Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Surgical Hand Antisepsis: Environmental and Cost Impact in Hand Surgery.

Health care systems, including operating rooms, are a considerable contributor to environmental waste. Given ongoing concerns regarding water scarcity in the United States and worldwide, action to reduce water utilization should be taken. Traditional water-based hand scrubbing wastes an estimated 11 L of water per scrub. Waterless hand rubbing with an alcohol-based solution has been shown to be as effective as traditional water-based hand scrubbing in surgical hand antisepsis and in preventing surgical site infections. Furthermore, alcohol-based rubbing results in less waste and reduced costs when compared with water-based hand scrubbing. The hand surgery operating room, including minor procedure rooms, serves as an opportunity to decrease water use and reduce the environmental impact of our field. Waterless alcohol-based hand rubbing for antisepsis may also be an opportunity to save money and provide value-based care to our patients.

Povidone Iodine vs Chlorhexidine Gluconate in Alcohol for Preoperative Skin Antisepsis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Preoperative skin antisepsis is an established procedure to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). The choice of antiseptic agent, povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, remains debated. Objective: To determine whether povidone iodine in alcohol is noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol to prevent SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, cluster-randomized, investigator-masked, crossover, noninferiority trial; 4403 patients undergoing cardiac or abdominal surgery in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland between September 2018 and March 2020 were assessed and 3360 patients were enrolled (cardiac, n = 2187 [65%]; abdominal, n = 1173 [35%]). The last follow-up was on July 1, 2020. Interventions: Over 18 consecutive months, study sites were randomly assigned each month to either use povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, each formulated in alcohol. Disinfectants and skin application processes were standardized and followed published protocols. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after abdominal surgery and within 1 year after cardiac surgery, using definitions from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network. A noninferiority margin of 2.5% was used. Secondary outcomes included SSIs stratified by depth of infection and type of surgery. Results: A total of 1598 patients (26 cluster periods) were randomly assigned to receive povidone iodine vs 1762 patients (26 cluster periods) to chlorhexidine gluconate. Mean (SD) age of patients was 65.0 years (39.0-79.0) in the povidone iodine group and 65.0 years (41.0-78.0) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group. Patients were 32.7% and 33.9% female in the povidone iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate groups, respectively. SSIs were identified in 80 patients (5.1%) in the povidone iodine group vs 97 (5.5%) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group, a difference of 0.4% (95% CI, -1.1% to 2.0%) with the lower limit of the CI not exceeding the predefined noninferiority margin of -2.5%; results were similar when corrected for clustering. The unadjusted relative risk for povidone iodine vs chlorhexidine gluconate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.69-1.23). Nonsignificant differences were observed following stratification by type of surgical procedure. In cardiac surgery, SSIs were present in 4.2% of patients with povidone iodine vs 3.3% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.82-1.94]); in abdominal surgery, SSIs were present in 6.8% with povidone iodine vs 9.9% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.46-1.02]). Conclusions and Relevance: Povidone iodine in alcohol as preoperative skin antisepsis was noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol in preventing SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03685604.

Effectiveness of two scrub methods with different chlorhexidine combinations for surgical field antisepsis in cats.

Objective: Assessing effectiveness of circular (CM) and linear (LM) scrub methods using 3 different combinations of chlorhexidine in surgical field antisepsis in cats. Animals and procedure: Surgical field antisepsis was applied with 2 scrub methods (CM and LM) and 3 different chlorhexidine combinations (A1, A2, and A3) in 51 female cats undergoing ovariectomy. Sterile swabs collected from the surgical field pre- and post-antisepsis were inoculated in the laboratory and colony-forming units (CFU/mL) were quantified. Results: Following the application of antisepsis, the number of positive samples decreased in all groups (P < 0.05) when using both CM and LM, except for CM in the A1 group (P = 0.063). The CFU/mL counts also decreased after antisepsis with both CM and LM in all groups (P < 0.05). A high reduction in CFU/mL counts was observed after antisepsis with both CM and LM in all groups, but no significant differences were observed between the 2 scrub methods (P > 0.05). Conclusion and clinical relevance: Surgical field antisepsis in cats with CM and LM scrub methods, using 2% chlorhexidine combined with 70% ethyl or 70% isopropyl alcohol, or 1% chlorhexidine combined with 70% ethyl alcohol, can effectively reduce the bacterial load on the skin.

Efficacité de deux méthodes de désinfection avec différentes combinaisons de chlorhexidine pour l'antisepsie du champ opératoire chez le chat. Objectif: Évaluation de l'efficacité des méthodes de désinfection par mouvements circulaires (CM) et linéaires (LM) utilisant 3 combinaisons différentes de chlorhexidine dans l'antisepsie du champ opératoire chez le chat. Animaux et procédure: Une antisepsie chirurgicale sur le terrain a été appliquée avec 2 méthodes de désinfection (CM et LM) et 3 combinaisons différentes de chlorhexidine (A1, A2 et A3) chez 51 chattes subissant une ovariectomie. Des écouvillons stériles prélevés sur le champ opératoire avant et après l'antisepsie ont été inoculés en laboratoire et les unités formant des colonies (UFC/mL) ont été quantifiées. Résultats: À la suite de l'application de l'antisepsie, le nombre d'échantillons positifs a diminué dans tous les groupes (P < 0,05) lors de l'utilisation à la fois de CM et de LM, à l'exception du CM dans le groupe A1 (P = 0,063). Le nombre d'UFC/mL a également diminué après antisepsie avec CM et LM dans tous les groupes (P < 0,05). Une forte réduction du nombre d'UFC/mL a été observée après antisepsie avec CM et LM dans tous les groupes, mais aucune différence significative n'a été observée entre les 2 méthodes de désinfection (P > 0,05). Conclusion et pertinence clinique: L'antisepsie chirurgicale sur le terrain chez les chats avec les méthodes de désinfection CM et LM, utilisant 2 % de chlorhexidine combinée à 70 % d'alcool éthylique ou 70 % d'alcool isopropylique, ou 1 % de chlorhexidine combinée à 70 % d'alcool éthylique, peut réduire efficacement la charge bactérienne sur la peau.(Traduit par Dr Serge Messier).

Aqueous skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis is frequently recommended for most surgical procedures; however, it is unclear if these recommendations should apply to surgery involving traumatic contaminated wounds where povidone-iodine has previously been preferred. We aimed to compare the effect of aqueous 10% povidone-iodine versus aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate on the risk of surgical site infection in patients who required surgery for an open fracture. METHODS: We conducted a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial (Aqueous-PREP) at 14 hospitals in Canada, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with an open extremity fracture treated with a surgical fixation implant. For inclusion, the open fracture required formal surgical debridement within 72 h of the injury. Participating sites were randomly assigned (1:1) to use either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate immediately before surgical incision; sites then alternated between the study interventions every 2 months. Participants, health-care providers, and study personnel were aware of the treatment assignment due to the colour of the solutions. The outcome adjudicators and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was surgical site infection, guided by the 2017 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ space infection within 90 days of surgery. The primary analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle and included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03385304. FINDINGS: Between April 8, 2018, and June 8, 2021, 3619 patients were assessed for eligibility and 1683 were enrolled and randomly assigned to povidone-iodine (n=847) or chlorhexidine gluconate (n=836). The trial's adjudication committee determined that 45 participants were ineligible, leaving 1638 participants in the primary analysis, with 828 in the povidone-iodine group and 810 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean age 44·9 years [SD 18·0]; 629 [38%] were female and 1009 [62%] were male). Among 1571 participants in whom the primary outcome was known, a surgical site infection occurred in 59 (7%) of 787 participants in the povidone-iodine group and 58 (7%) of 784 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (odds ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·74 to 1·65; p=0·61; risk difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·4 to 3·4). INTERPRETATION: For patients who require surgical fixation of an open fracture, either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate can be selected for skin antisepsis on the basis of solution availability, patient contraindications, or product cost. These findings might also have implications for antisepsis of other traumatic wounds. FUNDING: US Department of Defense, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University Surgical Associates, PSI Foundation.

APPLICATION OF PROBIOTIC ANTISEPSIS FOR PURULENT COMPLICATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: To improve the results of surgical treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and purulent-necrotic wounds by using probiotic antiseptics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: 66 patients with type 2 diabetes and purulent-necrotic complications took part in this study. Probiotic antiseptics were used for local treatment in the experimental group (n=31), and traditional antiseptics were used in the control group (n=35). The levels of pro-inflammatory markers in the blood (IL-6, TNF-a, CRP) were studied; microscopic material was taken to study the type of cytogram during bandaging, before wound treatment with antiseptics or debridement on admission to the hospital (1st day), on the 3rd day and on the 7th day. RESULTS: Results: Analysis of dynamic changes in pro-inflammatory markers between the first and seventh days proved that only in the experimental group there was a statistically significant difference (IL-6 (Р=0.004), TNF-a (Р=0.001), CRP (Р=0.018)). Detection of regenerative-inflammatory and regenerative cytogram types on the 7th day in the experimental group had a statistically significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Conclusions: the use of probiotic antisepsis accelerates wound healing in patients with type 2 diabetes and purulent-necrotic complications.

Chlorhexidine gluconate vs povidone-iodine vaginal antisepsis for urogynecologic surgery: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although povidone-iodine (iodine) is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved vaginal antiseptic solution, there is a lack of comparative data evaluating alternatives. Chlorhexidine gluconate is readily accessible, recommended by multiple societies as an alternative for patients with iodine allergy, and preliminary data indicate that it may provide superior antisepsis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chlorhexidine and iodine as presurgical vaginal antiseptic solutions in preventing the most common surgery-associated infection after gynecologic surgery, urinary tract infections. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized controlled noninferiority trial among women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. The primary outcome measure was symptomatic urinary tract infection within 2 weeks after surgery. The secondary outcomes included culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery, symptomatic urinary tract infections at 6 weeks after surgery, any surgical site infection at 2 weeks after surgery, and patient-reported vaginal irritation after surgery. We required 58 participants per arm to demonstrate noninferiority of chlorhexidine vs iodine (margin of relative risk of <1.5 for the upper limit of 95% confidence interval) between groups for the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 119 participants (61 in the chlorhexidine group and 58 in the iodine group) completed the primary outcome and were included in the analyses. There was no difference in the groups' demographic characteristics, medical history, operations performed, or perioperative factors. Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine concerning the primary outcome, symptomatic urinary tract infection at 2 weeks after surgery (10% vs 17%; relative risk, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [-∞, 1.3]). Furthermore, chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for the secondary urinary tract infection outcomes (culture-proven urinary tract infection at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery and symptomatic urinary tract infection at 6 weeks after surgery). Groups were similar in terms of surgical site infection (overall 3/119 [2.5%]) and presence of any vaginal irritation (4/54 [7.4%], for both groups). CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine was not inferior to iodine for vaginal antisepsis before urogynecologic surgery concerning urinary tract infection. Given the similar postoperative urinary tract infection rates demonstrated in this study and the lack of difference in vaginal irritation, chlorhexidine seemed to be a safe and reasonable option for vaginal antisepsis before surgical procedures. Additional studies are needed to further examine surgical site infection.

Comparison of chlorhexidine and alcohol-based antisepsis on the paralumbar fossa in cattle.

OBJECTIVE: To determine skin reaction, post-treatment reduction (immediate effect), and 1 hour post-treatment reduction (sustained effect) of aerobic bacterial colony forming units (CFU) following three antiseptic protocols in cattle. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized experimental study. ANIMALS: Eighteen cows. METHODS: Three sites in each paralumbar fossa were clipped and randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 5 minute 4% chlorhexidine gluconate scrub (CHG); 90 second 80% ethanol scrub (ET); 90 second 70% isopropyl alcohol scrub (IPA). All sites were monitored at all sampling time points and at 24 hours following treatment for adverse skin reaction. Samples were collected pre-, immediately post-, and 1 hour post-treatment and plated in duplicate. Bacterial counts were shifted to eliminate zeroes, log10 transformed, and averaged. ANOVA was used to compare differences in mean reduction in log10 CFU/ml between groups. RESULTS: Reduction in log10CFU/ml was more pronounced immediately after application of IPA (p = .001) and ET (p = .001) than CHG. This reduction was better sustained after preparation with CHG than ET (p = .005) but not IPA. Immediate and sustained reductions in bacterial loads did not differ after application of IPA or ET. No adverse skin reactions were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics was well tolerated and improved immediate bacterial reduction compared to CHG. This reduction was better sustained 1 hour after application of CHG than ET, but no difference was detected between CHG and IPA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lack of adverse skin reaction and performance provide evidence to support skin preparation with alcohol-based antiseptics in cattle.

Design and development of essential oil based nanoemulsion for topical application of triclosan for effective skin antisepsis.

The skin acts as a physical barrier to protect the body from the external physical and chemical environment. When skin is infected, the outer epidermal barrier is compromised and colonized with microbial growth. Wound infection presents an immense burden on healthcare costs and decreased the quality of life for patients. The topical application of nanoemulsions (NE) at pathological sites offers the potential advantage of direct drug delivery to the skin including the potential for follicular targeting. This may have application in the improvement of skin antisepsis. In this study, NEs of triclosan (TSN) were prepared using hot high shear homogenization followed by ultrasonication. The oil phases comprised eucalyptus oil (EO) and olive oil (OO) and pseudo-ternary phase diagrams were used to select optimum concentrations of surfactant. EO-based NEs had smaller droplet sizes and higher entrapment efficiency compared to OO-based NEs. Skin permeation was higher for EO-containing formulations, likely due to the higher solubility of TSN in EO, smaller droplet size, low viscosity, and permeation enhancement effects of EO. Significantly, TSN was retained within the skin, demonstrating the potential of NEs for targeting hair follicular delivery within the skin, which may help improve the success of topical antisepsis.

How to improve aseptic technique to reduce bloodstream infection during vascular access procedures.

Bloodstream infections associated with vascular access procedures pose a serious risk to patients that can be reduced by better standards of aseptic technique. The objectives of this roundtable of experts were to achieve a consensus on how to improve skin antisepsis in hospital, improve training, competency, compliance and consistency in skin antisepsis, review the role of devices in improving skin antisepsis, identify methods to improve skin antisepsis integrated with the Aseptic Non Touch Technique (ANTT®) approach, and identify challenges to the implementation of the panel's recommendations. Recommendations include using MHRA-licensed 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol solution with bidirectional strokes for up to 30 seconds, then leaving the skin to air dry for 30 seconds; using the ANTT Clinical Practice Framework and terminology as the standard for skin antisepsis training and practice; standardised ANTT and skin antisepsis education with 3-yearly competency assessments for all UK health professionals; and more research to address the evidence gap on transmission of infection after skin antisepsis.

Best practice skin antisepsis for insertion of peripheral catheters.

This article discusses the importance of effective skin antisepsis prior to the insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) and how best clinical practice is promoted by application of an appropriate method of skin disinfection integrated effectively with a proprietary aseptic non touch technique, or other standard aseptic technique. Historically under-reported, incidence of infection and risk to patients from PIVCs is now increasingly being recognised, with new research and evidence raising concern and helping to drive new clinical guidance and improvement. The risks posed by PIVCs are particularly significant given increasing PIVC dwell times, due to cannula removal now being determined by new guidance for clinical indication, rather than predefined time frames. Clinical 'best practice' is considered in context of the evidence base, importantly including availability and access to appropriate skin antisepsis products. In the UK, and other countries, ChloraPrep is the only skin antisepsis applicator licensed as a drug to disinfect skin and help prevent infections before invasive medical procedures, such as injections, blood sampling, insertion of PIVCs and minor or major surgery.

Preoperative Antisepsis with Chlorhexidine Versus Povidone-Iodine for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chlorhexidine (CH) and povidone-iodine (PI) are the most commonly used preoperative skin antiseptics at present. However, the prevention of the surgical site infection (SSI) and the incidence of skin adverse events do not reach a consistent statement and conclusion. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative surgical site infection and the incidence of corresponding skin adverse events. METHOD: Substantial studies related to "skin antiseptic" and "surgical site infection" were consulted on PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, and CNKI. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative SSI. The secondary outcome was associated with skin adverse events. All data were analyzed with Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included, including 29,006 participants. This study revealed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI (risk ratio [RR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.77; p < 0.00001, I2 = 57%). Further subgroup analysis showed that chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in the prevention of postoperative SSI in clean surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03), I2 = 28%) and clean-contaminated surgery (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.73; p < 0.00001, I2 = 43%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups. CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine was superior to povidone-iodine in preventing postoperative SSI, especially for the clean-contaminated surgery. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of skin adverse events between CH and PI groups.

Maintenance antisepsis in reducing the rate of late-onset central venous catheter-related bloodstream infection: A comparison of 0.05% and 1% chlorhexidine.

BACKGROUND: Bundled measures have been recommended to reduce the risk of central venous catheter (CVC)-related bloodstream infection. However, the importance of each procedure involved in CVC insertion/management for preventing catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) has not been thoroughly assessed. We aimed to analyze the effectiveness of maintenance antisepsis at the CVC insertion site in reducing the CRBSI risk through comparing the use of 0.05% chlorhexidine to 1% chlorhexidine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the South Miyagi Medical Center, Japan, 372 patients with a CVC who had undergone antisepsis maintenance using 0.05% chlorhexidine swabs 12 months prior to implementing 1% chlorhexidine swabs, and 344 patients at 12 months post-implementation of 1% chlorhexidine swabs, were followed prospectively for the development of CRBSI and signs of infection, and their data compared. RESULTS: Post-implementation of the 1% chlorhexidine swabs, the CRBSI rate decreased from 3.64/1000 catheter-days to 1.77/1000 catheter-days. The risk of CRBSI decreased to 0.465 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.216-1.001). Furthermore, the risk of CRBSI ≥20 days after CVC insertion decreased to 0.200 (95% CI: 0.049-0.867); however, we found no difference between 0.05% and 1% chlorhexidine use within 19 days of CVC insertion. The increased number of patients with insertion site tenderness after implementing 1% chlorhexidine indicated a possible adverse effect of chlorhexidine. CONCLUSION: Maintenance antisepsis with 1% chlorhexidine decreased the risk of developing CRBSI ≥20 days after CVC insertion, indicating the effectiveness of antisepsis with 1% chlorhexidine. Our data highlight the importance of maintenance antisepsis in reducing the rate of late-phase CRBSI.

No Time for Statistics: Joseph Lister's Antisepsis and Types of Knowledge in Nineteenth-Century British Surgery.

This article documents Joseph Lister's reluctance to publish numerical material and aims at explaining his skeptical view about statistics through an investigation of his approach in its historical context. In this context, statistics was only one kind of evidence used in surgery, along with case histories and experimental results from the laboratory. They represent different "ways of knowing," anchored in different social, conceptual, and practical contexts. The account looks at Lister's approach to wound disease and analyzes how this relates to his attitude toward different types of evidence about surgical outcomes. For this, it also examines his contemporaries' approaches to fighting wound disease as well as their evaluation of different kinds of evidence. This article is a contribution to the history of Lister's antisepsis, but also to the history of the production and use of therapeutic knowledge in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century surgery more generally.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Skin Antiseptic Agents at Cesarean Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative skin antisepsis has the potential to decrease the risk of surgical-site infection. However, evidence is limited to guide the choice of antiseptic agent at cesarean delivery, which is the most common major surgical procedure among women in the United States. METHODS: In this single-center, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated whether the use of chlorhexidine-alcohol for preoperative skin antisepsis was superior to the use of iodine-alcohol for the prevention of surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery. We randomly assigned patients undergoing cesarean delivery to skin preparation with either chlorhexidine-alcohol or iodine-alcohol. The primary outcome was superficial or deep surgical-site infection within 30 days after cesarean delivery, on the basis of definitions from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. RESULTS: From September 2011 through June 2015, a total of 1147 patients were enrolled; 572 patients were assigned to chlorhexidine-alcohol and 575 to iodine-alcohol. In an intention-to-treat analysis, surgical-site infection was diagnosed in 23 patients (4.0%) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and in 42 (7.3%) in the iodine-alcohol group (relative risk, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.90; P=0.02). The rate of superficial surgical-site infection was 3.0% in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 4.9% in the iodine-alcohol group (P=0.10); the rate of deep infection was 1.0% and 2.4%, respectively (P=0.07). The frequency of adverse skin reactions was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of chlorhexidine-alcohol for preoperative skin antisepsis resulted in a significantly lower risk of surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery than did the use of iodine-alcohol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01472549.).

Transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelet components without leukoreduction.

BACKGROUND: Leukoreduction (LR) of platelet concentrate (PC) has evolved as the standard to mitigate risks of alloimmunization, clinical refractoriness, acute transfusion reactions (ATRs), and cytomegalovirus infection, but does not prevent transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). Amotosalen-ultraviolet A pathogen reduction (A-PR) of PC reduces risk of transfusion-transmitted infection and TA-GVHD. In vitro data indicate that A-PR effectively inactivates WBCs and infectious pathogens. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A sequential cohort study evaluated A-PR without LR, gamma irradiation, and bacterial screening in hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients. The first cohort received conventional PC (control) processed without LR, but with gamma irradiation and bacterial screening. The second cohort received A-PR PC (test) processed without: LR, bacterial screening, or gamma irradiation. The primary efficacy outcome was the 1-hour corrected count increment. The primary safety outcome was treatment-emergent ATR. Secondary outcomes included clinical refractoriness, and 100-day status for engraftment, TA-GVHD, HSCT-GVHD, infections, and mortality. RESULTS: Mean corrected count increment (× 103 ) of 33 test PC recipients was similar (18.9 ± 8.8 vs. 16.6 ± 8.4; p = 0.296) to that of 31 control PC recipients. Test recipients had a reduced, but nonsignificant, incidence of ATR (test = 9.1%, Control = 19.4%; p = 0.296). The frequencies of clinical refractoriness (0 of 33 vs. 4 of 31 patients) and refractory transfusions (6.6% vs. 19.3%) were lower in the test cohort (p = 0.05 and 0.02), respectively. No patient in either cohort had TA-GVHD. Day 100 engraftment, HSCT-GVHD, mortality, and infectious disease complications were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that A-PR PC without LR, gamma irradiation, or bacterial screening is feasible for support of HSCT.

Skin preparation for prevention of peripheral blood culture contamination in children.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, blood cultures for children are performed by pediatric residents, and povidone-iodine (PI) is the recommended solution for skin preparation. Given that PI needs to be applied for 1.5-2 min before venipuncture, skin preparation may be suboptimal if this is not followed. In this study, we investigated the blood culture contamination rate after skin preparation with only 70% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) or IPA plus PI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients aged ≤6 years who provided blood cultures in the emergency department or pediatric ward. Patients with indwelling central venous catheter were excluded. We evaluated the impact of changing the method of skin preparation, comparing the traditional method using IPA plus PI between 2008 and 2010 (IPA + PI group) with the simplified method using only IPA between 2015 and 2017 (IPA group). RESULTS: A total of 5,365 blood culture samples were eligible for this study. Of these, 171 (3.2%) had an organism identified in blood culture. Of the blood culture-positive samples, 68 (1.3%) were true positive and 103 (1.9%) were contaminated. Thirty-eight (1.6%) of 2,407 cultures in the IPA group were contaminated, whereas 65 (2.2%) of 2,958 cultures in the IPA + PI group were contaminated (OR, 0.72; 95%CI: 0.48-1.07; P = 0.1). Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus grew significantly less in the IPA group (1.7% vs 1.0%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A single application of 70% IPA may be the optimal skin preparation method for obtaining peripheral blood cultures from children in Japan.