-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2016Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medical professionals routinely carry out surgical hand antisepsis before undertaking invasive procedures to destroy transient micro-organisms and inhibit the growth of resident micro-organisms. Antisepsis may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients treated in any setting. The secondary objective is to determine the effects of surgical hand antisepsis on the numbers of colony-forming units (CFUs) of bacteria on the hands of the surgical team.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2015 for this update, we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialized Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations) and EBSCO CINAHL. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical hand antisepsis of varying duration, methods and antiseptic solutions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
Fourteen trials were included in the updated review. Four trials reported the primary outcome, rates of SSIs, while 10 trials reported number of CFUs but not SSI rates. In general studies were small, and some did not present data or analyses that could be easily interpreted or related to clinical outcomes. These factors reduced the quality of the evidence. SSIsOne study randomised 3317 participants to basic hand hygiene (soap and water) versus an alcohol rub plus additional hydrogen peroxide. There was no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23, moderate quality evidence downgraded for imprecision).One study (500 participants) compared alcohol-only rub versus an aqueous scrub and found no clear evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34, very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (4387 participants) compared alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients versus aqueous scrubs and found no clear evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.48, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and risk of bias).One study (100 participants) compared an alcohol rub with an additional ingredient versus an aqueous scrub with a brush and found no evidence of a difference in SSI (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.34, low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision). CFUsThe review presents results for a number of comparisons; key findings include the following.Four studies compared different aqueous scrubs in reducing CFUs on hands.Three studies found chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs resulted in fewer CFUs than povidone iodine scrubs immediately after scrubbing, 2 hours after the initial scrub and 2 hours after subsequent scrubbing. All evidence was low or very low quality, with downgrading typically for imprecision and indirectness of outcome. One trial comparing a chlorhexidine gluconate scrub versus a povidone iodine plus triclosan scrub found no clear evidence of a difference-this was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision and indirectness of outcome).Four studies compared aqueous scrubs versus alcohol rubs containing additional active ingredients and reported CFUs. In three comparisons there was evidence of fewer CFUs after using alcohol rubs with additional active ingredients (moderate or very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Evidence from one study suggested that an aqueous scrub was more effective in reducing CFUs than an alcohol rub containing additional ingredients, but this was very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome.Evidence for the effectiveness of different scrub durations varied. Four studies compared the effect of different durations of scrubs and rubs on the number of CFUs on hands. There was evidence that a 3 minute scrub reduced the number of CFUs compared with a 2 minute scrub (very low quality evidence downgraded for imprecision and indirectness of outcome). Data on other comparisons were not consistent, and interpretation was difficult. All further evidence was low or very low quality (typically downgraded for imprecision and indirectness).One study compared the effectiveness of using nail brushes and nail picks under running water prior to a chlorhexidine scrub on the number of CFUs on hands. It was unclear whether there was a difference in the effectiveness of these different techniques in terms of the number of CFUs remaining on hands (very low quality evidence downgraded due to imprecision and indirectness).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no firm evidence that one type of hand antisepsis is better than another in reducing SSIs. Chlorhexidine gluconate scrubs may reduce the number of CFUs on hands compared with povidone iodine scrubs; however, the clinical relevance of this surrogate outcome is unclear. Alcohol rubs with additional antiseptic ingredients may reduce CFUs compared with aqueous scrubs. With regard to duration of hand antisepsis, a 3 minute initial scrub reduced CFUs on the hand compared with a 2 minute scrub, but this was very low quality evidence, and findings about a longer initial scrub and subsequent scrub durations are not consistent. It is unclear whether nail picks and brushes have a differential impact on the number of CFUs remaining on the hand. Generally, almost all evidence available to inform decisions about hand antisepsis approaches that were explored here were informed by low or very low quality evidence.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Colony Count, Microbial; General Surgery; Hand; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 26799160
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004288.pub3 -
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 -
Surgery Journal (New York, N.Y.) Jul 2016Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine...
Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine (CHG) with povidone-iodine (PVI), but there is emerging evidence for combination usage. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate if combination skin preparation (1) reduces colonization at the operative site and (2) prevents SSI compared with single-agent use. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials was performed. Comparative, human trials considering the combination use of CHG and PVI, as preoperative antisepsis, to single-agent CHG or PVI use were included. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if the use or absence of alcohol was inconsistent between study arms. The study was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The primary outcome for meta-analysis was surgical site infection. The secondary outcome was colonization at the operative site. Eighteen publications with a combination of CHG and PVI use were identified. Of these, 12/14 inferred promise for combination usage, including four trials eligible for meta-analysis. Only one trial reported SSI as its outcome. The remaining three considered bacterial colonization. Combination preparation had a pooled odds ratio for complete decolonization of 5.62 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 9.7, < 0.00001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q 2.1, 2 , = 0.35). There is emerging, albeit low-quality, evidence in favor of combination CHG and PVI preoperative antisepsis. Further rigorous investigation is indicated.
PubMed: 28824994
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1587691 -
PloS One 2012Skin antisepsis is a simple and effective measure to prevent infections. The efficacy of chlorhexidine is actively discussed in the literature on skin antisepsis.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Skin antisepsis is a simple and effective measure to prevent infections. The efficacy of chlorhexidine is actively discussed in the literature on skin antisepsis. However, study outcomes due to chlorhexidine-alcohol combinations are often attributed to chlorhexidine alone. Thus, we sought to review the efficacy of chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis and the extent of a possible misinterpretation of evidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature review of clinical trials and systematic reviews investigating chlorhexidine compounds for blood culture collection, vascular catheter insertion and surgical skin preparation. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, several clinical trials registries and a manufacturer website. We extracted data on study design, antiseptic composition, and the following outcomes: blood culture contamination, catheter colonisation, catheter-related bloodstream infection and surgical site infection. We conducted meta-analyses of the clinical efficacy of chlorhexidine compounds and reviewed the appropriateness of the authors' attribution.
RESULTS
In all three application areas and for all outcomes, we found good evidence favouring chlorhexidine-alcohol over aqueous competitors, but not over competitors combined with alcohols. For blood cultures and surgery, we found no evidence supporting chlorhexidine alone. For catheters, we found evidence in support of chlorhexidine alone for preventing catheter colonisation, but not for preventing bloodstream infection. A range of 29 to 43% of articles attributed outcomes solely to chlorhexidine when the combination with alcohol was in fact used. Articles with ambiguous attribution were common (8-35%). Unsubstantiated recommendations for chlorhexidine alone instead of chlorhexidine-alcohol were identified in several practice recommendations and evidence-based guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
Perceived efficacy of chlorhexidine is often in fact based on evidence for the efficacy of the chlorhexidine-alcohol combination. The role of alcohol has frequently been overlooked in evidence assessments. This has broader implications for knowledge translation as well as potential implications for patient safety.
Topics: Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Blood Specimen Collection; Catheter-Related Infections; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Vascular Access Devices
PubMed: 22984485
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044277 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Dec 2010To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis with respect to effectiveness in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) and cost.
METHODS
We searched the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and EMBASE up to January 2010 for eligible studies. Included studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine and with iodine and assessing for the outcomes of SSI or positive skin culture result after application. One reviewer extracted data and assessed individual study quality, quality of evidence for each outcome, and publication bias. Meta-analyses were performed using a fixed-effects model. Using results from the meta-analysis and cost data from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, we developed a decision analytic cost-benefit model to compare the economic value, from the hospital perspective, of antisepsis with iodine versus antisepsis with 2 preparations of chlorhexidine (ie, 4% chlorhexidine bottle and single-use applicators of a 2% chlorhexidine gluconate [CHG] and 70% isopropyl alcohol [IPA] solution), and also performed sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs with a total of 3,614 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that chlorhexidine antisepsis was associated with significantly fewer SSIs (adjusted risk ratio, 0.64 [95% confidence interval, [0.51-0.80]) and positive skin culture results (adjusted risk ratio, 0.44 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.56]) than was iodine antisepsis. In the cost-benefit model baseline scenario, switching from iodine to chlorhexidine resulted in a net cost savings of $16-$26 per surgical case and $349,904-$568,594 per year for the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. Sensitivity analyses showed that net cost savings persisted under most circumstances.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine is more effective than preoperative skin antisepsis with iodine for preventing SSI and results in cost savings.
Topics: 2-Propanol; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Iodine; Odds Ratio; Pennsylvania; Pharmaceutical Solutions; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 20969449
DOI: 10.1086/657134 -
European Review For Medical and... Apr 2015Chlorhexidine (CHX) is one of the most widely used antiseptic, especially in dentistry. At low concentrations CHX is bacteriostatic and at high concentrations acts... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Chlorhexidine (CHX) is one of the most widely used antiseptic, especially in dentistry. At low concentrations CHX is bacteriostatic and at high concentrations acts bactericidal causing cell death by cytolysis. In this study, we performed a systematic review of pharmaco-biological activity and application of CHX.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Articles for inclusion in this review were retrieved from online databases PubMed/Medline. The selected papers were included in the present manuscript according to their relevance for the topic.
RESULTS
Totally 75 papers were enrolled in this research. CHX has strong biocidal activity against Gram-positive bacteria and weaker activity against Gram-negative bacteria. It is also active against yeasts, some dermatophytes and some lipophilic viruses. The most widely application CHX has found in dentistry and antisepsis. Numerous studies have confirmed the beneficial effects of CHX in reducing of plaque accumulation, in tooth caries, gingivitis, periodontitis and in alveolar osteitis. Unfortunately, CHX exhibits cytotoxic activity on human cells, can cause colorization of teeth and fillings, and its activity depends on the pH of the environment and the presence of organic substances.
CONCLUSIONS
CHX play a valuable role in the dentistry and antisepsis. However, it can also cause side effects, limiting its application time.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Biological Availability; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Humans
PubMed: 25912596
DOI: No ID Found