-
The Journal of Hospital Infection Jan 2022Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The virus is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019, has caused millions of deaths worldwide. The virus is transmitted by inhalation of infectious particles suspended in the air, direct deposition on mucous membranes and indirect contact via contaminated surfaces. Disinfection methods that can halt such transmission are important in this pandemic and in future viral infections.
AIM
To highlight the efficacy of several disinfection methods against SARS-CoV-2 based on up-to-date evidence found in the literature.
METHODS
Two databases were searched to identify studies that assessed disinfection methods used against SARS-CoV-2. In total, 1229 studies were identified and 60 of these were included in this review. Quality assessment was evaluated by the Office of Health Assessment and Translation's risk-of-bias tool.
FINDINGS
Twenty-eight studies investigated disinfection methods on environmental surfaces, 16 studies investigated disinfection methods on biological surfaces, four studies investigated disinfection methods for airborne coronavirus, and 16 studies investigated methods used to recondition personal protective equipment (PPE).
CONCLUSIONS
Several household and hospital disinfection agents and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation were effective for inactivation of SARS-CoV-2 on environmental surfaces. Formulations containing povidone-iodine can provide virucidal action on the skin and mucous membranes. In the case of hand hygiene, typical soap bars and alcohols can inactivate SARS-CoV-2. Air filtration systems incorporated with materials that possess catalytic properties, UV-C devices and heating systems can reduce airborne viral particles effectively. The decontamination of PPE can be conducted safely by heat and ozone treatment.
Topics: COVID-19; Disinfection; Humans; Pandemics; Povidone-Iodine; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 34673114
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.07.014 -
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 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants... (Review)
Review
Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants are used; however, no sole disinfectant can be designated as universal for all the impression materials. Thus, the aim of this study is to systemically review the literature to evaluate the effect of the existing disinfection procedures on the bacterial colonization of dental impression materials. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and SciELO databases were screened up to April 2021. Eligibility criteria included in vitro studies reporting the antibacterial activity of disinfectant solutions in dental impression materials. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3.5). A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference based on random-effect models at a significance level of α = 0.05. A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies described the effect of disinfection processes with chlorhexidine gluconate, alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde, and hydrogen peroxide in alginate, polyvinyl siloxane, and polyether impression materials. The meta-analyses showed that the use of chlorhexidine, alcohol, glutaraldehyde, and sodium hypochlorite reduced the colony-forming units by a milliliter (CFU/mL) in alginate (p < 0.001). On the other hand, glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and alcohol reduced the CFU/mL in polyvinyl siloxane (p < 0.001). Finally, alcohol and glutaraldehyde reduced the CFU/mL in polyether material (p < 0.001). High heterogenicity was observed for the alginate and polyvinyl siloxane materials (I2 = 74%; I2 = 90%). Based on these in vitro studies, the disinfection of impression materials with several disinfection agents reduces the CFU/mL count.
PubMed: 35324812
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9030123 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Viruses cause about 80% of all cases of acute conjunctivitis. Human adenoviruses are believed to account for 65% to 90% of cases of viral conjunctivitis, or 20% to 75% of all causes of infectious keratoconjunctivitis worldwide. Epidemic keratoconjunctivitis (EKC) is a highly contagious subset of adenoviral conjunctivitis that has been associated with large outbreaks at military installations and at medical facilities. It is accompanied by severe conjunctival inflammation, watery discharge, and light sensitivity, and can lead to chronic complications such as corneal and conjunctival scarring with discomfort and poor quality of vision. Due to a lack of consensus on the efficacy of any pharmacotherapy to alter the clinical course of EKC, no standard of care exists, therefore many clinicians offer only supportive care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical pharmacological therapies versus placebo, an active control, or no treatment for adults with EKC.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register; 2021, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), with no restrictions on language or year of publication. The date of the last search was 27 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials in which antiseptic agents, virustatic agents, or topical immune-modulating therapy was compared with placebo, an active control, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 studies conducted in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa with a total of 892 participants who were treated for 7 days to 6 months and followed for 7 days up to 1.5 years. Study characteristics and risk of bias In most studies participants were predominantly men (range: 44% to 90%), with an age range from 9 to 82 years. Three studies reported information on trial registration, but we found no published study protocol. The majority of trials had small sample sizes, ranging from 18 to 90 participants enrolled per study; the only exception was a trial that enrolled 350 participants. We judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias across risk of bias domains. Findings We included 10 studies of 892 EKC participants and estimated combined intervention effects in analyses stratified by steroid-containing control treatment or artificial tears. Six trials contributed to the comparisons of topical interventions (povidone-iodine [PVP-I], trifluridine, ganciclovir, dexamethasone plus neomycin) with artificial tears (or saline). Very low certainty evidence from two trials comparing trifluridine or ganciclovir with artificial tears showed inconsistent effects on shortening the mean duration of cardinal symptoms or signs of EKC. Low certainty evidence based on two studies (409 participants) indicated that participants treated with PVP-I alone more often experienced resolution of symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.24) and signs (RR 3.19, 95% CI 2.29 to 4.45) during the first week of treatment compared with those treated with artificial tears. Very low certainty evidence from two studies (77 participants) suggested that PVP-I or ganciclovir prevented the development of subepithelial infiltrates (SEI) when compared with artificial tears within 30 days of treatment (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.56). Four studies compared topical interventions (tacrolimus, cyclosporin A [CsA], trifluridine, PVP-I + dexamethasone) with topical steroids, and one trial compared fluorometholone (FML) plus polyvinyl alcohol iodine (PVA-I) with FML plus levofloxacin. Evidence from one trial showed that more eyes receiving PVP-I 1.0% plus dexamethasone 0.1% had symptoms resolved by day seven compared with those receiving dexamethasone alone (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.23 to 66.05; 52 eyes). In two trials, fewer eyes treated with PVP-I or PVA-I plus steroid developed SEI within 15 days of treatment compared with steroid alone or steroid plus levofloxacin (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55; 69 eyes). One study found that CsA was no more effective than steroid for resolving SEI within four weeks of treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06; N = 88). The evidence from trials comparing topical interventions with steroids was overall of very low level certainty. Adverse effects Antiviral or antimicrobial agents plus steroid did not differ from artificial tears in terms of ocular discomfort upon instillation (RR 9.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 140.67; N = 19). CsA and tacrolimus eye drops were associated with more cases of severe ocular discomfort, and sometimes intolerance, when compared with steroids (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.15 to 18.71; 2 studies; N = 141). Compared with steroids, tacrolimus did not increase the risk of elevated intraocular pressure (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0 to 1.13; 1 study; N = 80), while trifluridine conferred no additional risk compared to tear substitute (RR 5.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 96.49; 1 study; N = 97). Overall, bacterial superinfection was rare (one in 23 CsA users) and not associated with use of the intervention steroid (RR 3.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 84.98; N = 51). The evidence for all estimates was of low or very low certainty.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for the seven specified outcomes was of low or very low certainty due to imprecision and high risk of bias. The evidence that antiviral agents shorten the duration of symptoms or signs when compared with artificial tears was inconclusive. Low certainty evidence suggests that PVP-I alone resolves signs and symptoms by seven days relative to artificial tears. PVP-I or PVA-I, alone or with steroid, is associated with lower risks of SEI development than artificial tears or steroid (very low certainty evidence). The currently available evidence is insufficient to determine whether any of the evaluated interventions confers an advantage over steroids or artificial tears with respect to virus eradication or its spread to initially uninvolved fellow eyes. Future updates of this review should provide evidence of high-level certainty from trials with larger sample sizes, enrollment of participants with similar durations of signs and symptoms, and validated methods to assess short- and long-term outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Conjunctivitis; Conjunctivitis, Viral; Cyclosporine; Dexamethasone; Female; Fluorometholone; Ganciclovir; Humans; Keratoconjunctivitis; Levofloxacin; Lubricant Eye Drops; Male; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Tacrolimus; Trifluridine; Young Adult
PubMed: 35238405
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013520.pub2 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 has been a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) for a lengthy period of time. The novel coronavirus is primarily spread via aerosols at a short distance, with infected individuals releasing large amounts of aerosols when speaking and coughing. However, there is an open question regarding whether mouthwash could effectively reduce virus transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic and support the prevention of infection among medical workers.
METHODS
Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were systematically searched from the inception of each database to January 12, 2023 for currently available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the effect of mouthwash on novel coronavirus load in the oral cavity in COVID-19 patients. The treatment group received mouthwash for rinsing the mouth, while the control group received a placebo or distilled water for COVID-19 patients. The primary outcomes were CT value and viral load. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using a random-effects model. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to minimize the bias and the impact of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs were included. Seven studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the CT value of novel coronavirus. The analysis results showed that the mouthwash group had a positive impact on the CT value of novel coronavirus [ SMD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.21, 0.50)] compared with the control group. In addition, subgroup analysis showed a significant positive effect of mouthwash on CT values in the treatment group compared with the control group, with chlorhexidine (CHX) [SMD = 0.33, 95% CI (0.10, 0.56)], povidone-iodine (PVP-I) [SMD = 0.61, 95% CI (0.23, 0.99)], or hydrogen peroxide (HP) [SMD = 1.04, 95% CI (0.30, 1.78)] as an ingredient of the mouthwash. Six studies reported the intervention effect of mouthwash on the viral load, 263 cases in the treatment group and 164 cases in the control group. The analysis results showed that there was no statistical difference between the mouthwash group and the control group in the viral load of novel coronavirus [SMD = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.05)]. In the subgroup analysis by measurement time, there were statistically significant differences between the mouthwash and control groups for CT values [SMD = 0.52, 95% CI (0.31, 0.72)] and viral load [SMD = - 0.32, 95% CI (- 0.56, - 0.07)] within 30 min of gargling.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, mouthwash has some efficacy in reducing the viral load of novel coronavirus, especially within 30 min after rinsing the mouth. Mouthwash containing CHX, PVP-I and HP all had significant positive effects on CT values, and PVP-I-containing mouthwash may be a promising option to control novel coronavirus infections and relieve virus-related symptoms. However, studies on the dose and frequency of use of mouthwash for infection control are still lacking, which may limit the clinical application of mouthwash.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Protocol registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023401961).
Topics: Humans; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Povidone-Iodine; Viral Load; Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets; Chlorhexidine; Hydrogen Peroxide
PubMed: 37821800
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08669-z -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2023Although polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials and polyether (PE) materials have been the recommended materials for making impressions for implant-supported fixed complete... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Although polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials and polyether (PE) materials have been the recommended materials for making impressions for implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs), a consensus regarding the optimal impression materials has yet to be established.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of impression materials on the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs and to provide guidance for selecting the optimal impression material.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched and supplemented via hand searches. Studies comparing the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs by using PVS and PE materials with either direct (open-tray) or indirect (closed-tray) techniques were included. Linear distance deviations and angular deviations between adjacent implants were evaluated. The mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of implant angulation (α=.05).
RESULTS
Among the 597 publications identified, 27 in vitro studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 12 were included for quantitative analysis. The general analysis revealed no significant differences in linear distance and angular deviations between the 2 impression materials with the direct or indirect technique. The subgroup analysis found that a statistically significant difference in linear distance deviations was found when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees, favoring PE materials when using the direct technique (P=.010, MD: 32.54 µm; 95% CI: 6.83 to 58.24) and indirect technique (P=.020, MD: 138.15 µm, 95% CI: 19.17 to 257.13). However, only 2 relevant studies assessed the indirect technique.
CONCLUSIONS
When providing IFCDs, conventional impressions obtained by using PVS and PE materials were found to have similar accuracy in most scenarios. PE materials yielded better outcomes when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees.
PubMed: 37599185
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.024 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Aug 2022WHO and the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation or triclosan-coated sutures to reduce surgical site infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
WHO and the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and triclosan-coated sutures to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). Existing meta-analyses that include studies at high risk of bias, combined with the recent publication of large, randomised trials, justify an updated meta-analysis of high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to test the rates of SSI according to skin preparation solutions (ie, alcoholic chlorhexidine vs aqueous povidone-iodine) and types of sutures (ie, coated vs uncoated).
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library databases, with no language restrictions, to identify high-quality RCTs testing either alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation (vs aqueous povidone-iodine) or triclosan-coated sutures (vs uncoated sutures), or both, published from database inception to Sept 1, 2021. Patients who received clean-contaminated, contaminated, or dirty surgery were included. We predefined the characteristics of a high-quality trial through an expert consensus process to develop an enhanced Cochrane risk of bias-2 tool specifically for RCTs with a primary outcome of SSI. Data were extracted from published reports. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic. This systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021267220.
FINDINGS
Of 942 studies identified, 933 were excluded. Four high-quality RCTs (n=7467 patients) were included that tested alcoholic chlorhexidine. No significant difference in SSI rates was noted between alcoholic chlorhexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine (17·9% [667 of 3723 patients] vs 19·8% [740 of 3744 patients]; odds ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·06]; p=0·21, I=53·1%). Five high-quality RCTs were included that tested triclosan-coated sutures (n=8619 patients), with no significant difference noted between triclosan-coated and uncoated sutures (16·8% [733 of 4360 patients] vs 18·4% [784 of 4259 patients]; OR 0·90 [95% CI 0·74-1·09]; p=0·29, I=36·4%).
INTERPRETATION
Contrary to previous meta-analyses, this study did not show a benefit from either alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation or triclosan-coated sutures, both of which are more expensive than other readily available alternatives. Global and national guidance should be reconsidered to remove recommendations for their routine use.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection; Sutures; Triclosan
PubMed: 35644158
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00133-5 -
The Journal of Hospital Infection Apr 2021The most effective skin antiseptic solution to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) remains unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The most effective skin antiseptic solution to reduce the incidence of catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) remains unknown.
AIM
To compare solutions with different chlorhexidine (CHG)-based concentrations and povidone-iodine (PVI) in adults with a central venous catheter (CVC) or arterial catheter, and identify an association with the incidence of CRBSI.
METHODS
This study evaluated randomized controlled trials comparing CHG and PVI antiseptic agents in patients aged ≥18 years with an underlying illness and a CVC or arterial catheter. The primary outcome was CRBSI rate. Network meta-analysis was performed by a frequentist-based approach with multi-variate random effects meta-analysis, and the effect size was expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
FINDINGS
The search yielded 1511 records, of which five studies (2815 catheters) were included in the network meta-analysis. The risk of CRBSI was significantly lower with 1% CHG-alcohol than with 0.5% CHG-alcohol (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.98; high certainty) or 10% PVI-aqueous (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.63; high certainty). There was no significant difference in the risk of CRBSI between 1% CHG-alcohol and 2% CHG-aqueous (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.12-1.04; moderate certainty) or other antiseptic solutions. The hierarchy of efficacy in reducing CRBSI was 1% CHG-alcohol, 0.5% CHG-alcohol, 2% CHG-aqueous and 10% PVI-aqueous.
CONCLUSION
Antiseptic agents containing 1% CHG-alcohol were more strongly associated with reduced risk for CRBSI compared with agents containing 0.5% CHG-alcohol or 10% PVI-aqueous.
Topics: Adult; Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Central Venous Catheters; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Povidone-Iodine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sepsis
PubMed: 33529623
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2021.01.017 -
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 -
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