Incorporation of skin preparation guidelines in local surgical facility protocols: what kind of barriers does it face? A multi-centre study in France

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most frequent and severe adverse event after surgery. Among preventive measures, the preoperative skin preparation (PSP) is known to be heterogeneously implemented in routine practice. A prerequisite would be the actual incorporation of guidelines in French surgical local protocols.

AIM

To assess whether PSP recommendations have been incorporated in local protocols and to identify the reasons for the non-incorporation.

METHODS

An online survey was proposed to all infection control teams (ICTs) in facilities participating in the French national surveillance and prevention of SSI network Spicmi. The reference recommendations were based on the French Society for Hospital Hygiene guidelines.

FINDINGS

In all, 485 healthcare facilities completed the questionnaire. The incorporation of recommendations in the facility protocol varied between 30% and 98% according to the recommendation. The measures most frequently incorporated were antisepsis with an alcoholic product and cessation of systematic hair removal. The least frequently incorporated were the use of plain soap for preoperative shower and the non-compulsory skin cleaning in the operating room. Barriers reported were either specific to PSP (e.g. 'Concern about an increase of SSI', 'Scepticism about recommendations', 'Force of habit') or non-specific (e.g. 'The protocol not yet due to be updated').

CONCLUSION

We suggest that although some major prevention measures have been incorporated in the local protocol of most facilities, local protocols still frequently include some non-evidence based former recommendations. Communication about evolution of SSI rates, diffusion of guidelines by learned societies, and exchange with judiciary experts could make clear the conditions for applying recommendations.

Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture).

METHODS

In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications.

RESULTS

A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections

OBJECTIVE

Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada.

METHODS

Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups.

RESULTS

A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Best products for skin antisepsis

BACKGROUND

Skin antiseptics are used for several purposes before surgical procedures, for bathing high-risk patients as a means of reducing central line-associated infections and other health care associated infections.

METHODS

A PubMed search was performed to update the evidence on skin antiseptic products and practices.

RESULTS

Current guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend preoperative baths or showers with a plain or antimicrobial soap prior to surgery, but do not make recommendations on the timing of baths, the total number of baths needed, or about the use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CGH)-impregnated cloths. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that pre-operative surgical hand antisepsis using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub yields similar SSI rates. Other studies have reported that using an alcohol-based hand rub caused less skin irritation, was easier to use, and required shorter scrub times than using antimicrobial soap. Current SSI prevention guidelines recommend using an alcohol-containing antiseptic for surgical site infection. Commonly used products contain isopropanol combined with either CHG or with povidone-iodine. Surgical site preparation protocols for shoulder surgery in men may need to include coverage for anaerobes. Several studies suggest the need to monitor and improve surgical site preparation techniques. Daily bathing of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a CHG-containing soap reduces the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Evidence for a similar effect in non-ICU patients is mixed. Despite widespread CHG bathing of ICU patients, numerous barriers to its effective implementation exist. Measuring CHG levels on the skin is useful for identifying gaps in coverage and suboptimal skin concentrations. Using alcohol-based products with at least 2% CHG for skin preparation prior to central line insertion reduces CLABSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Progress has been made on skin antisepsis products and protocols, but improvements in technique are still needed.

Disinfection, sterilization and antisepsis: An overview

BACKGROUND

Each year in the United States there are approximately 100,000,000 outpatient/inpatient surgical procedures. Each of these procedures involves contact by a medical device or surgical instrument with a patient's sterile tissue and/or mucous membrane. A major risk of all such procedures is the introduction of infection.

METHODS

We searched published literature for articles on the use and effectiveness of disinfectants, sterilization methods and antiseptics.

RESULTS

The level of disinfection is dependent on the intended use of the object: critical (items that contact sterile tissue such as surgical instruments), semicritical (items that contact mucous membrane such as endoscopes), and noncritical (devices that contact only intact skin such as stethoscopes) items require sterilization, high-level disinfection and low-level disinfection, respectively. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Antiseptics are essential to infection prevention as part of a hand hygiene program as well as other uses such as surgical hand antisepsis and pre-operative patient skin preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

When properly used, disinfection and sterilization can ensure the safe use of invasive and non-invasive medical devices. Cleaning should always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Strict adherence to current disinfection and sterilization guidelines is essential to prevent patient infections and exposures to infectious agents.

Aqueous skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis is frequently recommended for most surgical procedures; however, it is unclear if these recommendations should apply to surgery involving traumatic contaminated wounds where povidone-iodine has previously been preferred. We aimed to compare the effect of aqueous 10% povidone-iodine versus aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate on the risk of surgical site infection in patients who required surgery for an open fracture.

METHODS

We conducted a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial (Aqueous-PREP) at 14 hospitals in Canada, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with an open extremity fracture treated with a surgical fixation implant. For inclusion, the open fracture required formal surgical debridement within 72 h of the injury. Participating sites were randomly assigned (1:1) to use either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate immediately before surgical incision; sites then alternated between the study interventions every 2 months. Participants, health-care providers, and study personnel were aware of the treatment assignment due to the colour of the solutions. The outcome adjudicators and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was surgical site infection, guided by the 2017 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ space infection within 90 days of surgery. The primary analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle and included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03385304.

FINDINGS

Between April 8, 2018, and June 8, 2021, 3619 patients were assessed for eligibility and 1683 were enrolled and randomly assigned to povidone-iodine (n=847) or chlorhexidine gluconate (n=836). The trial's adjudication committee determined that 45 participants were ineligible, leaving 1638 participants in the primary analysis, with 828 in the povidone-iodine group and 810 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean age 44·9 years [SD 18·0]; 629 [38%] were female and 1009 [62%] were male). Among 1571 participants in whom the primary outcome was known, a surgical site infection occurred in 59 (7%) of 787 participants in the povidone-iodine group and 58 (7%) of 784 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (odds ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·74 to 1·65; p=0·61; risk difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·4 to 3·4).

INTERPRETATION

For patients who require surgical fixation of an open fracture, either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate can be selected for skin antisepsis on the basis of solution availability, patient contraindications, or product cost. These findings might also have implications for antisepsis of other traumatic wounds.

FUNDING

US Department of Defense, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University Surgical Associates, PSI Foundation.

How to improve aseptic technique to reduce bloodstream infection during vascular access procedures

Bloodstream infections associated with vascular access procedures pose a serious risk to patients that can be reduced by better standards of aseptic technique. The objectives of this roundtable of experts were to achieve a consensus on how to improve skin antisepsis in hospital, improve training, competency, compliance and consistency in skin antisepsis, review the role of devices in improving skin antisepsis, identify methods to improve skin antisepsis integrated with the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) approach, and identify challenges to the implementation of the panel's recommendations. Recommendations include using MHRA-licensed 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol solution with bidirectional strokes for up to 30 seconds, then leaving the skin to air dry for 30 seconds; using the ANTT Clinical Practice Framework and terminology as the standard for skin antisepsis training and practice; standardised ANTT and skin antisepsis education with 3-yearly competency assessments for all UK health professionals; and more research to address the evidence gap on transmission of infection after skin antisepsis.

Clinical Issues-August 2022

Use of sterile vests Key words: sterile technique, surgical attire, gown, contaminated, back. Bare arms for unscrubbed personnel Key words: long sleeves, cover jacket, disposable jacket, patient skin antisepsis, surgical site infection (SSI). Preventing thermal injury from electrosurgical devices Key words: electrosurgical unit (ESU), monopolar electrosurgical device, electrode, alternate site thermal injury, burn. Preoperative site marking for minimally invasive procedures Key words: surgical site, wrong-site surgery, alternative site marking, point of access, preprocedure verification.

Clinical Issues-July 2022

Surgical hand antisepsis recommendations Key words: surgical hand scrub, alcohol-based hand rub, dry scrub, wet scrub, antimicrobial. Surgical hand rub preparation Key words: surgical hand antiseptic, hand wash, nail pick, hand hygiene, scrub personnel. Use of a closing tray Key words: clean-contaminated, isolation technique, gastrointestinal tract, wound class, wound closure. Hemostatic agent classification Key words: Class III medical devices, absorbable hemostatic agents, product classification, medical specialty panels, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Chlorhexidine gluconate vs povidone-iodine vaginal antisepsis for urogynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Although povidone-iodine (iodine) is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved vaginal antiseptic solution, there is a lack of comparative data evaluating alternatives. Chlorhexidine gluconate is readily accessible, recommended by multiple societies as an alternative for patients with iodine allergy, and preliminary data indicate that it may provide superior antisepsis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine and iodine as presurgical vaginal antiseptic solutions in preventing the most common surgery-associated infection after gynecologic surgery, urinary tract infections.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a randomized controlled noninferiority trial among women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. The primary outcome measure was symptomatic urinary tract infection within 2 weeks after surgery. The secondary outcomes included culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery, symptomatic urinary tract infections at 6 weeks after surgery, any surgical site infection at 2 weeks after surgery, and patient-reported vaginal irritation after surgery. We required 58 participants per arm to demonstrate noninferiority of chlorhexidine vs iodine (margin of relative risk of <1.5 for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval) between groups for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 119 participants (61 in the chlorhexidine group and 58 in the iodine group) completed the primary outcome and were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the groups' demographic characteristics, medical history, operations performed, or perioperative factors. Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine concerning the primary outcome, symptomatic urinary tract infection at 2 weeks after surgery (10% vs 17%; relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [-∞, 1.3]). Furthermore, chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for the secondary urinary tract infection outcomes (culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery and symptomatic urinary tract infection at 6 weeks after surgery). Groups were similar in terms of surgical site infection (overall 3/119 [2.5%]) and presence of any vaginal irritation (4/54 [7.4%], for both groups).

CONCLUSION

Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for vaginal antisepsis before urogynecologic surgery concerning urinary tract infection. Given the similar postoperative urinary tract infection rates demonstrated in this study and the lack of difference in vaginal irritation, chlorhexidine seemed to be a safe and reasonable option for vaginal antisepsis before surgical procedures. Additional studies are needed to further examine surgical site infection.

Alcohol (70%) versus alcoholic chlorhexidine solution (0.5%) in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

to compare the use of 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks.

METHOD

this is a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial, with two parallel arms. Seventy patients who were candidates for neuraxial block were randomly allocated to group A (n = 35), in whom antisepsis was performed with 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine, or to group B (n = 35), in whom we used 70% hydrated ethyl alcohol. Swabs were harvested for culture at three times: before antisepsis, two minutes after application of the antiseptic, and immediately after puncture. The samples were sown in three culture media and the number of colony forming units (CFU) per cm² was counted.

RESULTS

there was no difference between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, time to perform the block or type of block. There were no differences between groups in the CFU/cm² counts before antisepsis. There was less bacterial growth in group B two minutes after application of the antiseptic (p = 0.048), but there was no difference between the groups regarding the number of CFU/cm² at the end of the puncture.

CONCLUSION

70% alcohol was more effective in reducing the number of CFU/cm² after two minutes, and there was no difference between the two groups regarding skin colonization at the end of the procedure. These results suggest that 70% alcohol may be an option for skin antisepsis before neuraxial blocks. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02833376.

Aqueous Chlorhexidine Compared with Povidone-Iodine as Ocular Antisepsis before Intravitreal Injection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Topical povidone-iodine (PI) is widely used as an ocular surface antiseptic for intravitreal injections (IVIs). Although PI is generally well tolerated, it can be associated with significant ocular irritation. Aqueous chlorhexidine (AqCHX) has been described as a possibly better tolerated antimicrobial for ophthalmic procedures. We compared patient pain scores, ocular surface characteristics, and antimicrobial efficacy between PI 5% and AqCHX 0.1% during IVIs.

DESIGN

Prospective single-center, randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients receiving same-day bilateral intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections.

METHODS

Each patient had 1 eye randomized to PI or AqCHX, and the second eye received the other agent. Both eyes received topical proparacaine 0.5%.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

After IVIs, participants rated their pain (Wong-Baker, scale 0-10) for each eye 1 minute after PI or AqCHX instillation and 1 day after the procedure. Each eye was assessed using a standardized quantitative grading system of corneal epitheliopathy (ocular staining score). Microbial swab cultures of the conjunctiva both before instillation of topical antisepsis and 10 minutes after IVIs were given.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eyes of 50 patients were included. The mean patient age was 68 years (range, 39-92), and 30 of 50 (60%) were male. Compared with AqCHX, eyes receiving PI had a greater mean pain score immediately after injection (1.44 vs. 0.44, P < 0.001) but not on postprocedure day 1 (1.04 vs. 0.48, P = 0.06). Eyes that received PI had a higher ocular staining score indicating worse corneal epitheliopathy (4.22 vs. 3.10, P < 0.001). There was no difference in rates of positive microbial cultures between groups. There was no difference in rates of adverse events between groups (P = 0.99), and no cases of endophthalmitis occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Povidone-iodine demonstrated greater ocular surface discomfort and corneal epitheliopathy compared with AqCHX during same-day bilateral IVIs. The 2 agents otherwise demonstrated no difference in positive microbial cultures or adverse events. Aqueous chlorhexidine may be a better tolerated alternative to PI for antimicrobial prophylaxis during IVIs for some patients.

Bacterial skin recolonization in the operating room: comparison between various antisepsis protocols

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) largely implicates the patient's endogenous skin microbiota. Perioperative disinfection protocols do not follow a general agreement.

AIM

To compare antisepsis and skin protection protocols on quantitative analysis of recolonization in the operating room at regular time-steps. The study hypothesis was that one protocol would be more effective than others.

METHODS

A single-centre prospective interventional study was conducted between January and June 2019. Healthy volunteers were randomized between protocols and served as their own controls. The protocols began ahead of scheduled orthopaedic surgery with a preoperative shower, mechanical cleansing, application of major antiseptics (alcoholic Bétadine™ 5% or alcoholic chlorhexidine 0.5%), sterile draping, then adhesive draping (3M™ Steri-Drape™ or iodine-impregnated 3M™ Ioban2™). Sampling was by swabbing in the operating room at 30 min intervals up to 90 min after draping. Cultures were performed under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Qualitative and quantitative (cfu/mL) bacteriology was performed in the laboratory by direct reading on the blood agar plates.

FINDINGS

Thirty subjects were included; none was lost to follow-up or excluded from analysis. Bacterial load before manipulation (T0) was significantly higher in males (P < 0.0001) despite a significantly shorter shower-to-sampling interval (P = 0.03). Smoking (P = 0.85), body mass index (P = 0.38), and depilation (P = 0.50) did not significantly affect preoperative load. Mean load increased significantly under all protocols up to T90 min, without significant superiority for any one protocol. Associated Bétadine™/Ioban™ showed the lowest T90 load, and chlorhexidine alone the highest, but without significant difference. Isolates at T0 were predominantly healthy skin commensals: coagulase-negative staphylococci, micrococci, and coryneforms.

CONCLUSION

No one protocol demonstrated superiority, whether in immediate bactericidal action or in preventing skin recolonization in the operating room. Further studies are needed to define generally agreed protocols for SSI risk management.

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

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common problem after surgery. Although several guidelines have indicated the efficacy of antiseptics, such as chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine, in reducing SSI rate, the optimal recommendation is still not established. Olanexidine might have higher bactericidal activity than other antiseptic agents. However, no randomised study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanexidine over conventional antiseptics. We compared the effect of aqueous olanexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine on the incidence of SSI following clean-contaminated surgery.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, blinded-endpoint superiority trial for surgical skin antisepsis in clean-contaminated gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeries in four Japanese hospitals. Patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective clean-contaminated wound surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 replacement ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned to surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 1·5% olanexidine or surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 10% povidone-iodine before surgery. We used olanexidine in a ready-to-use applicator, and povidone-iodine was administered by a brush or by compression using pliers. Both antiseptics were applied from the papilla with a cranial limit and to the upper thigh with a caudal limit. The antiseptics were allowed to dry for 3 min, and then surgery started. Participants, some investigators, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. Participant enrolment was done by non-masked investigators. The primary outcome was 30-day SSI assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The surgical wound site of each participant was observed daily. After discharge, participants underwent at least one outpatient visit within 30 days after surgery. This trial is registered with University hospital Medical Information Network, 000031560.

FINDINGS

Between June 10, 2018, and April 18, 2019, 883 patients were assessed for eligibility. 587 patients were eligible and 294 received olanexidine and 293 received aqueous povidone-iodine before surgery. 30-day SSI occurred in 19 (7%) patients in the olanexidine group and 39 patients (13%) patients in the povidone-iodine group (adjusted risk difference -0·069; 90% CI -0·109 to -0·029; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 90% CI 0·30 to 0·74; p=0·002). Five patients (2%) in the olanexidine group and five (2%) in the povidone-iodine group developed adverse skin reactions (adjusted RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·29 to 3·40; p=1·00).

INTERPRETATION

Olanexidine significantly reduced the occurrence of overall SSI and superficial incisional SSI compared with aqueous povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Our results indicate that olanexidine might have a role to prevent SSI in patients who undergo clean-contaminated surgeries.

FUNDING

Keio University and Ohyama Health Foundation.

Preoperative skin antisepsis using chlorhexidine may reduce surgical wound infections in lower limb trauma surgery when compared to povidone-iodine - a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

For the prevention of surgical wound infections (SSIs), local microorganism counts can be lowered by skin antisepsis prior to surgical incisions. Until now, it has been unclear which antiseptic is the most effective.

METHODS

This prospective randomized trial analyzed the efficacy of 2 frequently used agents in the reduction of postoperative wound complication rates after aseptic trauma surgery on the lower leg and foot. In the study, 279 consecutive participants were randomized; 112 received surgical skin preparations using chlorhexidine (CHX) (ChloraPrep; Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) and 167 received preparations with povidone-iodine (PVP-I) (Braunoderm; B. Braun Melsungen AG, Melsungen, Germany). Primary clinical endpoints were SSIs and wound healing disorders (WHDs) within 6 months after surgery. Secondary outcome variables included demographic and perioperative risk factors for SSIs.

RESULTS

Rates of WHDs and SSIs were significantly higher in the PVP-I treatment group, which experienced 9 SSIs and 12 WHDs (n = 21; 12.6%), compared to the CHX treatment group, which had 2 SSIs and 3 WHDs (n = 5; 4.5%) (P = .022). Perioperative risk factors for WHDs were obesity and longer surgery time, whereas SSIs were increased in participants with cardiovascular diseases and suction drainage. Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of complications of wound healing were 3.5 times higher for PVP-I than for CHX (odds ratio = 3.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-11.2; P = .032).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative skin antisepsis for trauma surgery of the lower leg and foot using CHX led to significantly fewer complications of wound healing when compared to PVP-I.

Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropanol and 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol for skin antisepsis in reducing surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery: the CLEAN 2 study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the second most frequent cause of healthcare-associated infection worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Cardiac surgery is clean surgery with low incidence of SSI, ranging from 2% to 5%, but with potentially severe consequences.Perioperative skin antisepsis with an alcohol-based antiseptic solution is recommended to prevent SSI, but the superiority of chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol over povidone iodine (PVI)-alcohol, the two most common alcohol-based antiseptic solutions used worldwide, is controversial. We aim to evaluate whether 2% CHG-70% isopropanol is more effective than 5% PVI-69% ethanol in reducing the incidence of reoperation after cardiac surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The CLEAN 2 study is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial of 4100 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Patients will be randomised in 1:1 ratio to receive either 2% CHG-70% isopropanol or 5% PVI-69% ethanol for perioperative skin preparation. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients undergoing any re-sternotomy between day 0 and day 90 after initial surgery and/or any reoperation on saphenous vein/radial artery surgical site between day 0 and day 30 after initial surgery. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT 2017-005169-33 and NCT03560193.

Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, combined or not with use of a bundle of new devices, for prevention of short-term peripheral venous catheter-related infectious complications and catheter failure: an open-label, single-centre, randomised, four-parallel group, two-by-two factorial trial: CLEAN 3 protocol study

INTRODUCTION

Short peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals. Unfortunately, PVCs often fail before the end of treatment due to the occurrence of mechanical, vascular or infectious complications, which prolongs hospitalisation and increases healthcare costs and mortality.Prevention of these complications is mainly based on the respect of hygiene rules and the use of biocompatible catheters. In critically ill patients, 2% chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to 5% povidone iodine-alcohol for skin preparation before central venous and arterial catheters; whether this finding can be extended to PVC inserted in the wards remains speculative. Similarly, the use of new technologies such as catheters designed to minimise blood exposure, zero-reflux needleless connectors, disinfecting caps and flushing PVCs before and after each medication administration to maintain catheter patency are of theoretical interest to prevent PVC failure, but little scientific data support their routine use.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The CLEAN 3 study is an open-label, single-centre, randomised, two-by-two factorial trial. One thousand patients visiting our emergency department and requiring hospital admission in the wards will be randomised to one of four strategies according to skin preparation and devices used. The two primary endpoints will be (1) the incidence of infectious complications related to the catheters (colonisation, local infection or bloodstream infection) and (2) the time between catheter insertion and catheter failure defined as any premature removal of PVC before end of treatment, other than for routine replacement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

EudraCT 2018-A02535-50; NCT03757143.

Antiseptic urinary catheterization and maintenance of the bladder catheter

Catheter-related urinary tract infections are very common both in the community and in the acute hospital care setting, particularly in the critical care environment. In order to minimize this problem, it is essential to adopt a correct approach from insertion to withdrawal of the urinary catheter, and always perform proper antisepsis. There is too much information on antisepsis measures with no consistent results. The present article reviews the existing scientific evidence on the subject and establishes recommendations based on the evidence, in order to optimize outcomes. The entire process is complemented with considerations on how to secure proper management of the indwelling urinary catheter. This article is part of a supplement entitled "Antisepsis in the critical patient", which is sponsored by Becton Dickinson.

Effectiveness of surgical hand antisepsis using chlorhexidine digluconate and parachlorometaxylenol hand scrub: Cross-over trial

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine and parachlorometaxylenol (PCMX) are antiseptics recommended for surgical hand antisepsis. To our knowledge, PCMX has not been evaluated for bactericidal efficacy "in vivo.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover trial to compare the bacterial loads on fingertips and fingernails under laboratory conditions after use of antiseptic test products, including chlorhexidine digluconate 4%, PCMX 3%, and a reference solution of propan-1-ol 60% (P-1). We assessed bacterial load after a prewash with soft soap, immediately after application of an antiseptic, and 3 hours after application and wearing of sterile, powder-free gloves. Our procedures followed those specified by European Norm (EN) 12791 for evaluating surgical hand antiseptics and using cotton swab for fingertips and fingernails.

RESULTS

Chlorhexidine digluconate 4% and PCMX 3% did not decrease bacterial load on the hands. The bactericidal performances of chlorhexidine digluconate 4% and PCMX 3% did not differ significantly. Chlorhexidine digluconate 4% and PCMX 3% increased bacterial load on the fingertips after participants had worn gloves for 3 hours. Fingernails had greater bacterial loads than skin on the fingertips.

CONCLUSIONS

Chlorhexidine digluconate 4% and PCMX 3% had similar bactericidal efficacy, but they failed to meet the EN 12791 efficacy standard. Fingernails should be a particular focus of antisepsis in preparation for surgery.The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02500758).

Propionibacterium Acnes Persists Despite Various Skin Preparation Techniques

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy of various skin preparations at eradicating Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer of the skin.

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers consented to participate in this study. Each subject's upper back was prepped using 4 different techniques: an isopropyl alcohol control, chlorhexidine gluconate paint, chlorhexidine gluconate plus a mechanical scrub, and a high-concentration chlorhexidine gluconate plus a mechanical scrub. A 3-mm dermal punch biopsy specimen was obtained at each preparation site. The 4 punch biopsy specimens were cultured for 14 days to assess for P. acnes growth. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of positive cultures in each group and across biopsy sites. A Skillings-Mack test was used to compare the degree of culture positivity between the treatment arms.

RESULTS

There were no reported complications in any of our subjects. P. acnes grew in 7 of the 12 control sites, 5 of the 12 chlorhexidine gluconate sites, 6 of the 12 chlorhexidine plus mechanical scrub sites, and 6 of the 12 high-concentration chlorhexidine gluconate plus mechanical scrub sites. There were no statistically significant differences between any of the treatment arms (P = .820).

CONCLUSIONS

P. acnes persisted despite a variety of clinically relevant skin antisepsis preparations and techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Isolation, Synthesis, and Antisepsis Effects of a C-Methylcoumarinochromone Isolated from Abronia nana Cell Culture

Only a few isoflavones have been isolated from plants of the genus Abronia. The biological properties of compounds isolated from Abronia species have not been well established, and their antisepsis effects have not been reported yet. In the present study, a new C-methylcoumarinochromone, was isolated from Abronia nana suspension cultures. Its structure was deduced as 9,11-dihydroxy-10-methylcoumarinochromone (boeravinone Y, 1) by spectroscopic data analysis and verified by chemical synthesis. The potential inhibitory effects of 1 against high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1)-mediated septic responses were investigated. Results showed that 1 effectively inhibited lipopolysaccharide-induced release of HMGB1 and suppressed HMGB1-mediated septic responses, in terms of reduction of hyperpermeability, leukocyte adhesion and migration, and cell adhesion molecule expression. In addition, 1 increased the phagocytic activity of macrophages and exhibited bacterial clearance effects in the peritoneal fluid and blood of mice with cecal ligation and puncture-induced sepsis. Collectively, these results suggested that 1 might have potential therapeutic activity against various severe vascular inflammatory diseases via inhibition of the HMGB1 signaling pathway.

Modelling antisepsis using defined populations of facultative and anaerobic wound pathogens grown in a basally perfused biofilm model

An in vitro model was developed to assess the effects of topical antimicrobials on taxonomically defined wound biofilms. Biofilms were exposed over seven days to povidone-iodine, silver acetate or polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) at concentrations used in wound dressings. The rank order of tolerance in multi-species biofilms, based on an analysis of the average bacterial counts over time was P. aeruginosa > methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) > B. fragilis > S. pyogenes. The rank order of effectiveness for the antimicrobials in the biofilm model was povidone-iodine > PHMB > silver acetate. None of the test compounds eradicated P. aeruginosa or MRSA from the biofilms although all compounds except silver acetate eliminated S. pyogenes. Antimicrobial effectiveness against bacteria grown in multi-species biofilms did not correlate with planktonic susceptibility. Defined biofilm populations of mixed-species wound pathogens could be maintained in the basal perfusion model, facilitating the efficacy testing of treatments regimens and potential dressings against multi-species biofilms composed of wound isolates.

More Antisepsis, Less Antibiotics Whenever Possible

Increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics has recently become an important medical challenge. In ophthalmology antibiotics are widely used for treatment and prophylaxis of ocular infections. In many cases antiseptics may be a valuable adjunct and sometimes even an alternative to antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of infections, reducing the overuse of antibiotics. This review aims to highlight the available literature on the subject of antibiotic resistance in ophthalmology. Full understanding of this growing problem is necessary for tailoring effective pre-, intra-, and postoperative management to improve antibiotic stewardship programs.

Skin antisepsis with 0.05% sodium hypochlorite before central venous catheter insertion in neonates: A 2-year single-center experience

AIM

The study reports a 2-year single-center experience of the practice of skin antisepsis using a 0.05% sodium hypochlorite solution before central venous catheter placement in neonates.

METHODS

Eligible subjects included any hospitalized neonate who needed a central line for at least 48 hours. Infants were excluded if they had a generalized or localized skin disorder. An ad hoc Excel (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, WA) file was used to record the data from each patient. The catheter sites were monitored daily for the presence of contact dermatitis. Central line-associated bloodstream infection was diagnosed according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition.

RESULTS

One hundred five infants underwent central venous catheter placement and were enrolled. A total of 198 central lines were inserted. The median gestational age was 31 weeks (range, 23-41 weeks) and median birth weight was 1,420 g (range, 500-5,170 g). There were no signs of 0.05% sodium hypochlorite-related skin toxicity in any infant. Of 198 catheters (1,652 catheter-days) prospectively studied, 9 were associated with bloodstream infections (5.4 per 1,000 catheter-days).

CONCLUSION

During the observation period, no local adverse effects were observed suggesting that 0.05% sodium hypochlorite may be a safe choice in this context.

Guideline Implementation: Hand Hygiene

Performing proper hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis is essential to reducing the rates of health care-associated infections, including surgical site infections. The updated AORN "Guideline for hand hygiene" provides guidance on hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis, the wearing of fingernail polish and artificial nails, proper skin care to prevent dermatitis, the wearing of jewelry, hand hygiene product selection, and quality assurance and performance improvement considerations. This article focuses on key points of the guideline to help perioperative personnel make informed decisions about hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis. The key points address the necessity of keeping fingernails and skin healthy, not wearing jewelry on the hands or wrists in the perioperative area, properly performing hand hygiene and surgical hand antisepsis, and involving patients and visitors in hand hygiene initiatives. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.

Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.

Perioperative participation of orthopedic patients and surgical staff in a nasal decolonization intervention to reduce Staphylococcus spp surgical site infections

With the goal of reducing rates of surgical site infections in our spine patients, we initiated a trial to investigate the impact of adding perisurgical nasal decolonization involving patients and surgical and nursing staff. We combined immediate presurgical application of a nonantibiotic alcohol-based nasal antiseptic with existing chlorhexidine bath or wipes in a comprehensive pre- and postoperative decolonization protocol. Mean infection rates were significantly decreased by 81% from 1.76 to 0.33 per 100 surgeries during the 15-month trial, when compared with the prior 9-month baseline.

[Aseptic techniques for minor surgical procedures]

Aseptic techniques are those practices designed to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI), defined as such, all those that occur within the first 30 days of the procedure. While the patient’s risk of developing an SSI in dermatologic surgery is low since many of the procedures are considered sterile, there are different factors associated with an increased or decreased risk of developing SSI. The characteristics of the surgical wound (such as involving infected or inflamed tissue or when breaks in the aseptic technique occur), patient characteristics (such as age, comorbidities, medication use and smoking) and procedure factors (such as setting, surgical technique, type of procedure, duration and body region involved). In this article we discuss the management of potential sources of infections such as personnel (hand washing, dressing), preparation of the patient, maintenance of a clean surgical environment, sterilization and the use of antiseptic solutions. Similarly, the current indications for prophylactic antibiotics for these procedures are considered.

Universal decolonization with hypochlorous solution in a burn intensive care unit in a tertiary care community hospital

Infections are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in burn patients. Patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are at higher risk of developing an invasive infection, and MRSA is endemic in many burn units. The typical decolonization regimen of mupirocin and chlorhexidine bathing is not optimal in burn patients because of chlorhexidine limitations on nonintact skin. We studied the impact of universal decolonization using mupirocin and hypochlorous acid bathing on health care-associated MRSA infections in a burn intensive care unit. We show a significant decrease in total MRSA infections.

Skin antisepsis for reducing central venous catheter-related infections

BACKGROUND

The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids, blood products and parenteral nutrition. However, as a foreign object, it is susceptible to colonisation by micro-organisms, which may lead to catheter-related blood stream infection (BSI) and in turn, increased mortality, morbidities and health care costs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.

Disinfection, sterilization, and antisepsis: An overview

All invasive procedures involve contact by a medical device or surgical instrument with a patient's sterile tissue or mucous membranes. The level of disinfection or sterilization is dependent on the intended use of the object: critical (items that contact sterile tissue such as surgical instruments), semicritical (items that contact mucous membrane such as endoscopes), and noncritical (devices that contact only intact skin such as stethoscopes) items require sterilization, high-level disinfection and low-level disinfection, respectively. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Antiseptics are essential to infection prevention as part of a hand hygiene program as well as several other uses such as surgical hand antisepsis and pre-operative skin preparation.

Combined education and skin antisepsis intervention for persistently high blood-culture contamination rates in neonatal intensive care

Contaminated blood cultures represent challenges regarding diagnosis, duration of hospitalization, antimicrobial use, pharmacy and laboratory costs. Facing problematic neonatal blood culture contamination (3.8%), we instigated a successful intervention combining skin antisepsis using sterile applicators with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropanol prior to phlebotomy (replacing 70% isopropanol) and staff education. In the six months prior to intervention, 364 neonatal peripheral blood samples were collected. Fourteen (3.8%) were contaminated. In the post-intervention six months, 314 samples were collected. Three (0.96%) were contaminated, representing significant improvement (Fisher's exact test: P = 0.0259). No dermatological sequelae were observed. The improvement has been sustained.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Skin Antiseptic Agents at Cesarean Delivery

BACKGROUND

Preoperative skin antisepsis has the potential to decrease the risk of surgical-site infection. However, evidence is limited to guide the choice of antiseptic agent at cesarean delivery, which is the most common major surgical procedure among women in the United States.

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated whether the use of chlorhexidine-alcohol for preoperative skin antisepsis was superior to the use of iodine-alcohol for the prevention of surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery. We randomly assigned patients undergoing cesarean delivery to skin preparation with either chlorhexidine-alcohol or iodine-alcohol. The primary outcome was superficial or deep surgical-site infection within 30 days after cesarean delivery, on the basis of definitions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

RESULTS

From September 2011 through June 2015, a total of 1147 patients were enrolled; 572 patients were assigned to chlorhexidine-alcohol and 575 to iodine-alcohol. In an intention-to-treat analysis, surgical-site infection was diagnosed in 23 patients (4.0%) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and in 42 (7.3%) in the iodine-alcohol group (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.90; P=0.02). The rate of superficial surgical-site infection was 3.0% in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 4.9% in the iodine-alcohol group (P=0.10); the rate of deep infection was 1.0% and 2.4%, respectively (P=0.07). The frequency of adverse skin reactions was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of chlorhexidine-alcohol for preoperative skin antisepsis resulted in a significantly lower risk of surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery than did the use of iodine-alcohol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01472549.).

Comparison of an alcohol-based hand rub and water-based chlorhexidine gluconate scrub technique for hand antisepsis prior to elective surgery in horses

This prospective clinical study evaluates the effectiveness of an alcohol-based hand rub (Avagard™) for pre-surgical hand antisepsis in an equine hospital and compares it with traditional scrubbing technique using 4% chlorhexidine gluconate sponges and water. Prior to elective surgery, 3 board-certified surgeons were randomly assigned to hand antisepsis with either technique. Culture samples of each hand were taken at 4 times: before and after neutral soap hand wash, after scrub or rubbing technique, and after surgery. There was no significant difference in mean bacterial colony forming units between scrub and rub techniques over the 3 time periods (P = 0.6), controlling for initial counts. One horse from the scrub group had a skin incision infection following stifle arthroscopy; this was resolved with medical treatment. The alcohol-based hand rub is equivalent in efficacy for pre-surgical hand antisepsis to traditional water-based scrubs in an equine hospital setting.

Surgical hand antisepsis to reduce surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.

Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular-catheter-related infection (CLEAN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, two-by-two factorial trial

BACKGROUND

Intravascular-catheter-related infections are frequent life-threatening events in health care, but incidence can be decreased by improvements in the quality of care. Optimisation of skin antisepsis is essential to prevent short-term catheter-related infections. We hypothesised that chlorhexidine-alcohol would be more effective than povidone iodine-alcohol as a skin antiseptic to prevent intravascular-catheter-related infections.

METHODS

In this open-label, randomised controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design, we enrolled consecutive adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to one of 11 French intensive-care units and requiring at least one of central-venous, haemodialysis, or arterial catheters. Before catheter insertion, we randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) patients via a secure web-based random-number generator (permuted blocks of eight, stratified by centre) to have all intravascular catheters prepared with 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine-alcohol) or 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol (povidone iodine-alcohol), with or without scrubbing of the skin with detergent before antiseptic application. Physicians and nurses were not masked to group assignment but microbiologists and outcome assessors were. The primary outcome was the incidence of catheter-related infections with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01629550 and is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Oct 26, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, 2546 patients were eligible to participate in the study. We randomly assigned 1181 patients (2547 catheters) to chlorhexidine-alcohol (594 patients with scrubbing, 587 without) and 1168 (2612 catheters) to povidone iodine-alcohol (580 patients with scrubbing, 588 without). Chlorhexidine-alcohol was associated with lower incidence of catheter-related infections (0·28 vs 1·77 per 1000 catheter-days with povidone iodine-alcohol; hazard ratio 0·15, 95% CI 0·05-0·41; p=0·0002). Scrubbing was not associated with a significant difference in catheter colonisation (p=0·3877). No systemic adverse events were reported, but severe skin reactions occurred more frequently in those assigned to chlorhexidine-alcohol (27 [3%] patients vs seven [1%] with povidone iodine-alcohol; p=0·0017) and led to chlorhexidine discontinuation in two patients.

INTERPRETATION

For skin antisepsis, chlorhexidine-alcohol provides greater protection against short-term catheter-related infections than does povidone iodine-alcohol and should be included in all bundles for prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections.

FUNDING

University Hospital of Poitiers, CareFusion.

Chlorhexidine--pharmaco-biological activity and application

OBJECTIVES

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is one of the most widely used antiseptic, especially in dentistry. At low concentrations CHX is bacteriostatic and at high concentrations acts bactericidal causing cell death by cytolysis. In this study, we performed a systematic review of pharmaco-biological activity and application of CHX.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles for inclusion in this review were retrieved from online databases PubMed/Medline. The selected papers were included in the present manuscript according to their relevance for the topic.

RESULTS

Totally 75 papers were enrolled in this research. CHX has strong biocidal activity against Gram-positive bacteria and weaker activity against Gram-negative bacteria. It is also active against yeasts, some dermatophytes and some lipophilic viruses. The most widely application CHX has found in dentistry and antisepsis. Numerous studies have confirmed the beneficial effects of CHX in reducing of plaque accumulation, in tooth caries, gingivitis, periodontitis and in alveolar osteitis. Unfortunately, CHX exhibits cytotoxic activity on human cells, can cause colorization of teeth and fillings, and its activity depends on the pH of the environment and the presence of organic substances.

CONCLUSIONS

CHX play a valuable role in the dentistry and antisepsis. However, it can also cause side effects, limiting its application time.

[Antisepsis of wounds: when and what?]

Bacterial colonisation of a wound is a normal process and usually not dangerous. The role of micro-organisms in the healing process is not fully elucidated, however it is well known that infection interrupts healing and even worse can severely threaten the organism. We present the different types of antiseptics that are used in treating wounds as well as their interactions. We would like to remind the reader that antiseptics are more effective than antibiotics with much fewer resistances. Finally, we provide a flow chart for a reasonable treatment of chronic wounds.

Bed capacities and disinfection practices in hospitals in Istanbul are correlated

BACKGROUND

Disinfection, antisepsis and sterilization (DAS) practices are of critical importance in hospital practice. This study aims to investigate the daily DAS practices of private hospitals in Istanbul, Turkey.

METHODS

The DAS practices of 155 private hospitals in Istanbul province were investigated using a questionnaire including 26 questions. The questionnaire forms were faxed to all private hospitals located in Istanbul. A p value < 0.05 accepted as significant.

RESULTS

The 75 [48%] hospitals out of 155 hospitals responded. The quality of DAS practice was correlated with hospital bed capacity. In these hospitals, glutaraldehyde (27%) was the most common chemical used to disinfect endoscopy instruments. The rate of availability of air gun in endoscopy units in these hospitals was significantly associated with hospital bed capacity (p <0.001). Sticky mats placed at doors of risky areas were not reported to be used in the large bed capacity (LBC) hospitals unlike the small bed capacity (SBC) hospitals where 50% of these hospitals reported to use the sticky door mats (p =0.0144).

CONCLUSIONS

Private hospitals in Istanbul need in-service training towards sterilization and disinfection issues. It is concluded that private hospitals need policies and educational activities for DAS practices.