-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in neonates. Indwelling catheters are amongst the main risk factors for nosocomial infections. The use of skin antiseptics during the preparation for central catheter insertion may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). However, it is still not clear which antiseptic solution is the best to prevent infection with minimal side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antiseptic solutions in preventing CRBSI and other related outcomes in neonates with CVC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 22 April 2022. We checked reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews that related to the intervention or population examined in this Cochrane Review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review if they were performed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and were comparing any antiseptic solution (single or in combination) against any other type of antiseptic solution or no antiseptic solution or placebo in preparation for central catheter insertion. We excluded cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methods from Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three trials that had two different comparisons: 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) versus 10% povidone-iodine (PI) (two trials); and CHG-IPA versus 2% chlorhexidine in aqueous solution (CHG-A) (one trial). A total of 466 neonates from level III NICUs were evaluated. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for the primary and some important secondary outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. There were no included trials that compared antiseptic skin solutions with no antiseptic solution or placebo. CHG-IPA versus 10% PI Compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.25; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 352 infants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.68; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 304 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 48 infants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.48; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 352 infants, 2 trials, very low-certainty evidence), compared to PI. Based on a single trial, infants receiving CHG-IPA appeared less likely to develop thyroid dysfunction compared to PI (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 10 to 50; 304 infants). Neither of the two included trials assessed the outcome of premature central line removal or the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. CHG-IPA versus CHG-A The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.87; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence) and CLABSI (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence), compared to CHG-A. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in premature catheter removal (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 114 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). No trial assessed the outcome of all-cause mortality and the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on current evidence, compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI and mortality. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI and chemical burns. One trial showed a statistically significant increase in thyroid dysfunction with the use of PI compared to CHG-IPA. The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI and CLABSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in chemical burns and premature catheter removal. Further trials that compare different antiseptic solutions are required, especially in low- and middle-income countries, before stronger conclusions can be made.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Burns, Chemical; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Sepsis
PubMed: 37142550
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013841.pub2 -
Surgery Journal (New York, N.Y.) Jul 2016Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine...
Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine (CHG) with povidone-iodine (PVI), but there is emerging evidence for combination usage. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate if combination skin preparation (1) reduces colonization at the operative site and (2) prevents SSI compared with single-agent use. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials was performed. Comparative, human trials considering the combination use of CHG and PVI, as preoperative antisepsis, to single-agent CHG or PVI use were included. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if the use or absence of alcohol was inconsistent between study arms. The study was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The primary outcome for meta-analysis was surgical site infection. The secondary outcome was colonization at the operative site. Eighteen publications with a combination of CHG and PVI use were identified. Of these, 12/14 inferred promise for combination usage, including four trials eligible for meta-analysis. Only one trial reported SSI as its outcome. The remaining three considered bacterial colonization. Combination preparation had a pooled odds ratio for complete decolonization of 5.62 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 9.7, < 0.00001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q 2.1, 2 , = 0.35). There is emerging, albeit low-quality, evidence in favor of combination CHG and PVI preoperative antisepsis. Further rigorous investigation is indicated.
PubMed: 28824994
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1587691 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2023The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of SARS-COV-2 transmission is relatively high during dental procedures. A study was conducted to investigate the effects of mouthwashes on SARS-COV-2 viral load reduction in the oral cavity.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library for relevant studies up to 20 July, 2022. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trial and quasi-experimental studies evaluating patients with Covid-19 infection (patients) who used mouthwashes (intervention) compared to the same patients before using the mouthwash (comparison) for reducing the SARS-COV-2 load or increasing the cycle threshold (Ct) value (outcome) were searched according to PICO components. Three independent reviewers conducted literature screening and data extraction. The Modified Downs and Black checklist was used for quality assessment. A meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model in the Revman 5.4.1software using the mean difference (MD) of cycle threshold (Ct) values.
RESULTS
Of 1653 articles, 9 with a high methodological quality were included. A meta-analysis indicated that 1% Povidone-iodine (PVP-I) was an effective mouthwash for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load [MD 3.61 (95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.19)]. Cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) [MD 0.61 (95% confidence interval -1.03, 2.25)] and Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) [MD -0.04 95% confidence interval (-1.20, 1.12)] were not effective against SARS-COV-2.
CONCLUSION
Using mouthwashes containing PVP-I may be recommended for reducing the SARS-COV-2 viral load in the oral cavity of patients before and during dental procedures, while the evidence is not sufficient for such effects for CPC and CHX-containing mouthwashes.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Mouth; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37400836
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03126-4 -
Aesthetic Surgery Journal Jan 2022Breast implant-associated infection and capsular contracture are challenging complications that can result in poor outcomes following implant-based breast surgery....
BACKGROUND
Breast implant-associated infection and capsular contracture are challenging complications that can result in poor outcomes following implant-based breast surgery. Antimicrobial irrigation of the breast pocket or implant is a widely accepted strategy to prevent these complications, but the literature lacks an evidence-based consensus on the optimal irrigation solution.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes, specifically capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates, associated with the use of antibiotic, antiseptic, and saline irrigation.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in March 2020 based on the following search terms: "breast implant," "irrigation," "antibiotic," "bacitracin," "antiseptic," "povidone iodine," "betadine," "low concentration chlorhexidine," and "hypochlorous acid." Capsular contracture, infection, and reoperation rates were compared by analysis of forest plots.
RESULTS
Out of the 104 articles screened, 14 met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in capsular contracture rates between antibiotic and povidone-iodine irrigation, although the data comparing these 2 groups were limited and confounded by the concurrent use of steroids. Antibiotic irrigation showed a significantly lower rate of capsular contracture compared with saline irrigation and a lower rate of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with no irrigation at all. Povidone-iodine was associated with lower rates of capsular contracture and reoperation compared with saline irrigation but there were no data on infection rates specific to povidone-iodine irrigation.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study supports the use of antibiotics or povidone-iodine for breast implant irrigation. Further research is required to better determine which of these 2 irrigation types is superior.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Breast Implantation; Breast Implants; Humans; Implant Capsular Contracture; Povidone-Iodine; Therapeutic Irrigation
PubMed: 33836057
DOI: 10.1093/asj/sjab181 -
International Journal of Environmental... Sep 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global and evolving pandemic associated with heavy health and financial burdens. Considering the oral cavity as the major reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays in reducing the salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2. All and studies that assessed the virucidal efficacy of mouth rinses and nasal sprays against SARS-CoV-2 and were published in the English language from December 2019 to April 2022 were considered for analyses. Special Medical Subject Headings terms were used to search Pubmed, Scopus, Embase Ovid, and Web of Science databases. The toxicological data reliability assessment tool (ToxRToool) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Thirty-three studies (11 and 22 ) were deemed eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Results of the pooled data showed that povidone-iodine is the most efficacious intervention in terms of reducing the SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load, followed by chlorhexidine. The mean difference in the viral load was 86% and 72%, respectively. Similarly, povidone-iodine was associated with the highest log reduction value (LRV) , followed by cetylpyridinium chloride, (LRV = 2.938 ( < 0.0005) and LRV = 2.907 ( = 0.009), respectively). Povidone-iodine-based oral and nasal preparations showed favourable results in terms of reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral loads both and . Considering the limited number of patients , further studies among larger cohorts are recommended.
Topics: COVID-19; Cetylpyridinium; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Mouthwashes; Nasal Sprays; Povidone-Iodine; Reproducibility of Results; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 36231450
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912148 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2022The use of pre-procedural rinses has been investigated to reduce the number of viral particles and bacteria in aerosols, potentially decreasing the risk of... (Review)
Review
The use of pre-procedural rinses has been investigated to reduce the number of viral particles and bacteria in aerosols, potentially decreasing the risk of cross-infection from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during medical and dental procedures. This review aims to confirm whether there is evidence in the literature describing a reduction in salivary load of SARS-CoV-2 when povidone-iodine (PVP-I) is used as a pre-intervention mouthwash. An search of the MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane library databases was conducted. The criteria used followed the PRISMA Statement guidelines. Randomized controlled trials investigating the reduction of salivary load of SARS-CoV-2 using PVP-I were included. Ultimately, four articles were included that met the established criteria. According to the current evidence, PVP-I is effective against SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and could be implemented as a rinse before interventions to decrease the risk of cross-infection in healthcare settings.
Topics: COVID-19; Humans; Mouthwashes; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Viral Load
PubMed: 35270569
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052877 -
International Wound Journal Oct 2023Surgical site infections (SSIs) post-surgery impact patient health and raise healthcare costs. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of antiseptics, chlorhexidine and...
Surgical site infections (SSIs) post-surgery impact patient health and raise healthcare costs. This meta-analysis examines the efficacy of antiseptics, chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine, in reducing SSIs, including various types, to settle ongoing debates on their comparative effectiveness. A systematic literature search conforming to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines was executed on four established databases without temporal restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including patients aged 18 years or older undergoing clean or potentially contaminated surgeries were included. Two independent evaluators carried out study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, adhering to Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square tests and the I index to evaluate heterogeneity, and meta-analyses were conducted employing either fixed-effects or random-effects models as warranted by the heterogeneity assessments. A total of 16 RCTs were included after rigorous selection from an initial pool of 1742 articles. The studies demonstrated low levels of heterogeneity, supporting the use of a fixed-effects model. Chlorhexidine exhibited statistically lower rates of overall SSIs (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.64-0.88; p < 0.001), superficial SSIs (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.47-0.82; p < 0.001) and deep SSIs compared to povidone-iodine. The study furnishes compelling evidence in favour of chlorhexidine as a more efficacious antiseptic agent over povidone-iodine in minimizing the risk of various types of SSIs.
PubMed: 37885342
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14463 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Science :... Jan 2024Focus on reviewing a vigorous research effort to improve the safety profile of vancomycin powder (VP) and its optimal dose in reducing periprosthetic joint infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing intrawound vancomycin powder and povidone iodine lavage in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection of hip and knee arthroplasties.
BACKGROUND
Focus on reviewing a vigorous research effort to improve the safety profile of vancomycin powder (VP) and its optimal dose in reducing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the need of the hour. This systematic review and meta-analysis attempt to explore the ongoing use of VP and VP + povidone iodine (PI) lavage to prevent PJI of hip/knee arthroplasties and highlights its challenges among the orthopedic community about the existence of the major organism and its frequency in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE databases regarding the outcomes of vancomycin powder (VP) and VP + povidone iodine (PI) combination in preventing periprosthetic joint infection of hip and knee arthroplasties.
RESULTS
In 5 of 7 studies, the combination of vancomycin powder (VP) and povidone iodine (PI) lavage have shown a lower risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in acute and high-risk hip and knee arthroplasties patients, with less or without serious adverse events and readmissions; while four of seven studies using VP-only found increasing rates of PJI in primary total knee arthroplasty and partial hip replacement in elderly patients with comorbidities, and significantly causes aseptic wound complications compared to the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Intra-articular vancomycin powder (VP) and povidone iodine (PI) lavage showed a significant reduction of periprosthetic joint infection in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Before its widespread use in clinical settings, prospective randomized studies and, most importantly, its long-term efficacy and safety are recommended.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Vancomycin; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Povidone-Iodine; Powders; Therapeutic Irrigation; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Prospective Studies; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthritis, Infectious; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36470703
DOI: 10.1016/j.jos.2022.11.013 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Nov 2021Tinea capitis is a fungal infection mostly affecting children. Epidemiology is changing over time due to migration, and it has been estimated that up to 40% of children... (Review)
Review
Tinea capitis is a fungal infection mostly affecting children. Epidemiology is changing over time due to migration, and it has been estimated that up to 40% of children from certain developing countries are affected. The mechanism of transmission is still unclear although asymptomatic carriage seems to have an influence in establishing persistent reservoirs that can cause or fuel epidemics. Screening and prophylactic treatment of close contacts of tinea capitis patients are therefore recommended by several international guidelines, but vaguely and not consistent. The treatments involved can be expensive, hard to integrate in everyday life, have well-known side effects and some are not approved for the treatment of children. The aim of this review was to clarify the evidence behind treatment of human asymptomatic carriers of tinea capitis. Databases were searched for the 'tinea capitis', 'carriers' and 'treatment'. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials, observational and interventional studies including case series (10+ cases) and case reports in English, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian and French. Reviews, guidelines, unclear reports and in vitro trials were excluded. A systematic review identified 10 studies with low to moderate evidence levels. The topical treatments ketoconazole, povidone-iodine, miconazole and the systemic antifungals terbinafine and itraconazole have all shown significant effects in the mycological eradication of fungal conidia. General prophylactic hygienic measures may have a benefit. The scientific evidence behind the treatment of asymptomatic carriage of scalp dermatophytes is sparse and not of high quality. Yet, both topical and systemic antifungal agents show treatment efficacy. Considering the possible adverse effects, topical agents are preferable, but with necessary attention to the compliance of asymptomatic contacts with treatment.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Child; Humans; Itraconazole; Naphthalenes; Terbinafine; Tinea Capitis
PubMed: 34146430
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17462 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Sep 2017To assess the efficacy of vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery in reducing postoperative endometritis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery in reducing postoperative endometritis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Ovid, EMBASE, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched from their inception to January 2017.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Selection criteria included all randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal cleansing (ie, intervention group) with a control group (ie, either placebo or no intervention) in women undergoing cesarean delivery. Any method of vaginal cleansing with any type of antiseptic solution was included. The primary outcome was the incidence of endometritis. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to produce summary treatment effects in terms of relative risk (RR) with 95% CI.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Sixteen trials (4,837 women) on vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery were identified as relevant and included in the review. In most of the included studies, 10% povidone-iodine was used as an intervention. The most common way to perform the vaginal cleansing was the use of a sponge stick for approximately 30 seconds. Women who received vaginal cleansing before cesarean delivery had a significantly lower incidence of endometritis (4.5% compared with 8.8%; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.72; 15 studies, 4,726 participants) and of postoperative fever (9.4% compared with 14.9%; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.86; 11 studies, 4,098 participants) compared with the control group. In the planned subgroup analyses, the reduction in the incidence of endometritis with vaginal cleansing was limited to women in labor before cesarean delivery (8.1% compared with 13.8%; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.97; four studies, 440 participants) or those with ruptured membranes (4.3% compared with 20.1%; RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10-0.52; three studies, 272 participants).
CONCLUSION
Vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery in women in labor and in women with ruptured membranes reduces the risk of postoperative endometritis. Because it is generally inexpensive and a simple intervention, we recommend preoperative vaginal preparation before cesarean delivery in these women with sponge stick preparation of povidone-iodine 10% for at least 30 seconds. More data are needed to assess whether this intervention may be also useful for cesarean deliveries performed in women not in labor and for those without ruptured membranes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42017054843.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Vagina
PubMed: 28796683
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002167