-
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Feb 2019Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent healthcare-associated infection in France. SSI rates in total hip or knee replacement are around 2%. The main... (Review)
Review
Surgical site infection (SSI) is the third most frequent healthcare-associated infection in France. SSI rates in total hip or knee replacement are around 2%. The main bacteria implicated in SSI in clean surgery are those of the skin flora, whence the importance of skin preparation to eliminate transient flora and reduce resident flora. Guidelines for the prevention of SSI have progressed in recent years in France: firstly in 2013, and then in 2016. That preoperative hair removal and scrubbing of clean skin ahead of cutaneous asepsis is non-contributive was confirmed in 2013. A shower with normal soap taken as close to the beginning of surgery as possible is still recommended, as is use of alcoholic antiseptics for cutaneous asepsis. The debate remains open between chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in several surgical specialties in the absence of any multicenter studies. Future choices of antiseptic may need to take account of resistance, especially to chlorhexidine, and possible side-effects. Finally, antimicrobial skin sealants and adhesive surgical drapes are not recommended for the prevention of infection.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Baths; Cross Infection; Drug Resistance, Microbial; Hair Removal; Humans; Infection Control; Operating Rooms; Preoperative Care; Surgical Drapes; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 30393070
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.04.033 -
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 2018Wound antisepsis has undergone a renaissance due to the introduction of highly effective wound-compatible antimicrobial agents and the spread of multidrug-resistant...
Wound antisepsis has undergone a renaissance due to the introduction of highly effective wound-compatible antimicrobial agents and the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, a strict indication must be set for the application of these agents. An infected or critically colonized wound must be treated antiseptically. In addition, systemic antibiotic therapy is required in case the infection spreads. If applied preventively, the Wounds-at-Risk Score allows an assessment of the risk for infection and thus appropriateness of the indication. The content of this updated consensus recommendation still largely consists of discussing properties of octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT), polihexanide, and iodophores. The evaluations of hypochlorite, taurolidine, and silver ions have been updated. For critically colonized and infected chronic wounds as well as for burns, polihexanide is classified as the active agent of choice. The combination 0.1% OCT/phenoxyethanol (PE) solution is suitable for acute, contaminated, and traumatic wounds, including MRSA-colonized wounds due to its deep action. For chronic wounds, preparations with 0.05% OCT are preferable. For bite, stab/puncture, and gunshot wounds, polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP)-iodine is the first choice, while polihexanide and hypochlorite are superior to PVP-iodine for the treatment of contaminated acute and chronic wounds. For the decolonization of wounds colonized or infected with MDROs, the combination of OCT/PE is preferred. For peritoneal rinsing or rinsing of other cavities with a lack of drainage potential as well as the risk of central nervous system exposure, hypochlorite is the superior active agent. Silver-sulfadiazine is classified as dispensable, while dyes, organic mercury compounds, and hydrogen peroxide alone are classified as obsolete. As promising prospects, acetic acid, the combination of negative pressure wound therapy with the instillation of antiseptics (NPWTi), and cold atmospheric plasma are also subjects of this assessment.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Consensus; Humans; Wound Healing; Wound Infection
PubMed: 29262416
DOI: 10.1159/000481545 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2021Issues arising in wound healing are very common, and chronic wound infections affect approximately 1.5% of the population. The main substances used in wound washing,... (Review)
Review
Issues arising in wound healing are very common, and chronic wound infections affect approximately 1.5% of the population. The main substances used in wound washing, cleansing and treatment are antiseptics. Today, there are many compounds with a known antiseptic activity. Older antiseptics (e.g., boric acid, ethacridine lactate, potassium permanganate, hydrogen peroxide, iodoform, iodine and dyes) are not recommended for wound treatment due to a number of disadvantages. According to the newest guidelines of the Polish Society for Wound Treatment and the German Consensus on Wound Antisepsis, only the following antiseptics should be taken into account for wound treatment: octenidine (OCT), polihexanide (PHMB), povidone-iodine (PVP-I), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and nanosilver. This article provides an overview of the five antiseptics mentioned above, their chemical properties, wound applications, side effects and safety.
PubMed: 34959654
DOI: 10.3390/ph14121253 -
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 -
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 New England Journal of Medicine Jan 2010Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infection, optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. We hypothesized that preoperative skin cleansing with chlorhexidine-alcohol is more protective against infection than is povidone-iodine.
METHODS
We randomly assigned adults undergoing clean-contaminated surgery in six hospitals to preoperative skin preparation with either chlorhexidine-alcohol scrub or povidone-iodine scrub and paint. The primary outcome was any surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual types of surgical-site infections.
RESULTS
A total of 849 subjects (409 in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 440 in the povidone-iodine group) qualified for the intention-to-treat analysis. The overall rate of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group than in the povidone-iodine group (9.5% vs. 16.1%; P=0.004; relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.85). Chlorhexidine-alcohol was significantly more protective than povidone-iodine against both superficial incisional infections (4.2% vs. 8.6%, P=0.008) and deep incisional infections (1% vs. 3%, P=0.05) but not against organ-space infections (4.4% vs. 4.5%). Similar results were observed in the per-protocol analysis of the 813 patients who remained in the study during the 30-day follow-up period. Adverse events were similar in the two study groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Preoperative cleansing of the patient's skin with chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to cleansing with povidone-iodine for preventing surgical-site infection after clean-contaminated surgery. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00290290.)
Topics: 2-Propanol; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Antisepsis; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Povidone-Iodine; Risk Factors; Skin; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 20054046
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988 -
Journal of Visualized Experiments : JoVE May 2012Microorganisms are present on all inanimate surfaces creating ubiquitous sources of possible contamination in the laboratory. Experimental success relies on the ability...
Microorganisms are present on all inanimate surfaces creating ubiquitous sources of possible contamination in the laboratory. Experimental success relies on the ability of a scientist to sterilize work surfaces and equipment as well as prevent contact of sterile instruments and solutions with non-sterile surfaces. Here we present the steps for several plating methods routinely used in the laboratory to isolate, propagate, or enumerate microorganisms such as bacteria and phage. All five methods incorporate aseptic technique, or procedures that maintain the sterility of experimental materials. Procedures described include (1) streak-plating bacterial cultures to isolate single colonies, (2) pour-plating and (3) spread-plating to enumerate viable bacterial colonies, (4) soft agar overlays to isolate phage and enumerate plaques, and (5) replica-plating to transfer cells from one plate to another in an identical spatial pattern. These procedures can be performed at the laboratory bench, provided they involve non-pathogenic strains of microorganisms (Biosafety Level 1, BSL-1). If working with BSL-2 organisms, then these manipulations must take place in a biosafety cabinet. Consult the most current edition of the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) as well as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for Infectious Substances to determine the biohazard classification as well as the safety precautions and containment facilities required for the microorganism in question. Bacterial strains and phage stocks can be obtained from research investigators, companies, and collections maintained by particular organizations such as the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). It is recommended that non-pathogenic strains be used when learning the various plating methods. By following the procedures described in this protocol, students should be able to: Perform plating procedures without contaminating media. Isolate single bacterial colonies by the streak-plating method. Use pour-plating and spread-plating methods to determine the concentration of bacteria. Perform soft agar overlays when working with phage. Transfer bacterial cells from one plate to another using the replica-plating procedure. Given an experimental task, select the appropriate plating method.
Topics: Asepsis; Bacteriological Techniques; Containment of Biohazards; Environment, Controlled; Equipment Contamination; Laboratories; Sterilization; Viral Plaque Assay
PubMed: 22617405
DOI: 10.3791/3064 -
Clinical Infectious Diseases : An... May 2011
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Alcohols; Antisepsis; Catheter-Related Infections; Catheterization, Central Venous; Catheterization, Peripheral; Child; Child, Preschool; Chlorhexidine; Cross Infection; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guideline Adherence; Hand Disinfection; Health Personnel; Humans; Infection Control; Intensive Care Units; Skin
PubMed: 21460264
DOI: 10.1093/cid/cir257 -
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Mar 2020The currently accepted assumption that most surgical site infections (SSIs) occurring after elective surgery under standard methods of antisepsis are due to an... (Review)
Review
The currently accepted assumption that most surgical site infections (SSIs) occurring after elective surgery under standard methods of antisepsis are due to an intraoperative contamination event, remains unproven. We examined the available evidence in which microbial cultures of surgical wounds were taken at the conclusion of an operation and determined that such studies provide more evidence to refute that an SSI is due to intraoperative contamination than support it. We propose that alternative mechanisms of SSI development should be considered, such as when a sterile postoperative wound becomes infected by a pathogen originating from a site remote from the operative wound-eg, from the gums or intestinal tract (ie, the Trojan Horse mechanism). We offer a path forward to reduce SSI rates after elective surgery that includes undertaking genomic-based microbial tracking from the built environment (ie, the operating room and hospital bed), to the patient's own microbiome, and then to the surgical site. Finally, we posit that only by generating this dynamic microbial map can the true pathogenesis of SSIs be understood enough to inform novel preventive strategies against infection following elective surgery in the current era of asepsis.
Topics: Asepsis; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans; Risk Factors; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 32006469
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(19)30756-X