-
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2020Sepsis is a global major health problem with high mortality rates. More effective therapy is needed for treating sepsis. Acupuncture has been used for various diseases,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sepsis is a global major health problem with high mortality rates. More effective therapy is needed for treating sepsis. Acupuncture has been used for various diseases, including severe infection, in China for more than 2,000 years. Previous studies reported that acupuncture at Zusanli (ST36) might be effective in treating sepsis, but the efficacy and the quality of evidence remain unclear since there is no systematic review on acupuncture at ST36 for sepsis.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched from the inception of each database up to May 2019. Ultimately, 54 studies using acupuncture at ST36 for the treatment of experimental sepsis were identified in both English and Chinese literature with systematic review procedures.
RESULTS
Acupuncture might be useful in reducing injuries induced by sepsis in cardiac, lung, kidney, liver, gastrointestinal tract, and immune system. Its potential mechanisms for antisepsis might include reducing oxidative stress and inflammation, improving microcirculatory disturbance, and maintaining the immune balance mediated by dopamine. However, the positive findings should be interpreted with caution due to poor methodological quality and publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Acupuncture at ST36 might be a promising complementary strategy for controlling sepsis inflammation, yet further studies are needed.
PubMed: 32215037
DOI: 10.1155/2020/3620741 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2019The increasingly pervasive presence of technology in the operating room raises the need to study the interaction between the surgeon and computer system. A new...
BACKGROUND
The increasingly pervasive presence of technology in the operating room raises the need to study the interaction between the surgeon and computer system. A new generation of tools known as commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) devices enabling touchless gesture-based human-computer interaction is currently being explored as a solution in surgical environments.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an account of the state of the art of COTS devices in the detection of manual gestures in surgery and to identify their use as a simulation tool for motor skills teaching in minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
METHODS
For this systematic literature review, a search was conducted in PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, ScienceDirect, Espacenet, OpenGrey, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers databases. Articles published between January 2000 and December 2017 on the use of COTS devices for gesture detection in surgical environments and in simulation for surgical skills learning in MIS were evaluated and selected.
RESULTS
A total of 3180 studies were identified, 86 of which met the search selection criteria. Microsoft Kinect (Microsoft Corp) and the Leap Motion Controller (Leap Motion Inc) were the most widely used COTS devices. The most common intervention was image manipulation in surgical and interventional radiology environments, followed by interaction with virtual reality environments for educational or interventional purposes. The possibility of using this technology to develop portable low-cost simulators for skills learning in MIS was also examined. As most of the articles identified in this systematic review were proof-of-concept or prototype user testing and feasibility testing studies, we concluded that the field was still in the exploratory phase in areas requiring touchless manipulation within environments and settings that must adhere to asepsis and antisepsis protocols, such as angiography suites and operating rooms.
CONCLUSIONS
COTS devices applied to hand and instrument gesture-based interfaces in the field of simulation for skills learning and training in MIS could open up a promising field to achieve ubiquitous training and presurgical warm up.
Topics: Clinical Competence; General Surgery; Gestures; Humans; Operating Rooms; Technology Transfer
PubMed: 31066679
DOI: 10.2196/11925 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2019The aim of this study was to develop an observational metric that could be used to assess the performance of a practitioner in completing an acute surgical...
The aim of this study was to develop an observational metric that could be used to assess the performance of a practitioner in completing an acute surgical wound-dressing procedure using aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT). A team of clinicians, academics, and researchers came together to develop an observational metric using an iterative six-stage process, culminating in a Delphi panel meeting. A scoping review of the literature provided a background empirical perspective relating to wound-dressing procedure performance. Video recordings of acute surgical wound-dressing procedures performed by nurses in clinical (n = 11) and simulated (n = 3) settings were viewed repeatedly and were iteratively deconstructed by the metric development group. This facilitated the identification of the discrete component steps, potential errors, and sentinel (serious) errors, which characterise a wound dressing procedure and formed part of the observational metric. The ANTT wound-dressing observational metric was stress tested for clarity, the ability to be scored, and interrater reliability, calculated during a further phase of video analysis. The metric was then subjected to a process of cyclical evaluation by a Delphi panel (n = 21) to obtain face and content validity of the metric. The Delphi panel deliberation verified the face and content validity of the metric. The final metric has three phases, 31 individual steps, 18 errors, and 27 sentinel errors. The metric is a tool that identifies the standard to be attained in the performance of acute surgical wound dressings. It can be used as both an adjunct to an educational programme and as a tool to assess a practitioner's performance of a wound-dressing procedure in both simulated and clinical practice contexts.
Topics: Asepsis; Bandages; Clinical Competence; Iatrogenic Disease; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Reproducibility of Results; Surgical Wound; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30932342
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13072 -
Vaccine Oct 2019Rabies is a fatal zoonotic disease preventable through timely and adequate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to potentially exposed persons i.e. wound washing and...
Rabies is a fatal zoonotic disease preventable through timely and adequate post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to potentially exposed persons i.e. wound washing and antisepsis, a series of intradermal (ID) or intramuscular (IM) rabies vaccinations, and rabies immunoglobulin in WHO category III exposures. The 2010 WHO position on rabies vaccines recommended PEP schedules requiring up to 5 clinic visits over the course of approximately one month. Abridged schedules with less doses have potential to save costs, increase patient compliance, and thereby improve equitable access to life-saving PEP for at-risk populations. We systematically reviewed new evidence since that considered for the 2010 position paper to evaluate (i) the immunogenicity and effectiveness of PEP schedules of reduced dose and duration; (ii) new evidence on effective PEP protocols for special populations; and (iii) the effect of changing routes of administration (ID or IM) during a single course of PEP. Our search identified a total of 14 relevant studies. The identified studies supported a reduction in dose or duration of rabies PEP schedules. The 1-week, 2-site ID PEP schedule was found to be most advantageous, as it was safe, immunogenic, supported by clinical outcome data and involved the least direct costs (i.e. cost of vaccine) compared to other schedules. To supplement this evidence, as yet unpublished additional data were reviewed to support the strength of the recommendations. Evidence suggests that changes in the rabies vaccine product and/or the route of administration during PEP is possible. Few studies have evaluated PEP schedules in persons with suspect or confirmed rabies exposures. Gaps exist in understanding the safety and immunogenicity of novel PEP schedules in special populations such as infants and immunocompromised individuals. Available data indicate that administering rabies vaccines during pregnancy is safe and effective.
Topics: Humans; Immunization Schedule; Immunoglobulins; Injections, Intradermal; Injections, Intramuscular; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis; Rabies; Rabies Vaccines; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30737043
DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.01.041 -
Systematic Reviews Jan 2019Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and...
BACKGROUND
Architectural division of aseptic and septic operating theatres is a distinct structural feature of surgical departments in Germany. Internationally, hygienists and microbiologists mainly recommend functional separation (i.e. aseptic procedures first) without calling for separate operating floors and rooms. However, patients with severe musculoskeletal infections (e.g. joint empyema, spondylodiscitis, deep implant-associated infections) may benefit from the permanent availability of septic operating capacities without delay caused by an ongoing aseptic surgical program. A systematic literature review on the influence of a structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality has not yet been conducted.
METHODS
Systematic literature search in PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, screening of referenced citations, and assessment of grey literature.
RESULTS
A total of 572 articles were found through the systematic literature search. No head-to-head studies (neither randomised, quasi-randomised nor observational) were identified which examined the impact of structural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres on process and/or outcome quality.
CONCLUSIONS
This review did not identify evidence in favour nor against architectural separation of septic or aseptic operating theatre. Specifically, there is no evidence of a harmful effect of architectural separation. Unless prospective studies, ideally randomised trials, will be available, it is unjustified to call for abolishing established hospital structures. Future investigations must address patient-centered endpoints, surgical site infections, process quality and hospital economy.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews): CRD42018086568.
Topics: Asepsis; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Multiple; Equipment Contamination; Germany; Hospital Design and Construction; Humans; Infection Control; Operating Rooms; Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Quality Improvement; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 30626433
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0937-9 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people 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 for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in 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 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 count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.
Topics: Adult; Antisepsis; Blood Platelets; Child; Disease Transmission, Infectious; Furocoumarins; Hemorrhage; Humans; Photosensitizing Agents; Platelet Transfusion; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Riboflavin; Thrombocytopenia; Ultraviolet Rays
PubMed: 28756627
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009072.pub3 -
International Journal of Surgery... Mar 2017This meta-analysis aims to assess the incidences of surgical site infection of patients who applied preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation, versus those who applied... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aims to assess the incidences of surgical site infection of patients who applied preadmission chlorhexidine skin preparation, versus those who applied the traditional skin preparation before undergoing total knee and hip arthroplasty.
METHODS
A systematic search is carried out through Medline (1966-2016.11), PubMed (1966-2016.11), Embase (1980-2016.11), ScienceDirect (1985-2016.11) and the Cochrane Library. Only high quality studies are identified. Meta-analysis is conducted with the use of Stata 11.0 software.
RESULTS
One RCT and five retrospective studies, published between 2010 and 2016, are included in the present meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicates that there are significant differences in surgical site infection rate (RD = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.02 to -0.01, P < 0.00001), revision surgery rate (RD = -0.01, 95% CI: -0.01 to -0.01, P < 0.00001) and length of stay (MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.48 to -0.11, P = 0.002) between groups.
CONCLUSION
Preoperative chlorhexidine skin preparation appears to reduce the risk of infection, the incidence of revision surgery, and the length of stay for patients undergoing total knee and hip arthroplasty. No adverse effects, such as DVT or PE, appear to be related to chlorhexidine preparation. Due to the limited quality of the evidence currently available, high quality RCTs with better study designs, larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Humans; Incidence; Preoperative Care; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 28189811
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.004 -
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