Pitfalls in evidence assessment: the case of chlorhexidine and alcohol in skin antisepsis

Expert consensus-based clinical practice guidelines management of intravascular catheters in the intensive care unit

The French Society of Intensive Care Medicine (SRLF), jointly with the French-Speaking Group of Paediatric Emergency Rooms and Intensive Care Units (GFRUP) and the French-Speaking Association of Paediatric Surgical Intensivists (ADARPEF), worked out guidelines for the management of central venous catheters (CVC), arterial catheters and dialysis catheters in intensive care unit. For adult patients: Using GRADE methodology, 36 recommendations for an improved catheter management were produced by the 22 experts. Recommendations regarding catheter-related infections’ prevention included the preferential use of subclavian central vein (GRADE 1), a one-step skin disinfection(GRADE 1) using 2% chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol (GRADE 1), and the implementation of a quality of care improvement program. Antiseptic- or antibiotic-impregnated CVC should likely not be used (GRADE 2, for children and adults). Catheter dressings should likely not be changed before the 7th day, except when the dressing gets detached, soiled or impregnated with blood (GRADE 2− adults). CHG dressings should likely be used (GRADE 2+). For adults and children, ultrasound guidance should be used to reduce mechanical complications in case of internal jugular access (GRADE 1), subclavian access (Grade 2) and femoral venous, arterial radial and femoral access (Expert opinion). For children, an ultrasound-guided supraclavicular approach of the brachiocephalic vein was recommended to reduce the number of attempts for cannulation and mechanical complications. Based on scarce publications on diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and on their experience (expert opinion), the panel proposed definitions, and therapeutic strategies.

Blood culture contamination in a tertiary care hospital of Saudi Arabia. A one-year study

Objectives:

To monitor blood culture contamination (BCC) rates in a tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

Blood cultures submitted to the Microbiology Laboratory of King Fahad Hospital, Madina, Saudi Arabia between January and December 2017 were analyzed prospectively. Positive blood cultures were either designated as true bacteremia with confirmed bloodstream infection or BCC.

Results:

Among 5,536 blood cultures from 2201 patients, 364 (6.6%) mirrored BCC. There was an upward trend in contamination rates in specific months. With respect to total blood cultures from respective units over a one-year period, medical ward contributed to the highest contamination rate (10.3%). Blood culture contamination rate in the wards ranged from 4.5-10.3%, with a higher contamination rate in elderly, aged 60-80 years. Staphylococcus epidermidis (S. epidermidis) was the most frequent contaminant (44.5%).

Conclusion:

The escalated contamination rates in September to October may be attributed to difficulty in sampling blood by the less competent nurses during annual pilgrimage season. High influx of patients and shortage of trained nurses may have resulted in increased incidence in December-January and March-April. The prevalence of skin-resident S. epidermidis may be due to improper aseptic conditions. Ours is the first report on evaluation of BCC rates in Madina and call for renewed efforts in this direction.

Control of MSSA and MRSA in the United States: protocols, policies, risk adjustment and excuses

Data released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on March 5, 2019 showed that Staph aureus infections are a major problem in the United States, with 119,000 infections and almost 20,000 deaths in 2017. Rates of decline for hospital-onset MRSA have slowed since 2012 and the United States is not on track for meeting the 2015 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ goal of a 50% reduction by 2020. There is a need for improved standards for control of dangerous pathogens. Currently, the World Health Organization’s recommendation of preoperatively screening patients for Staph aureus has not become a standard of care in the United States.

The U.S. Veterans Health Administration also released data which found a much larger decrease in hospital-onset MRSA infections as opposed to hospital-onset MSSA using various infectious disease bundles that all included universal MRSA surveillance and isolation for MRSA carriers. These results mirror the results obtained by the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. These findings support the contention that the marked decline in hospital-onset MRSA infections observed in these studies is due to interventions which are specifically targeted towards MRSA.

A case is made that concerns with the integrity of healthcare policy research, along with industrial conflicts-of-interest have inhibited effective formulation of infectious disease policy in the United States. Because MRSA has become endemic in the general U.S. population (approximately 2%), the author advocates that universal facility-wide screening of MRSA on admission be included in infection prevention bundles used at U.S. hospital.

Chlorhexidine wipes: Time to stop and think about allergy

Summary

We report three precautionary cases of perioperative anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine isopropyl alcohol antiseptic wipes (CAW). In two cases, the patients were inadvertently re-exposed to CAW despite known chlorhexidine hypersensitivity. Chlorhexidine has been described as ‘the hidden allergen’. As a result, patients may suffer multiple reactions before chlorhexidine is confirmed as the cause. Healthcare workers may not recognize that products they use for common clinical steps contain chlorhexidine. These cases highlight the need for constant vigilance to facilitate the safe management of patients with a history of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis.

Surgical field and skin preparation

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent healthcare-associated infection in France. SSI rates in total hip or knee replacement are around 2%. The main bacteria implicated in SSI in clean surgery are those of the skin flora, whence the importance of skin preparation to eliminate transient flora and reduce resident flora. Guidelines for the prevention of SSI have progressed in recent years in France: firstly in 2013, and then in 2016. That preoperative hair removal and scrubbing of clean skin ahead of cutaneous asepsis is non-contributive was confirmed in 2013. A shower with normal soap taken as close to the beginning of surgery as possible is still recommended, as is use of alcoholic antiseptics for cutaneous asepsis. The debate remains open between chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in several surgical specialties in the absence of any multicenter studies. Future choices of antiseptic may need to take account of resistance, especially to chlorhexidine, and possible side-effects. Finally, antimicrobial skin sealants and adhesive surgical drapes are not recommended for the prevention of infection.

Antisepsis for blood culture extraction. Blood culture contamination rate

Blood cultures are the gold standard for the etiological diagnosis of bacteremia, though false-positive results are relatively frequent primarily due to contamination from skin flora during sample extraction. Correct skin antisepsis is important for reducing the bacterial load and opportunities for contamination. However, there is currently no solid consensus on the best antiseptic method. Alcohol has a potent immediate bactericidal effect, and there is some scientific evidence in favor of its combination with chlorhexidine, but most studies on this issue are heterogeneous and with inconclusive results. Some authors even suggest that the chosen antiseptic is irrelevant to the contamination rate, provided the blood culture extraction method is adequate and is performed by a trained professional. This article is part of a supplement entitled "Antisepsis in the critical patient", which is sponsored by Becton Dickinson.

Chlorhexidine is not an essential component in alcohol-based surgical hand preparation: a comparative study of two handrubs based on a modified EN 12791 test protocol

BACKGROUND

Surgical hand preparation is an essential part of modern surgery. Both alcohol-based and antiseptic detergent-based hand preparation are recommended practices, with a trend towards use of alcohol based handrubs. However, discussion has arisen whether chlorhexidine is a required ingredient in highly efficacious alcohol-based formulations, in view of providing sustained antimicrobial efficacy.

METHODS

One alcohol-only formulation (product A), containing ethanol and n-propanol, and one formulation containing a chlorhexidine-ethanol combination (product B) were directly compared with each other using a modified test protocol based on European standard EN 12791 (2016) with 25 volunteers. The alcohol-only formulation (product A) was applied for only 90 s, the chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation (product B) for 180 s. Microbial log reduction factors were determined and statistically compared immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves.

RESULTS

The alcohol-only formulation (product A) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.96 ± 1.06 immediately after application and 1.67 ± 0.71 after 6 h. The chlorhexidine-alcohol combination (product B) achieved mean log reduction factors of 1.42 ± 0.79 and 1.24 ± 0.90 immediately and after 6 h, respectively. The values for product A were significantly greater than those for product B at both measured time points (p ≤ 0.025 immediately after application and p ≤ 0.01 after 6 h).

CONCLUSIONS

An optimized alcohol-only formulation tested according to a modified EN 12791 protocol in 25 healthy volunteers outperformed a chlorhexidine-alcohol formulation both immediately after application and at 6 h under surgical gloves, despite a much shorter application time. Thus, optimized alcohol-only formulations do not require chlorhexidine to achieve potent immediate and sustained efficacy. In conclusion, chlorhexidine is not an essential component for alcohol-based surgical hand preparation.

A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research

The medical literature is prone to overstating results, a condition not thoroughly recognized among policymakers. This article sets forth examples of potential problems with research integrity in the infectious disease literature. We describe articles that may be spun, categories lumped together in hopes of creating a significant effect (and sometimes an insignificant one), changes in metrics, and how trials may fail because of suboptimal interventions. When examined together, the examples show that the problems are widespread and illustrate the difficulty associated with interpreting medical research. The state of the current medical literature makes it of utmost importance that all sections of the manuscript are read, including associated letters to the editors and information on ClinicalTrials.gov before authors' recommendations are accepted.

Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.

SEARCH METHODS

For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS

There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).

Viewpoint: a response to "Screening and isolation to control methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: sense, nonsense, and evidence"

Surveillance and isolation for the prevention of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has become a controversial topic, one that causes heated debate and appears to be surrounded by both politics and industrial conflicts-of-interest. There have been calls from numerous authors for a movement away from rigid mandates and toward an evidence-based medicine approach. However, much of the evidence can be viewed with an entirely different interpretation. Two major studies with negative findings have had an adverse impact on recommendations regarding active detection and isolation (ADI) for MRSA. However the negative findings in these studies can be explained by shortcomings in study implementation rather than the ineffectiveness of ADI. The use of daily chlorhexidine bathing has also been proposed as an alternative to ADI in ICU settings. There are shortcomings regarding the evidence in the literature concerning the effectiveness of daily chlorhexidine bathing. One of the major concerns with universal daily chlorhexidine bathing is the development of bacterial resistance. The use of surveillance and isolation to address epidemics and common dangerous pathogens should solely depend upon surveillance and isolation's ability to prevent further spread to and infection of other patients through indirect contact. At present, there is a preponderance of evidence in the literature to support continuing use of surveillance and isolation to prevent the spread of MRSA.