infections. This two-part guideline updates and replaces previous guidelines.

Part I, “Surgical Site Infection: An Overview,” describes the epidemiology, definitions, microbiology, pathogenesis, and surveillance of SSIs. Included is a detailed discussion of the pre-, intra-, and postoperative issues relevant to SSI genesis.

Risk factors for surgical infection

In the last century remarkable advances have been made in surgery, associated with the lowest recorded rates of infection or sepsis. Many surgical practices are time honoured but have little scientific basis to prevent postoperative infection whereas some local and systemic factors are well recognized and can be modified to lower infection risks. Surgical skill is not easily measurable but shorter operations in experienced hands leaving the minimum of tissue damage, haematoma or dead space have the lowest infection rates in general surgery: < 2% in clean and < 10% in contaminated operations. Adequate surgical scrub, appropriate suture materials and antibiotic prophylaxis, perioperative correction of dehydration and poor nutrition are examples of effective therapy which can be conformed to by all surgeons. Other factors, such as the use of wound guards, drains and surgical dressings are less easy to estimate for effectiveness or be sure that they could be changed or left out of surgical ritual.

Efficacy evaluation of a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as a full-body shower wash

A 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Xttrium Laboratories, Chicago, Ill.) was used in a shower bath application to evaluate its merits in reducing resident skin microorganisms. Five volunteers completed a 14-day microbial stabilization period, a 7-day baseline period, and a 5-day test period. Subjects followed a standard protocol, performed five shower washes and were sampled at both the abdominal and inguinal regions immediately after the shower wash as well as at 3 and 6 hours later on days 1, 2, and 5. Chlorhexidine gluconate provided significant microbial reductions from baseline, with greater reductions noted as the study progressed. Use of chlorhexidine gluconate in a shower wash application in conjunction with a preoperative skin-preparation procedure may reduce the probability of surgically associated infections.

Does the addition of pre-operative skin preparation with povidone-iodine reduce groin sepsis following arterial surgery?

Sixty-four consecutive patients undergoing elective vascular surgery involving exposure of the femoral artery at the groin were randomized to one of two groups. Group A (N = 34) received twice-daily skin preparation with 10% aqueous povidone-iodine for 48 h preoperatively, while group B (N = 30) did not. Both groups were examined on a daily basis following surgery and any discharge from the wound was recorded and sent for bacteriological culture. The groups were well matched for age, sex and the type of vascular graft material used. In group A there were six (18.7%) groin wound infections and in group B there were five (17.2%). In this series of patients the addition of preoperative skin preparation with 10% povidone-iodine to standard peri-operative prophylaxis had no effect on the incidence of postoperative groin wound sepsis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of chlorhexidine detergent in preoperative whole-body disinfection in wound infection prophylaxis

A total of 3482 general surgical patients entered a trial in which they had a chlorhexidine or placebo detergent shower three times before elective clean wound or potentially contaminated surgery. Patients who showered with a chlorhexidine detergent (N = 1744) had a significant reduction in skin flora compared with those who showered with a placebo detergent (N = 1738). The majority of wound infections occurred outside hospital (312 outpatient infections vs. 201 inpatient infections). Wound infection rates were similar in the chlorhexidine and placebo groups (5.79% vs. 5.75% for inpatient infections and 8.54% vs. 9.38% for outpatient infections). The average hospital cost of both non-infected and infected patients was higher in the chlorhexidine group. The average cost of a non-infected chlorhexidine patient was 847.95 pounds as opposed to 804.60 pounds for a non-infected placebo patient, whilst the average cost of an infected patient was 1459.70 pounds (chlorhexidine) and 1414.22 pounds (placebo). A cross-match comparison of patients undergoing vascular surgery revealed no statistical significance in the difference between the two experimental groups. Patients were matched for age, sex, type of operation and surgeon. We conclude that preoperative whole-body disinfection with a chlorhexidine detergent is not a cost-effective treatment for reducing wound infection.

Effects of whole body disinfection on skin flora in patients undergoing elective surgery

Bacterial skin flora were studied in two groups of patients having three showers with either a 4% chlorhexidine detergent solution (Group A, N = 57) or a placebo detergent (Group B, N = 58). Previous reports on the efficacy of chlorhexidine in decreasing bacterial counts on the skin were confirmed and the time taken to recolonization (median 5 days; range 1-10 days) was in broad agreement with previous reports. However, concern regarding the colonization of the skin of the patients in the chlorhexidine group by potential pathogens during the recolonization period appears unfounded as there was no significant difference in the incidence of non-resident skin flora between the chlorhexidine (17/57; 30%) and the placebo (14/58; 24%) groups. These non-residents are generally lost from the skin before discharge in the chlorhexidine group but nine patients in the placebo group had abnormal skin flora at discharge from hospital. All those patients tested after discharge had lost the non-resident flora within 2 weeks of discharge. The results of this study indicate that recolonization of the skin after whole body disinfection does not present a clinical problem.

Rationalizing whole body disinfection

As part of the preparation for a large prospective trial investigating the effect of preoperative whole body disinfection on the postoperative wound infection rate, this preliminary volunteer study was carried out to establish (a) the optimum number of preoperative washes required to achieve a maximum level of skin disinfection and (b) if showering or bathing is a more efficient method of skin disinfection. Ten healthy volunteers were recruited. The results show a significant decrease (p less than 0.005) in the skin flora after the first and second showers (a decrease of 93.55% and 77.49% respectively), but no further significant fall with subsequent showers. There was a significant fall (p less than 0.005) in skin flora after a single bath (a decrease of 70.98%) with subsequent baths producing no further significant reduction in skin flora. From these results it is recommended that three preoperative showers with 4% chlorhexidine detergent be used as an optimum preoperative whole body disinfection regimen. Three showers ensures against less thorough washing by the patients compared to the healthy volunteers in the study and fits easily into a preoperative regimen.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci by aortic graft recipients

The staphylococcal flora of the groin and perianal area was studied in 12 patients undergoing aortic grafts and 3 patients having repair of ventral abdominal hernias. A total of 892 isolates of coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) were identified and their antibiotic resistance determined. The species most frequently isolated were S. epidermidis and S. haemolyticus with the latter showing the highest incidence of antibiotic resistance. Five of 15 patients had CNS resistant to methicillin and gentamicin on admission. The effect of pre-operative bathing with chlorhexidine was studied in 6 patients and appeared to reduce the acquisition of multi-resistant CNS in the week after operation.

Do preoperative chlorhexidine baths reduce the risk of infection after vascular reconstruction?

Pathogenic organisms are frequently present on the skin of vascular patients and are a risk factor for postoperative infection. A randomised trial of preoperative antiseptic baths was performed in 64 high risk vascular patients to determine whether two chlorhexidine baths could reduce the incidence of postoperative sepsis. Although pathogenic organisms were isolated preoperatively in 35% of patients, the wound infection rate after chlorhexidine baths (26%) was greater, though not significantly, than after baths with non-medicated soap (11%). An alternative theory that infection arises via lymphatics in the limb was not confirmed when organisms could not be isolated from groin lymph nodes in a group of 35 patients. The case for preoperative antiseptic regimes in vascular surgery remains unproven.

Guideline for use of topical antimicrobial agents

This Guideline is based on published data available at the time of writing. The ideal means for comparing performance of various antimicrobial agents is through the conduct of carefully designed, large-scale clinical trials. Recommendations contained in this Guideline are subject to modification as additional data become available. It particularly should be noted that the implementation of universal precautions or body substance isolation has resulted in marked increase in the use of gloves for direct patient contact. Whether there is an additional cost-benefit rationale for handwashing with an antimicrobial agent remains to be studied.

A comparison of the effects of preoperative whole-body bathing with detergent alone and with detergent containing chlorhexidine gluconate on the frequency of wound infections after clean surgery. The European Working Party on Control of Hospital Infections

In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 27 surgical units in six European countries, the effect of preoperative whole-body bathing on two occasions with a detergent containing chlorhexidine (CHX+) on the incidence of wound infection in elective, clean surgery was compared with two bathings with a detergent without chlorhexidine (CHX-). In the CHX+ group 2.62% of 1413 patients and in the CHX- group 2.36% of 1400 patients subsequently became infected. The infection rate in the CHX+ group was 1.11 times that in the CHX- group with 95% confidence limits ranging between 0.69 and 1.82. Consequently, bathing patients twice preoperatively with chlorhexidine-detergent did not reduce the incidence of infection of clean wounds.