Observational study on preoperative surgical field disinfection: povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine-alcohol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical site infection (SSI) rate is reported to range around 16%. Preoperative skin disinfection is keystone for SSI reduction. Chlorhexidine-alcohol has been reported to be more effective than Povidone-iodine (PVI). However, in many countries established habits and the inferior costs of PVI restrain the employment of chlorhexidine disinfection kits (ChloraPrep®) for the preparation of the surgical field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The costs of surgical field preparation in clean-contaminated surgery utilizing PVI (Betadine) and chlorhexidine alcohol and the evaluation of surgeon compliance and satisfaction, were studied by a observational study on 50 surgical operations in which surgical field was prepared with PVI checking established guidelines, and on 50 surgical operations in which chlorhexidine-alcohol (ChloraPrep) was employed. The use of auxiliary material was tabulated as well as the timing of the phases of disinfection and the surgeon's opinions. RESULTS: The use of auxiliary material (gloves, gauzes, paper towels, surgical instruments, small swabs for umbilical cleaning) is associated with the type of disinfectant, with major use of auxiliary materials recorded in PVI disinfection. PVI disinfection does not follow stringent guidelines, in particular waiting for the disinfectant to dry. PVI guidelines are more demanding than those relative to ChloraPrep. The time necessary for the preparation of the field is significantly longer for PVI. Auxiliary material and guideline compliance must be taken into account when calculating costs; the former are direct costs (even though marginal) and the latter can determine major infective risk. CONCLUSIONS: Chlorhexidine in kits is easier and faster to use than PVI, requires less auxiliary material and has been shown previously to reduce SSI in clean contaminated surgery.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution in the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections in France.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin antiseptic solutions (chlorhexidine-alcohol (CHG) versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution (PVI)) for the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) in intensive care unit (ICU) in France based on an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (CLEAN). DESIGN: A 100-day time semi-markovian model was performed to be fitted to longitudinal individual patient data from CLEAN database. This model includes eight health states and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on cost and effectiveness were performed. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per patient with catheter-related bloodstream infection avoided. PATIENTS: 2,349 patients (age≥18 years) were analyzed to compare the 1-time CHG group (CHG-T1, 588 patients), the 4-time CHG group (CHG-T4, 580 patients), the 1-time PVI group (PVI-T1, 587 patients), and the 4-time PVI group (PVI-T4, 594 patients). INTERVENTION: 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine-alcohol) compared to 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol (povidone iodine-alcohol). RESULTS: The mean cost per alive, discharged or dead patient was of €23,798 (95% confidence interval: €20,584; €34,331), €21,822 (€18,635; €29,701), €24,874 (€21,011; €31,678), and €24,201 (€20,507; €29,136) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. The mean number of patients with CRBSI per 1000 patients was of 3.49 (0.42; 12.57), 6.82 (1.86; 17.38), 26.04 (14.64; 42.58), and 23.05 (12.32; 39.09) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. In comparison to the 1-time PVI solution, the 1-time CHG solution avoids 22.55 CRBSI /1,000 patients, and saves €1,076 per patient. This saving is not statistically significant at a 0.05 level because of the overlap of 95% confidence intervals for mean costs per patient in each group. Conversely, the difference in effectiveness between the CHG-T1 solution and the PVI-T1 solution is statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The CHG-T1 solution is more effective at the same cost than the PVI-T1 solution. CHG-T1, CHG-T4 and PVI-T4 solutions are statistically comparable for cost and effectiveness. This study is based on the data from the RCT from 11 French intensive care units registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01629550).