-
The British Journal of Surgery Nov 2010Surgical-site infection increases morbidity, mortality and financial burden. The preferred topical antiseptic agent (chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine) for preoperative... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical-site infection increases morbidity, mortality and financial burden. The preferred topical antiseptic agent (chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine) for preoperative skin cleansing is unclear.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of clinical trials was conducted to determine whether preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine reduced surgical-site infection in clean-contaminated surgery.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified six eligible studies, containing 5031 patients. Chlorhexidine reduced postoperative surgical-site infection compared with povidone-iodine (pooled odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.50 to 0.94; P = 0.019) .
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine should be used preferentially for preoperative antisepsis in clean-contaminated surgery.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Middle Aged; Povidone-Iodine; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 20878942
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7214 -
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 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology May 2017To create evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on a systematic review of published literature regarding the risks and benefits of available preoperative,... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To create evidence-based clinical practice guidelines based on a systematic review of published literature regarding the risks and benefits of available preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative technical steps and interventions at the time of vaginal hysterectomy for benign indications.
DATA SOURCES
We systematically searched the literature to identify studies that compared technical steps or interventions during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods surrounding vaginal hysterectomy. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessments, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception until April 10, 2016, using the MeSH term "Hysterectomy, Vaginal" and associated text words. We included comparative studies, single-group studies, and systematic reviews published in English.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
We double-screened 4,250 abstracts, identifying 60 eligible studies. Discrepancies were adjudicated by a third reviewer. We followed standard systematic review methodology and the Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the evidence and generate guideline recommendations.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Because of limited literature, only 16 perioperative risks, technical steps, and interventions were identified: obesity, large uteri, prior surgery, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, vaginal antisepsis, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, morcellation, apical closure, uterine sealers, hemostatic injectants, hot cone, retractor, cystoscopy, vaginal packing, bladder management, and accustimulation. We organized and reported these as four domains: patient selection, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. We did not identify any patient characteristics precluding a vaginal approach; chlorhexidine or povidone is appropriate for vaginal antisepsis; vasopressin decreases blood loss by 130 cc; tissue-sealing devices decrease blood loss by 44 cc and operative time by 15 minutes with uncertain complication implications; vertical cuff closure results in 1-cm increased vaginal length; either peritoneum or epithelium can be used for colpotomy closure; and routine vaginal packing is not advised.
CONCLUSION
Minimal data exist to guide surgeons with respect to planning and performing a vaginal hysterectomy. This study identifies available information and future areas for investigation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Diseases; Women's Health
PubMed: 28383375
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001995 -
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Sep 2022The presence of oral microorganisms resistant to traditional treatment is increasing, thus a search for new therapies is needed. In this context, antimicrobial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The presence of oral microorganisms resistant to traditional treatment is increasing, thus a search for new therapies is needed. In this context, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) is an approach for the treatment of antibiotic resistant andnon resistant microorganisms. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of aPDT for oral antisepsis against oral polymicrobial biofilms.
METHODS
PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, SciELO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched. In total, five articles were included for qualitative analysis and four articles were used for quantitative analyses. Bias assessment of the eligible articles was made using the RoB 2 criteria. Network meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model. Subgroup's analysis was also conducted. The groups evaluated were aPDT, exposure to light only and no treatment at all (control group). The quality of evidence was assessed by CINeMA approach.
RESULTS
aPDT mediated by curcumin had significant results in the reducing bacterial load (0.31-0.49 log UFC/ I=0%) when compared with the control group. The included articles were classified as low risk of bias, despite biases detected by allocation and blinding. Moreover, quantitative analysis between aPDT and control group and between light and control group were classified with low risk of confidence rating, while the results from aPDT versus light were classified as moderate risk of confidence rating.
CONCLUSION
aPDT has significant efficacy for oral antisepsis, however more randomized clinical trials will be needed to validate the present results.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents; Antisepsis; Biofilms; Curcumin; Network Meta-Analysis; Photochemotherapy; Photosensitizing Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35472640
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2022.102876 -
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 Mar 2017Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are among the most common healthcare-associated infections. Antiseptic cleaning of the meatal area before and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) are among the most common healthcare-associated infections. Antiseptic cleaning of the meatal area before and during catheter use may reduce the risk of CAUTIs.
AIM
To undertake a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of studies investigating the effectiveness of antiseptic cleaning before urinary catheter insertion and during catheter use for prevention of CAUTIs.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and compared across intervention and control groups using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed. Heterogeneity was estimated using the I statistic.
FINDINGS
In total, 2665 potential papers were identified; of these, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. There was no difference in the incidence of CAUTIs when comparing antiseptic and non-antiseptic agents (pooled OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73-1.10; P=0.31), or when comparing different agents: povidone-iodine vs routine care; povidone-iodine vs soap and water; chlorhexidine vs water; povidone-iodine vs saline; povidone-iodine vs water; and green soap and water vs routine care (P>0.05 for all). Comparison of an antibacterial agent with routine care indicated near significance (P=0.06). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I=0%; P>0.05). Subgroup analyses showed no difference in the incidence of CAUTIs in terms of country, setting, risk of bias, sex and frequency of administration.
CONCLUSIONS
There were no differences in CAUTI rates, although methodological issues hamper generalizability of this finding. Antibacterial agents may prove to be significant in a well-conducted study. The present results provide good evidence to inform infection control guidelines in catheter management.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Tract Infections
PubMed: 27986361
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.10.025 -
American Journal of Infection Control Feb 2017Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent health care-associated infections. One of the practices to reduce their incidence is preoperative skin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most frequent health care-associated infections. One of the practices to reduce their incidence is preoperative skin antisepsis. Two of the most commonly active components used are chlorhexidine gluconate and povidone iodine. Of 3 reviews conducted between 2010 and 2012 comparing antiseptics, 2 were in favor of chlorhexidine; however, the latest was unable to draw conclusions.
PURPOSE
To verify whether recent evidence supports the hypothesis that chlorhexidine in preoperative antisepsis is more efficient than other antiseptics in reducing SSI rates.
PROCEDURES
We conducted a systematic review from 2000-2014 in all languages. The primary end point was SSI incidence and secondary skin bacterial colonization.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were included. Meta-analysis were conducted for comparable studies for both outcomes. The results of the meta-analysis, including all of the studies in which chlorhexidine was compared with iodophor, were in favor of chlorhexidine for both SSI incidence (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.92) and bacterial skin colonization (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.55).
CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence supporting the use of chlorhexidine for preoperative skin antisepsis and high-quality evidence that the use of chlorhexidine is associated with fewer positive skin cultures. Further rigorous trials will be welcomed to attain stronger evidence as to the best antiseptic to be used before surgery.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Iodine; Preoperative Care; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27838164
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2016.09.017 -
The Bone & Joint Journal Apr 2013We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of pre-operative skin antisepsis and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the efficacy of pre-operative skin antisepsis and cleansing techniques in reducing foot and ankle skin flora. The post-preparation culture number (Post-PCN) was the primary outcome. The data were evaluated using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. We identified eight trials (560 participants, 716 feet) that met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in the proportions of Post-PCN between hallux nailfold (HNF) and toe web spaces (TWS) sites: 0.47 vs 0.22, respectively (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.182937 to 0.304097; p < 0.0001). Meta-analyses showed that alcoholic chlorhexidine had better efficacy than alcoholic povidone-iodine (PI) at HNF sites (risk difference 0.19 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30); p = 0.0005); a two-step intervention using PI scrub and paint (S&P) followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S&P) alone at TWS sites (risk difference 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.24); p = 0.0169); and a two-step intervention using chlorhexidine scrub followed by alcohol showed significantly better efficacy over PI (S&P) alone at the combined (HNF with TWS) sites (risk difference 0.27 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.40); p < 0.0001). No significant difference was found between cleansing techniques.
Topics: Ankle; Antisepsis; Foot; Humans; Orthopedic Procedures; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin; Solutions
PubMed: 23653955
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.30893 -
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 -
Infection Control and Hospital... Jan 2020Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential...
Cutaneous antisepsis with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine, usually with alcohol, has been extensively studied. This review of published studies reveals that sequential use of povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine leads to a greater reduction in the bioburden of aerobic and anaerobic bacteria on the skin, lower risk of intravascular catheter colonization, and lower risk of surgical site infection compared to use of either agent alone. As such, sequential use of cutaneous antiseptic agents may further reduce risk of surgical site infections, as well as infections associated with insertion of transdermal devices such as nephrostomy tubes, left-ventricular assistance devices, and intravascular catheters.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacteria, Aerobic; Bacteria, Anaerobic; Bacterial Load; Catheter-Related Infections; Chlorhexidine; Humans; Povidone-Iodine; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 31619301
DOI: 10.1017/ice.2019.287