-
International Journal of Surgery... Aug 2017Of the many antimicrobial agents available, iodophore-based formulations such as povidone iodine have remained popular after decades of use for antisepsis and wound... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Of the many antimicrobial agents available, iodophore-based formulations such as povidone iodine have remained popular after decades of use for antisepsis and wound healing applications due to their favorable efficacy and tolerability. Povidone iodine's broad spectrum of activity, ability to penetrate biofilms, lack of associated resistance, anti-inflammatory properties, low cytotoxicity and good tolerability have been cited as important factors, and no negative effect on wound healing has been observed in clinical practice. Over the past few decades, numerous reports on the use of povidone iodine have been published, however, many of these studies are of differing design, endpoints, and quality. More recent data clearly supports its use in wound healing.
METHODS
Based on data collected through PubMed using specified search criteria based on above topics and clinical experience of the authors, this article will review preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data on the use of povidone iodine in wound healing and its implications for the control of infection and inflammation, together with the authors' advice for the successful treatment of acute and chronic wounds.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Povidone iodine has many characteristics that position it extraordinarily well for wound healing, including its broad antimicrobial spectrum, lack of resistance, efficacy against biofilms, good tolerability and its effect on excessive inflammation. Due to its rapid, potent, broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties, and favorable risk/benefit profile, povidone iodine is expected to remain a highly effective treatment for acute and chronic wounds in the foreseeable future.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Surgical Wound Infection; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28648795
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.06.073 -
Povidone Iodine: Properties, Mechanisms of Action, and Role in Infection Control and Decolonization.Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy Aug 2020Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used... (Review)
Review
Nasal decolonization is an integral part of the strategies used to control and prevent the spread of methicillin-resistant (MRSA) infections. The two most commonly used agents for decolonization are intranasal mupirocin 2% ointment and chlorhexidine wash, but the increasing emergence of resistance and treatment failure has underscored the need for alternative therapies. This article discusses povidone iodine (PVP-I) as an alternative decolonization agent and is based on literature reviewed during an expert's workshop on resistance and MRSA decolonization. Compared to chlorhexidine and mupirocin, respectively, PVP-I 10 and 7.5% solutions demonstrated rapid and superior bactericidal activity against MRSA in and studies. Notably, PVP-I 10 and 5% solutions were also active against both chlorhexidine-resistant and mupirocin-resistant strains, respectively. Unlike chlorhexidine and mupirocin, available reports have not observed a link between PVP-I and the induction of bacterial resistance or cross-resistance to antiseptics and antibiotics. These preclinical findings also translate into clinical decolonization, where intranasal PVP-I significantly improved the efficacy of chlorhexidine wash and was as effective as mupirocin in reducing surgical site infection in orthopedic surgery. Overall, these qualities of PVP-I make it a useful alternative decolonizing agent for the prevention of infections, but additional experimental and clinical data are required to further evaluate the use of PVP-I in this setting.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Infection Control; Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus; Mupirocin; Povidone-Iodine; Staphylococcal Infections; Staphylococcus aureus
PubMed: 32571829
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.00682-20 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Sep 2020Using antiseptics in wound care can promote healing by preventing and treating infection. However, using antiseptics can present many challenges, including issues with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Using antiseptics in wound care can promote healing by preventing and treating infection. However, using antiseptics can present many challenges, including issues with tolerability, inactivation by organic matter and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance/cross-resistance. This review discussed the key challenges in antisepsis, focusing on povidone-iodine (PVP-I) antiseptic.
METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, in January 2019, with a filter for the previous 5 years. Searches were based on the antimicrobial efficacy, antiseptic resistance, wound healing properties, and skin tolerability for the commonly used antiseptics PVP-I, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG), polyhexanide (PHMB), and octenidine (OCT). Additional papers were identified based on author expertise.
RESULTS
When compared with CHG, PHMB and OCT, PVP-I had a broader spectrum of antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, actinobacteria, bacterial spores, fungi and viruses, and a similar and broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive bacteria. PVP-I was also highly effective at eradicating bacterial biofilms, which is a vitally important consideration for wound care and infection control. Despite a long history of extensive use, no resistance or cross-resistance to PVP-I has been recorded, which is in contrast with other antiseptics. Despite previous misconceptions, it has been shown that PVP-I has low allergenic properties, low cytotoxicity and can promote wound healing through increased expression of transforming growth factor beta.
CONCLUSION
With increased understanding of the importance of tackling antimicrobial resistance and bacterial biofilms in acute and chronic wound care, alongside improved understanding of the challenges of antiseptic use, PVP-I remains a promising agent for the management of antisepsis.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Biguanides; Biofilms; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Imines; Povidone-Iodine; Pyridines; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32599228
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106064 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Burn wounds cause high levels of morbidity and mortality worldwide. People with burns are particularly vulnerable to infections; over 75% of all burn deaths (after initial resuscitation) result from infection. Antiseptics are topical agents that act to prevent growth of micro-organisms. A wide range are used with the intention of preventing infection and promoting healing of burn wounds.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects and safety of antiseptics for the treatment of burns in any care setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled people with any burn wound and assessed the use of a topical treatment with antiseptic properties.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed study selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 56 RCTs with 5807 randomised participants. Almost all trials had poorly reported methodology, meaning that it is unclear whether they were at high risk of bias. In many cases the primary review outcomes, wound healing and infection, were not reported, or were reported incompletely.Most trials enrolled people with recent burns, described as second-degree and less than 40% of total body surface area; most participants were adults. Antiseptic agents assessed were: silver-based, honey, Aloe Vera, iodine-based, chlorhexidine or polyhexanide (biguanides), sodium hypochlorite, merbromin, ethacridine lactate, cerium nitrate and Arnebia euchroma. Most studies compared antiseptic with a topical antibiotic, primarily silver sulfadiazine (SSD); others compared antiseptic with a non-antibacterial treatment or another antiseptic. Most evidence was assessed as low or very low certainty, often because of imprecision resulting from few participants, low event rates, or both, often in single studies. Antiseptics versus topical antibioticsCompared with the topical antibiotic, SSD, there is low certainty evidence that, on average, there is no clear difference in the hazard of healing (chance of healing over time), between silver-based antiseptics and SSD (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.67; I = 0%; 3 studies; 259 participants); silver-based antiseptics may, on average, increase the number of healing events over 21 or 28 days' follow-up (RR 1.17 95% CI 1.00 to 1.37; I = 45%; 5 studies; 408 participants) and may, on average, reduce mean time to healing (difference in means -3.33 days; 95% CI -4.96 to -1.70; I = 87%; 10 studies; 979 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with honey are probably more likely to heal over time compared with topical antibiotics (HR 2.45, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.52; I = 66%; 5 studies; 140 participants).There is low certainty evidence from single trials that sodium hypochlorite may, on average, slightly reduce mean time to healing compared with SSD (difference in means -2.10 days, 95% CI -3.87 to -0.33, 10 participants (20 burns)) as may merbromin compared with zinc sulfadiazine (difference in means -3.48 days, 95% CI -6.85 to -0.11, 50 relevant participants). Other comparisons with low or very low certainty evidence did not find clear differences between groups.Most comparisons did not report data on infection. Based on the available data we cannot be certain if antiseptic treatments increase or reduce the risk of infection compared with topical antibiotics (very low certainty evidence). Antiseptics versus alternative antisepticsThere may be some reduction in mean time to healing for wounds treated with povidone iodine compared with chlorhexidine (MD -2.21 days, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.08). Other evidence showed no clear differences and is of low or very low certainty. Antiseptics versus non-antibacterial comparatorsWe found high certainty evidence that treating burns with honey, on average, reduced mean times to healing in comparison with non-antibacterial treatments (difference in means -5.3 days, 95% CI -6.30 to -4.34; I = 71%; 4 studies; 1156 participants) but this comparison included some unconventional treatments such as amniotic membrane and potato peel. There is moderate certainty evidence that honey probably also increases the likelihood of wounds healing over time compared to unconventional anti-bacterial treatments (HR 2.86, 95% C 1.60 to 5.11; I = 50%; 2 studies; 154 participants).There is moderate certainty evidence that, on average, burns treated with nanocrystalline silver dressings probably have a slightly shorter mean time to healing than those treated with Vaseline gauze (difference in means -3.49 days, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.52; I = 0%; 2 studies, 204 participants), but low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference in numbers of healing events at 14 days between burns treated with silver xenograft or paraffin gauze (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.16 1 study; 32 participants). Other comparisons represented low or very low certainty evidence.It is uncertain whether infection rates in burns treated with either silver-based antiseptics or honey differ compared with non-antimicrobial treatments (very low certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in infection rates between an iodine-based treatment compared with moist exposed burn ointment (moderate certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether infection rates differ for SSD plus cerium nitrate, compared with SSD alone (low certainty evidence).Mortality was low where reported. Most comparisons provided low certainty evidence that there may be little or no difference between many treatments. There may be fewer deaths in groups treated with cerium nitrate plus SSD compared with SSD alone (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.99; I = 0%, 2 studies, 214 participants) (low certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was often uncertain whether antiseptics were associated with any difference in healing, infections, or other outcomes. Where there is moderate or high certainty evidence, decision makers need to consider the applicability of the evidence from the comparison to their patients. Reporting was poor, to the extent that we are not confident that most trials are free from risk of bias.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Apitherapy; Bacterial Infections; Bandages; Burns; Chlorhexidine; Disinfectants; Honey; Humans; Merbromin; Plant Preparations; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silver Sulfadiazine; Sodium Hypochlorite; Sulfadiazine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28700086
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011821.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016The central venous catheter (CVC) is a device used for many functions, including monitoring haemodynamic indicators and administering intravenous medications, fluids,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin
PubMed: 27410189
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010140.pub2 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2021There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
The Comparative Efficacy of Chlorhexidine Gluconate and Povidone-iodine Antiseptics for the Prevention of Infection in Clean Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
There is uncertainty around preoperative skin antisepsis in clean surgery. Network meta-analysis provides more precise estimates than standard pairwise meta-analysis and can rank interventions by efficacy, to better inform clinical decisions.
BACKGROUND
Infection is the most common and costly complication of surgery. The relative efficacy of CHG and PVI based skin antiseptics in clean surgery remains unclear.
METHODS
We searched for randomized or nonrandomized studies comparing the effect of different preparations of CHG and PVI on the dichotomous outcome of surgical site infection. We included studies of adults undergoing clean surgery. We excluded studies concerning indwelling vascular catheters, blood sampling, combination antiseptics or sequential applications of different antiseptics. We performed a network meta-analysis to estimate the relative efficacy of interventions using relative risks (RR).
RESULTS
We included 17 studies comparing 5 antiseptics in 14,593 individuals. The overall rate of surgical site infection was 3%. Alcoholic CHG 4%-5% was ranked as the most effective antiseptic as it halved the risk of surgical site infection when compared to aqueous PVI [RR 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.24, 1.02)] and also to alcoholic PVI, although uncertainty was larger [RR 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.21, 1.27)]. Adverse events related to antiseptic application were only observed with patients exposed to PVI.
CONCLUSIONS
Alcoholic formulations of 4%-5% CHG seem to be safe and twice as effective as PVI (alcoholic or aqueous solutions) in preventing infection after clean surgery in adults. Our findings concur with the literature on contaminated and clean-contaminated surgery, and endorse guidelines worldwide which advocate the use of alcoholic CHG for preoperative skin antisepsis.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ID CRD42018113001.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32773627
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004076 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The risk of maternal mortality and morbidity is higher after caesarean section than for vaginal birth. With increasing rates of caesarean section, it is important to minimise risks to the mother as much as possible. This review focused on different skin preparations to prevent infection. This is an update of a review last published in 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of different antiseptic agents, different methods of application, or different forms of antiseptic used for preoperative skin preparation for preventing postcaesarean infection.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised trials, evaluating any type of preoperative skin preparation (agents, methods or forms). We included studies presented only as abstracts, if there was enough information to assess risk of bias. Comparisons of interest in this review were between: different antiseptic agents (e.g. alcohol, povidone iodine), different methods of antiseptic application (e.g. scrub, paint, drape), different forms of antiseptic (e.g. powder, liquid), and also between different packages of skin preparation including a mix of agents and methods, such as a plastic incisional drape, which may or may not be impregnated with antiseptic agents. We mainly focused on the comparison between different agents, with and without the use of drapes. Only studies involving the preparation of the incision area were included. This review did not cover studies of preoperative handwashing by the surgical team or preoperative bathing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed all potential studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, extracted the data and checked data for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 individually-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a total of 6938 women who were undergoing caesarean section. Twelve trials (6916 women) contributed data to this review. The trial dates ranged from 1983 to 2016. Six trials were conducted in the USA, and the remainder in India, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, France, Denmark, and Indonesia. The included studies were broadly at low risk of bias for most domains, although high risk of detection bias raised some specific concerns in a number of studies. Length of stay was only reported in one comparison. Antiseptic agents Parachlorometaxylenol with iodine versus iodine alone We are uncertain whether parachlorometaxylenol with iodine made any difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99; 1 trial, 50 women), or endometritis (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; 1 trial, 50 women) when compared with iodine alone, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Adverse events (maternal or neonatal) were not reported. Chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, probably slightly reduces the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.91; 8 trials, 4323 women). This effect was still present in a sensitivity analysis after removing four trials at high risk of bias for outcome assessment (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; 4 trials, 2037 women). Low-certainty evidence indicated that chlorhexidine gluconate, when compared with povidone iodine, may make little or no difference to the incidence of endometritis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.86; 3 trials, 2484 women). It is uncertain whether chlorhexidine gluconate reduces maternal skin irritation or allergic skin reaction (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.46; 3 trials, 1926 women; very low certainty evidence). One small study (60 women) reported reduced bacterial growth at 18 hours after caesarean section for women who had chlorhexidine gluconate preparation compared with women who had povidone iodine preparation (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70). Methods Drape versus no drape This comparison investigated the use of drape versus no drape, following preparation of the skin with antiseptics. Low-certainty evidence suggested that using a drape before surgery compared with no drape, may make little or no difference to the incidence of surgical site infection (RR 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.71; 3 trials, 1373 women), and probably makes little or no difference to the length of stay in the hospital (mean difference (MD) 0.10 days, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.46; 1 trial, 603 women; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial compared an alcohol scrub and iodophor drape with a five-minute iodophor scrub only, and reported no surgical site infection in either group (79 women, very-low certainty evidence). We were uncertain whether the combination of a one-minute alcohol scrub and a drape reduced the incidence of metritis when compared with a five-minute scrub, because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.29 to 9.16; 1 trial, 79 women). The studies did not report on adverse events (maternal or neonatal).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that preparing the skin with chlorhexidine gluconate before caesarean section is probably slightly more effective at reducing the incidence of surgical site infection in comparison to povidone iodine. For other outcomes examined there was insufficient evidence available from the included RCTs. Most of the evidence in this review was deemed to be very low or low certainty. This means that for most findings, our confidence in any evidence of an intervention effect is limited, and indicates the need for more high-quality research. Therefore, it is not yet clear what sort of skin preparation may be most effective for preventing postcaesarean surgical site infection, or for reducing other undesirable outcomes for mother and baby. Well-designed RCTs, with larger sample sizes are needed. High-priority questions include comparing types of antiseptic (especially iodine versus chlorhexidine), and application methods (scrubbing, swabbing, or draping). We found two studies that are ongoing; we will incorporate the results of these studies in future updates of this review.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bandages; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Endometritis; Ethanol; Female; Humans; Iodine; Iodophors; Length of Stay; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection; Xylenes
PubMed: 32580252
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007462.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2020Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cesarean delivery is one of the most common surgical procedures performed by obstetricians. Infectious morbidity after cesarean delivery can have a tremendous impact on the postpartum woman's return to normal function and her ability to care for her baby. Despite the widespread use of prophylactic antibiotics, postoperative infectious morbidity still complicates cesarean deliveries. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010 and subsequently updated in 2012, twice in 2014, in 2017 and 2018.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if cleansing the vagina with an antiseptic solution before a cesarean delivery decreases the risk of maternal infectious morbidities, including endometritis and wound complications. We also assessed the side effects of vaginal cleansing solutions to determine adverse events associated with the intervention.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (7 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the impact of vaginal cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery with any type of antiseptic solution versus a placebo solution/standard of care on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion, but we did not identify any. We excluded trials that utilized vaginal preparation during labor or that did not use antibiotic surgical prophylaxis. We also excluded any trials using a cross-over design. We included trials published in abstract form only if sufficient information was present in the abstract on methods and outcomes to analyze.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three of the review authors independently assessed eligibility of the studies. Two review authors were assigned to extract study characteristics, quality assessments, and data from eligible studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 21 trials, reporting results for 7038 women evaluating the effects of vaginal cleansing (17 using povidone-iodine, 3 chlorhexidine, 1 benzalkonium chloride) on post-cesarean infectious morbidity. Trials used vaginal preparations administered by sponge sticks, douches, or soaked gauze wipes. The control groups were typically no vaginal preparation (17 trials) or the use of a saline vaginal preparation (4 trials). One trial did not report on any outcomes of interest. Trials were performed in 10 different countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, USA, Egypt, UK, Kenya and India). The overall risk of bias was low for areas of attrition, reporting, and other bias. About half of the trials had low risk of selection bias, with most of the remainder rated as unclear. Due to lack of blinding, we rated performance bias as high risk in nearly one-third of the trials, low risk in one-third, and unclear in one-third. Vaginal preparation with antiseptic solution immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the incidence of post-cesarean endometritis from 7.1% in control groups to 3.1% in vaginal cleansing groups (average risk ratio (aRR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.58; 20 trials, 6918 women; moderate-certainty evidence). This reduction in endometritis was seen for both iodine-based solutions and chlorhexidine-based solutions. Risks of postoperative fever and postoperative wound infection are also probably reduced by vaginal antiseptic preparation (fever: aRR 0.64, 0.50 to 0.82; 16 trials, 6163 women; and wound infection: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77; 18 trials, 6385 women; both moderate-certainty evidence). Two trials found that there may be a lower risk of a composite outcome of wound complication or endometritis in women receiving preoperative vaginal preparation (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.82; 2 trials, 499 women; low-certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported with either the povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine vaginal cleansing. Subgroup analysis suggested a greater effect with vaginal preparations for those women in labour versus those not in labour for four out of five outcomes examined (post-cesarean endometritis; postoperative fever; postoperative wound infection; composite wound complication or endometritis). This apparent difference needs to be investigated further in future trials. We did not observe any subgroup differences between women with ruptured membranes and women with intact membranes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Vaginal preparation with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine solution compared to saline or not cleansing immediately before cesarean delivery probably reduces the risk of post-cesarean endometritis, postoperative fever, and postoperative wound infection. Subgroup analysis found that these benefits were typically present whether iodine-based or chlorhexidine-based solutions were used and when women were in labor before the cesarean. The suggested benefit in women in labor needs further investigation in future trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence using GRADE for all reported outcomes, with downgrading decisions based on limitations in study design or imprecision. As a simple intervention, providers may consider implementing preoperative vaginal cleansing with povidone-iodine or chlorhexidine before performing cesarean deliveries. Future research on this intervention being incorporated into bundles of care plans for women receiving cesarean delivery will be needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Benzalkonium Compounds; Cesarean Section; Chlorhexidine; Disinfection; Endometritis; Female; Fever; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32335895
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007892.pub7 -
BMJ Open Apr 2019Short peripheral intravenous catheters (PVCs) are the most frequently used invasive medical devices in hospitals. Unfortunately, PVCs often fail before the end of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
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...
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.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Peripheral; Catheters, Indwelling; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Equipment Failure; Ethanol; Female; Humans; Incidence; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Multivariate Analysis; Povidone-Iodine
PubMed: 30944142
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028549