-
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 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 -
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and... May 2015Gloves are worn to protect hands from contamination from microorganisms and to reduce the risks of transmission of microorganisms from healthcare workers to patients and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Gloves are worn to protect hands from contamination from microorganisms and to reduce the risks of transmission of microorganisms from healthcare workers to patients and vice versa. However, gloves should be changed between patient contacts and hand washing is necessary before putting on gloves and immediately after removing gloves.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review was to evaluate and synthesize the best available research evidence that investigates clinical use of gloves in the prevention of cross transmission.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
Health care workers.Types of intervention(s): Glove use intervention. Types of outcomes: Contamination of healthcare workers' hands, transmission of infections, adherence to glove usage, inappropriate uses of gloves, and adherence to hand hygiene. Types of studies: Quasi-experimental studies and descriptive studies.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The search sought to find published and unpublished studies. The time period of the search covered articles published from 2000 to 2012 in English and Thai. The databases searched included: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, Current Content Connect, Blackwell synergy, Thai Nursing Research Database, Thai thesis database, Digital Library of Thailand Research Fund, Research of National Research Council of Thailand, and Database of Office of Higher Education.
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY
Studies selected for retrieval were assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument software.
DATA COLLECTION
Data extraction was performed using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument software.
DATA SYNTHESIS
A meta-synthesis was not possible due to the methodological heterogeneity of the included papers. The evidence was thus presented as a narrative summary.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in this review. The results indicated that contamination of a healthcare worker's gloves with bacteria during routine care activities is common. The use of gloves can protect the hands of healthcare workers from bacterial contamination, but the protection afforded by the gloves was incomplete. Adherence to glove utilization among healthcare workers was suboptimal. Gloves were overused and often misused. The major break in compliance with glove use was failure to change gloves between procedures on the same patient. Inappropriate glove use can increase the risk of cross transmission. It is unclear if modifications in glove use alter compliance with hand hygiene among healthcare workers.
CONCLUSION
Gloving can reduce acquisition of microorganisms on the hands. However, gloving does not completely prevent contamination of the hands. Compliance with glove use among healthcare workers is poor. Gloves were also overused and often misused. Inappropriate glove use can increase the risk of cross transmission via contaminated gloved hands. There is still not enough evidence to prove the influence of glove use on adherence to hand hygiene.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
This review strengthens the recent suggestion on the use of gloves to reduce bacterial contamination. However, gloving does not completely prevent contamination, thus emphasizing the need for hand antisepsis before and after patient contact. Intervention to improve the use of gloves and hand hygiene compliance after gloving in the healthcare settings should be implemented.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Further studies should target poor compliers with glove use and promote strategies that can be evaluated.
Topics: Antisepsis; Cross Infection; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Gloves, Surgical; Hand Hygiene; Health Personnel; Humans; Thailand
PubMed: 26447080
DOI: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1817 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.
SEARCH METHODS
For this third update we searched just the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 27 January 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 12).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no new studies added to the review in the third updateThirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Iodine Compounds; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 25897764
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub4 -
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 Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in patients who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in patients who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce further the risk of TTIs from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, a process by which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven significantly to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in patients requiring platelet transfusions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 18 February 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 18 February 2013), CINAHL (1982 to 18 February 2013) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to 18 February 2013). We also searched several international and ongoing trial databases and citation-tracked relevant reference lists. We requested information on possible unpublished trials from known investigators in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. We did not identify any RCTs which compared the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One author screened all references, excluding duplicates and those clearly irrelevant. Two authors then screened the remaining references, confirmed eligibility, extracted data and analysed trial quality independently. We requested and obtained a significant amount of missing data from trial authors. We performed meta-analyses where appropriate using the fixed-effect model for risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and used the I² statistic to explore heterogeneity, employing the random-effects model when I² was greater than 30%.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 trials comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets. Nine trials assessed Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets and one trial Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets. Two were randomised cross-over trials and the remaining eight were parallel-group RCTs. In total, 1422 participants were available for analysis across the 10 trials, of which 675 participants received Intercept® and 56 Mirasol® platelet transfusions. Four trials assessed the response to a single study platelet transfusion (all Intercept®) and six to multiple study transfusions (Intercept® (N = 5), Mirasol® (N = 1)) compared with standard platelets.We found the trials to be generally at low risk of bias but heterogeneous regarding the nature of the interventions (platelet preparation), protocols for platelet transfusion, definitions of outcomes, methods of outcome assessment and duration of follow-up.Our primary outcomes were mortality, 'any bleeding', 'clinically significant bleeding' and 'severe bleeding', and were grouped by duration of follow-up: short (up to 48 hours), medium (48 hours to seven days) or long (more than seven days). Meta-analysis of data from five trials of multiple platelet transfusions reporting 'any bleeding' over a long follow-up period found an increase in bleeding in those receiving pathogen-reduced platelets compared with standard platelets using the fixed-effect model (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, I² = 59%); however, this meta-analysis showed no difference between treatment arms when using the random-effects model (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38).There was no evidence of a difference between treatment arms in the number of patients with 'clinically significant bleeding' (reported by four out of the same five trials) or 'severe bleeding' (reported by all five trials) (respectively, RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, I² = 2%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.12, I² = 51%). We also found no evidence of a difference between treatment arms for all-cause mortality, acute transfusion reactions, adverse events, serious adverse events and red cell transfusion requirements in the trials which reported on these outcomes. No bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Although the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials, the relative risk of this event was 2.74 higher following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.84 to 4.07, I² = 0%). Participants required 7% more platelet transfusions following pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.11, I² = 21%), although the interval between platelet transfusions was only shown to be significantly shorter following multiple Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelet transfusion when compared with standard platelet transfusion (MD -0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.37, I² = 0%). In trials of multiple pathogen-reduced platelets, our analyses showed the one- and 24-hour count and corrected count increments to be significantly inferior to standard platelets. However, one-hour increments were similar in trials of single platelet transfusions, although the 24-hour count and corrected count increments were again significantly lower.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of a difference in mortality, 'clinically significant' or 'severe bleeding', transfusion reactions or adverse events between pathogen-reduced and standard platelets. For a range of laboratory outcomes the results indicated evidence of some benefits for standard platelets over pathogen-reduced platelets. These conclusions are based on data from 1422 patients included in 10 trials. Results from ongoing or new trials are required to determine if there are clinically important differences in bleeding risk between pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions and standard platelet transfusions. Given the variability in trial design, bleeding assessment and quality of outcome reporting, it is recommended that future trials apply standardised approaches to outcome assessment and follow-up, including safety reporting.
Topics: Antisepsis; Blood Platelets; Furocoumarins; Hemorrhage; Humans; Photosensitizing Agents; Platelet Transfusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Riboflavin; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 23543569
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009072.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical site infection rates in the month following clean surgery vary from 0.6% (knee prosthesis) to 5% (limb amputation). Due to the large number of clean surgical procedures conducted annually the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Preoperative skin antisepsis using antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by removing soil and transient organisms from the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Antiseptics are thought to be toxic to bacteria and therefore aid their mechanical removal. The effectiveness of preoperative skin preparation is thought to be dependent on both the antiseptic used and the method of application, however, it is unclear whether preoperative skin antisepsis actually reduces postoperative wound infection, and, if so, which antiseptic is most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether preoperative skin antisepsis immediately prior to surgical incision for clean surgery prevents SSI and to determine the comparative effectiveness of alternative antiseptics.
SEARCH METHODS
For this second update we searched the The Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 7 August 2012), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to July Week 4 2012), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 06, 2012), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 31), EBSCO CINAHL (2007 to 3 August 2012).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of preoperative skin antiseptics applied immediately prior to incision in clean surgery. There was no restriction on the inclusion of reports based on language of publication, date or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were undertaken independently by two review authors.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included in this review (2,623 participants). These evaluated several different types of skin antiseptics - leading to 11 different comparisons being made. Although the antiseptics evaluated differed between studies, all trials involved some form of iodine. Iodine in alcohol was compared to alcohol alone in one trial; one trial compared povidone iodine paint (solution type not reported) with soap and alcohol. Six studies compared different types of iodine-containing products with each other and five compared iodine-containing products with chlorhexidine-containing products.There was evidence from one study suggesting that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits led to a reduced risk of SSI compared with an alcohol based povidone iodine solution: RR 0.47 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.82). However, it is important to note that the trial does not report important details regarding the interventions (such as the concentration of povidone iodine paint used) and trial conduct, such that risk of bias was unclear.There were no other statistically significant differences in SSI rates in the other comparisons of skin antisepsis. Overall the risk of bias in included studies was unclear.A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis was conducted and this suggested that alcohol-containing products had the highest probability of being effective - however, again the quality of this evidence was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive review of current evidence found some evidence that preoperative skin preparation with 0.5% chlorhexidine in methylated spirits was associated with lower rates of SSIs following clean surgery than alcohol-based povidone iodine paint. However this single study was poorly reported. Practitioners may therefore elect to consider other characteristics such as costs and potential side effects when choosing between alternatives.The design of future trials should be driven by the questions of high priority to decision makers. It may be that investment in at least one large trial (in terms of participants) is warranted in order to add definitive and hopefully conclusive data to the current evidence base. Ideally any future trial would evaluate the iodine-containing and chlorhexidine-containing solutions relevant to current practice as well as the type of solution used (alcohol vs. aqueous).
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chlorhexidine; Ethanol; Humans; Iodine Compounds; Povidone-Iodine; Preoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 23543526
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub3 -
Revista Da Escola de Enfermagem Da U S P Dec 2012Surgical hand antisepsis aims at preventing surgical site infections, an important cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality and escalating hospital costs. The... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Surgical hand antisepsis aims at preventing surgical site infections, an important cause of postoperative morbidity and mortality and escalating hospital costs. The objectives of this study were to compare the efficacy of alcohol preparations with traditional surgical hand antisepsis products by means of a systematic review of the literature. Primary and secondary studies were included, considering the microbial count or surgical site infection rates as outcomes. The search was performed on the BVS Portal, PubMed, Ask and MEDLINE. Twenty-five studies were selected (two systematic reviews, nineteen experimental and four cohort studies). The alcohol preparations promoted a microbial reduction equal to and/or greater than traditional products in 17 studies, and a lesser reduction in four studies; similar surgical site infection rates were identified. Therefore, there is scientific evidence that support the safety of alcohol preparations for surgical hand antisepsis.
Topics: Alcohols; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 23380795
DOI: 10.1590/s0080-62342012000600028