-
Acta Ophthalmologica May 2024Topical antimicrobials and antiseptics are used perioperatively to reduce the ocular surface bacteria flora (OSBF) that are involved in the development of post-operative... (Review)
Review
Topical antimicrobials and antiseptics are used perioperatively to reduce the ocular surface bacteria flora (OSBF) that are involved in the development of post-operative infectious complications. However, their effectiveness is still a controversial topic. This systematic review, performed according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO, aims to provide an overview of the efficacy of the agents currently used in peri-cataract surgery and -intravitreal injections (IVI) in lowering the OSBF. Although effective in lowering OSBF, perioperative topical antimicrobials are associated with the risk of resistance development, with no obvious additional benefit compared with topical antisepsis. Conversely, the effectiveness of topical antiseptics before cataract surgery and IVI is strongly supported. Based on the available evidence, perioperative antimicrobials are not recommended, whereas the perioperative use of antiseptics is strongly recommended as prophylactic treatment for lowering the infection due to OSBF. Post-operative antimicrobials may be considered in eyes at higher risk for infection.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bacteria; Eye; Cataract
PubMed: 37427851
DOI: 10.1111/aos.15732 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Jun 2024Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone-iodine or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone-iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone-iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone-iodine, aqueous povidone-iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone-iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone-iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section.
Topics: Humans; Cesarean Section; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Network Meta-Analysis; Chlorhexidine; Female; Povidone-Iodine; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38688391
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021 -
American Journal of Infection Control Oct 2022This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This review, commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO), examined the effectiveness of the WHO 6-step hand hygiene (HH) technique in reducing microbial load on hands and covering hand surfaces, and compared its effectiveness to other techniques.
METHODS
Medline, CINAHL, ProQuest, Web of Science, Mednar, and Google Scholar were searched for primary studies, published in English (1978-February 2021), evaluating the microbiological effectiveness or hand surface coverage of HH techniques in healthcare workers. Reviewers independently performed quality assessment using Cochrane tools. The protocol for the narrative review was registered (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021236138).
RESULTS
Nine studies were included. Evidence demonstrated that the WHO technique reduced microbial load on hands. One study found the WHO technique more effective than the 3-step technique (P = .02), while another found no difference between these 2 techniques (P = .08). An adapted 3-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique in laboratory settings (P = .021), but not in clinical practice (P = .629). One study demonstrated that an adapted 6-step technique was more effective than the WHO technique (P = .001). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, product, and volume. All studies were high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Eight studies found that the WHO 6-step technique reduced microbial load on healthcare workers' hands; but the studies were heterogeneous and further research is required to identify the most effective, yet feasible technique.
Topics: Hand; Hand Hygiene; Health Personnel; Humans; World Health Organization
PubMed: 35167898
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2022.02.003 -
Veterinary Surgery : VS Jul 2022To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To provide a systematic assessment of the efficacy of preoperative skin asepsis using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine based protocols for surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in veterinary surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic meta-analytical review according to PRISMA-P guidelines.
SAMPLE POPULATION
Studies comparing preoperative skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in veterinary surgery identified by systematic search between 1990 and 2020.
METHODS
A search using MEDLINE/Pubmed, Web of Science and CAB Abstracts was performed, followed by secondary searches of Google Scholar, Proquest Dissertation and Theses, and relevant bibliographic articles. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the efficacy of skin asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine on SSI incidence and skin bacterial colonization, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed with a random-effect model, with effect size calculated as risk ratio (RR) or mean standard deviation (MSD) with 95% CI. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS
Among 1067 publications that met the initial search criteria, 9 relevant studies were eligible for analysis. No difference in the incidence of postoperative SSI or skin bacterial colonization between preoperative asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine was found. Insufficient information and detail were frequent among studies and precluded a clear assessment of bias.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that asepsis protocols using chlorhexidine were comparable to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI and reducing skin bacterial colonization.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Given the limitations of the studies that were included in terms of both quality and quantity, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Asepsis; Chlorhexidine; Clinical Protocols; Ethanol; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Surgery, Veterinary; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 35437786
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13810 -
Vaccine Oct 2019Rabies is a fatal zoonotic disease preventable through timely and adequate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to potentially exposed persons i.e. wound washing and...
Rabies is a fatal zoonotic disease preventable through timely and adequate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to potentially exposed persons i.e. wound washing and antisepsis, a series of intradermal (ID) or intramuscular (IM) rabies vaccinations, and rabies immunoglobulin in WHO category III exposures. The 2010 WHO position on rabies vaccines recommended PEP schedules requiring up to 5 clinic visits over the course of approximately one month. Abridged schedules with less doses have potential to save costs, increase patient compliance, and thereby improve equitable access to life-saving PEP for at-risk populations. We systematically reviewed new evidence since that considered for the 2010 position paper to evaluate (i) the immunogenicity and effectiveness of PEP schedules of reduced dose and duration; (ii) new evidence on effective PEP protocols for special populations; and (iii) the effect of changing routes of administration (ID or IM) during a single course of PEP. Our search identified a total of 14 relevant studies. The identified studies supported a reduction in dose or duration of rabies PEP schedules. The 1-week, 2-site ID PEP schedule was found to be most advantageous, as it was safe, immunogenic, supported by clinical outcome data and involved the least direct costs (i.e. cost of vaccine) compared to other schedules. To supplement this evidence, as yet unpublished additional data were reviewed to support the strength of the recommendations. Evidence suggests that changes in the rabies vaccine product and/or the route of administration during PEP is possible. Few studies have evaluated PEP schedules in persons with suspect or confirmed rabies exposures. Gaps exist in understanding the safety and immunogenicity of novel PEP schedules in special populations such as infants and immunocompromised individuals. Available data indicate that administering rabies vaccines during pregnancy is safe and effective.
Topics: Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunoglobulins; Injections, Intradermal; Injections, Intramuscular; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Rabies; Rabies Vaccines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30737043
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.041