-
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 -
International Journal of Nursing Studies Mar 2022Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine are the most common disinfectants used in preoperative skin preparation. However, there is no consistent conclusion regarding the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI) and bacterial culture data.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI and relevant bacterial data.
DESIGN
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis SETTINGS: N/A PARTICIPANTS: N/A METHOD: Literature relevant to "skin antisepsis" and "surgical site infections" was retrieved from PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINHAL and CNKI. The incidence of SSI was the primary outcome, while the secondary outcome was bacterial data from the infected incision. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 and Stata Statistical Software.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies were identified in this study, which included 16,872 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine is superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.87; p = 0.019, I = 39%). Further meta-regression analysis revealed that the effect of chlorhexidine was directly associated with the type of incision, but failed to differentiate between the subgroups divided according to the type of incision. With respect to bacteria colonization, the most common bacteria for chlorhexidine arm were propionibacterium's, while the most common bacteria for the iodine arm were staphylococci species.
CONCLUSION
In comparison to povidone-iodine, chlorhexidine showed better results in preventing postoperative SSI.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35121520
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.104059 -
Journal of Wound Care Apr 2021In this review and meta-analysis, we analyse the evidence to compare the efficacy of honey and povidone iodine-based dressings on the outcome of wound healing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
In this review and meta-analysis, we analyse the evidence to compare the efficacy of honey and povidone iodine-based dressings on the outcome of wound healing.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was performed using PRISMA guidelines in academic databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase and CENTRAL. A meta-analysis was carried out to assess the effect of honey and povidone iodine-based dressings on mean healing duration, mean hospital stay duration and visual analogue scale (VAS) score of pain.
RESULTS
From the search, 12 manuscripts with a total of 1236 participants (mean age: 40.7±11.7 years) were included. The honey-based dressings demonstrated a medium-to-large effect in reduction of mean healing duration (Hedge's g: -0.81), length of hospital stay (-3.1) and VAS score (-1.2) as compared with the povidone iodine-based dressings. We present evidence (level 1b) in favour of using honey for improvement of wound recovery as compared with povidone iodine.
CONCLUSION
This review and meta-analysis demonstrate beneficial effects of honey-based dressings over povidone iodine-based dressings for wound recovery.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bandages; Honey; Humans; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33856925
DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2021.30.Sup4.S28 -
World Journal of Surgery May 2020Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection (SSI) and the incidence of skin adverse events do not reach a consistent statement and conclusion. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative surgical site infection and the incidence of corresponding skin adverse events.
METHOD
Substantial studies related to "skin antiseptic" and "surgical site infection" were consulted on PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CNKI. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative SSI. The secondary outcome was associated with skin adverse events. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 software.
RESULTS
A total of 30 studies were included, including 29,006 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.77; p < 0.00001, I = 57%). Further subgroup analysis showed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI in clean surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), I = 28%) and clean-contaminated surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.73; p < 0.00001, I = 43%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups.
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI, especially for the clean-contaminated surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31996985
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-020-05384-7 -
Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022In many parts of the world, antiseptic agents remain non-indicated in chronic wound care. In the current context of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the... (Review)
Review
In many parts of the world, antiseptic agents remain non-indicated in chronic wound care. In the current context of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the development of new-generation antiseptic agents, wound antisepsis represents an asset for the prevention of wound infection. We aimed to evaluate four common antiseptic agents in chronic wound care complete healing. The review protocol was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and devised in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Five databases and three clinical trials registries were searched from inception to 30 June 2021 without language restrictions. We included randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of antiseptic agents in chronic wound care in adults. Interventions considered were those using antiseptics for cleansing or within a dressing. Risk of bias was assessed using the bias excel tool provided by the Bristol Academy. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Of 838 studies, 6 were finally included, with a total of 725 patients. The included studies assessed iodine (cadexomer or povidone iodine) ( = 3), polyhexanide ( = 2), and octenidine ( = 1). Limited evidence suggested a better wound healing completion with iodine compared to saline (two randomised controlled trials (RCT), 195 patients, pooled RR 1.85 (95%CI (1.27 to 2.69)), moderate-quality evidence). There was not enough evidence to suggest a difference in wound healing using octenidine or polyhexamide. None of the antiseptic agents influenced adverse event occurrence compared to saline.
PubMed: 35326813
DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics11030350 -
Journal of Global Antimicrobial... Sep 2021Chronic wound infections may delay the healing process and are responsible for a significant burden on healthcare systems. Since inappropriate management may commonly... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Chronic wound infections may delay the healing process and are responsible for a significant burden on healthcare systems. Since inappropriate management may commonly occur in the care of these patients, this review aims to provide a practical guide underlining actions to avoid in the management of chronic wound infections.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature available in PubMed in the last 10 years, identifying studies regarding the management of patients with chronic wound infections. A panel of experts discussed the potential malpractices in this area. A list of 'Don'ts', including the main actions to be avoided, was drawn up using the 'Choosing Wisely' methodology.
RESULTS
In this review, we proposed a list of actions to avoid for optimal management of patients with chronic wound infections. Adequate wound bed preparation and wound antisepsis should be combined, as the absence of one of them leads to delayed healing and a higher risk of wound complications. Moreover, avoiding inappropriate use of systemic antibiotics is an important point because of the risk of selection of multidrug-resistant organisms as well as antibiotic-related adverse events.
CONCLUSION
A multidisciplinary team of experts in different fields (surgeon, infectious disease expert, microbiologist, pharmacologist, geriatrician) is required for the optimal management of chronic wound infections. Implementation of this approach may be useful to improve the management of patients with chronic wound infections.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Humans; Wound Healing; Wound Infection
PubMed: 34144200
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgar.2021.05.010 -
Cureus May 2024Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical procedures. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on effective prevention strategies for mitigating SSI risk in this vulnerable population. From inception to March 2024, we comprehensively searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL) to identify relevant studies evaluating SSI prevention strategies in diabetic surgical patients. Our search strategy followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to diabetes, surgical site infections, prevention strategies, and surgical procedures. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses published in English. The search yielded three studies meeting the eligibility criteria, subject to data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Key findings highlighted the efficacy of interventions such as optimized perioperative glycemic control, timely prophylactic antibiotic administration, and meticulous preoperative skin antisepsis in reducing SSI rates among diabetic surgical patients. The potential for personalized prevention approaches based on individual patient factors, such as diabetes type and surgical complexity, was explored. This systematic review underscores the importance of a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to SSI prevention in diabetic surgical patients, integrating strategies like glycemic control, antibiotic prophylaxis, and preoperative skin antisepsis. Furthermore, our findings suggest the potential benefits of personalized care pathways tailored to individual patient characteristics. Implementing these interventions requires interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to diverse healthcare settings, and patient engagement through culturally sensitive education initiatives. This comprehensive analysis informs clinical practice, fosters patient safety, and contributes to the global efforts to enhance surgical outcomes for this high-risk population.
PubMed: 38854286
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59849 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2023Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common complication of surgery, increasing healthcare costs and hospital stay. Chlorhexidine (CHX) and povidone-iodine (PVI) are used for skin antisepsis, minimising SSIs. There is concern that resistance to topical biocides may be emergeing, although the potential clinical implications remain unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to determine whether the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of topical preparations of CHX or PVI have changed over time, in microbes relevant to SSI. We included studies reporting the MBC of laboratory and clinical isolates of common microbes to CHX and PVI. We excluded studies using non-human samples and antimicrobial solvents or mixtures with other active substances. MBC was pooled in random effects meta-analyses and the change in MBC over time was explored using meta-regression. Seventy-nine studies were included, analysing 6218 microbes over 45 years. Most studies investigated CHX (93%), with insufficient data for meta-analysis of PVI. There was no change in the MBC of CHX to Staphylococci or Streptococci over time. Overall, we find no evidence of reduced susceptibility of common SSI-causing microbes to CHX over time. This provides reassurance and confidence in the worldwide guidance that CHX should remain the first-choice agent for surgical skin antisepsis.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Povidone-Iodine; Chlorhexidine; Preoperative Care; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 36611032
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26658-1 -
American Journal of Obstetrics &... Aug 2023Precesarean vaginal antisepsis can benefit pregnant women with ruptured membranes. However, in the general population, recent trials have shown mixed results in reducing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Precesarean vaginal antisepsis can benefit pregnant women with ruptured membranes. However, in the general population, recent trials have shown mixed results in reducing postoperative infections. This study aimed to systematically review clinical trials and summarize the most suitable vaginal preparations for cesarean delivery in preventing postoperative infection.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed databases, and the ClinicalTrials.gov clinical trials registry for randomized controlled trials and conference presentations (past 20 years, 2003-2022). Reference lists of previous meta-analyses were searched manually. In addition, we conducted subgroup analysis on the basis of whether the studies were conducted in developed or developing countries, whether the membranes were ruptured, and whether patients were in labor.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials comparing vaginal preparation methods for the prevention of postcesarean infection with each other or with negative controls.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. The effectiveness of prevention strategies was assessed by frequentist-based network meta-analysis models. The outcomes were endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection.
RESULTS
A total of 23 trials including 10,026 cesarean delivery patients were included in this study. Vaginal preparation methods included 19 iodine-based disinfectants (1%, 5%, and 10% povidone-iodine; 0.4% and 0.5% iodophor) and 4 guanidine-based disinfectants (0.05% and 0.20% chlorhexidine acetate; 1% and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate). Overall, vaginal preparation significantly reduced the risks of endometritis (3.4% vs 8.1%; risk ratio, 0.41 [0.32-0.52]), postoperative fever (7.1% vs 11.4%; risk ratio, 0.58 [0.45-0.74]), and wound infection (4.1% vs 5.4%; risk ratio, 0.73 [0.59-0.90]). With regard to disinfectant type, iodine-based disinfectants (risk ratio, 0.45 [0.35-0.57]) and guanidine-based disinfectants (risk ratio, 0.22 [0.12-0.40]) significantly reduced the risk of endometritis, and iodine-based disinfectants reduced the risk of postoperative fever (risk ratio, 0.58 [0.44-0.77]) and wound infection (risk ratio, 0.75 [0.60-0.94]). With regard to disinfectant concentration, 1% povidone-iodine was most likely to simultaneously reduce the risks of endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative vaginal preparation can significantly reduce the risk of postcesarean infectious diseases (endometritis, postoperative fever, and wound infection); 1% povidone-iodine has particularly outstanding effects.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Povidone-Iodine; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Surgical Wound Infection; Endometritis; Network Meta-Analysis; Iodine; Disinfectants; Communicable Diseases
PubMed: 37178722
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2023.100990 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Jun 2022Multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) (meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, MDR Acinetobacter spp., extended-spectrum... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) (meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, MDR Acinetobacter spp., extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Gram-negative organisms), Clostridioides difficile, viral respiratory pathogens and healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are major concerns in medical facilities.
AIMS
To assess environmental service workers' (ESWs) training, workload, numbers of surfaces and pieces of medical equipment cleaned per shift, how long they worked on each surface, how they cleaned, supervision, MDRO and HAI status, and measurement of effectiveness in reducing MDROs and HAIs in patients and on surfaces.
METHODS
CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Medline and Scopus were searched from inception to 28 June 2021 (no language/date limits). Searches combined terms from three themes: (a) hospitals and acute/long-term care facilities (e.g. assisted living, long-term care facilities, nursing homes); (b) disinfectants (e.g. antisepsis, bleach, cleaning, copper plating of surfaces and copper impregnation of textiles, disinfection, decontamination, hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium disinfectants, and ultraviolet rays); and (c) randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Fourteen cluster RCTs provided data on a series of interventions. Ten trials focused on reducing patient infections from MDROs/HAIs, and four found significant reductions in patient infection rates with strategies including bleach, quaternary ammonium detergents, ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide vapour. Minimal information was provided on ESW numbers, MDRO/HAI status, workload, numbers of surfaces and objects cleaned per shift, and effects of training on improving effectiveness. The findings suggest that there is a need for detailed evaluations of the effects of training and disinfection activities for individuals and teams of ESWs.
Topics: Ammonium Compounds; Copper; Cross Infection; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Hospitals; Humans; Hydrogen Peroxide; Long-Term Care; Nursing Homes
PubMed: 35307506
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2022.03.002