A Randomized Controlled Trial of Povidone-Iodine Versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate With Isopropyl Alcohol for Preoperative Vaginal Antisepsis.

Many surgeons request use of 10% povidone-iodine (PI) for vaginal antisepsis; however, when PI is contraindicated, some surgeons request use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) instead. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine any significant differences in self-reported symptoms associated with vaginal antisepsis with either 10% PI scrub or 4% CHG with 4% isopropyl alcohol. The control group comprised 62 participants who underwent vaginal antisepsis with the PI product, and the intervention group comprised 58 participants who underwent vaginal antisepsis with the CHG product. Participants completed surveys immediately before surgery, immediately after surgery, and 48 to 72 hours after surgery. No significant differences were found in the reported vaginal symptoms between the two groups for any survey. One participant in the intervention group reported symptoms consistent with an allergic reaction. Additional studies are needed on the use of CHG for vaginal antisepsis.

Optimal antiseptic skin preparation agents for minimizing surgical site infection following surgery: cost and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents. METHODS: A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t-test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t-test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection. CONCLUSION: Based on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study.

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.).

Isopropyl alcohol inhalation versus 5-HT3 antagonists for treatment of nausea: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nausea is a common and unpleasant sensation for which current therapies such as serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists are often ineffective, while also conferring a risk of potential adverse events. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a treatment for nausea. We aimed to compare IPA with 5-HT3 antagonists for the treatment of nausea across all clinical settings. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from inception to 17 July 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled IPA and a 5-HT3 antagonist for treatment of nausea. Severity and duration of nausea, rescue antiemetic use, adverse events and patient satisfaction were the outcomes sought. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Combination of meta-analyses and narrative review was used to synthesise findings. The evidence was appraised using GRADE. RESULTS: From 1242 records, 4 RCTs were included with 382 participants. Participants receiving IPA had a significantly lower mean time to 50% reduction in nausea (MD - 20.06; 95% CI - 26.26, - 13.85). Nausea score reduction at 30 min was significantly greater in the IPA group (MD 21.47; 95% CI 15.47, 27.47). IPA led to significantly reduced requirement for rescue antiemetics (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37, 0.95; p = 0.03). IPA led to no significant difference in patient satisfaction when compared with a 5-HT3 antagonist. The overall GRADE assessment of evidence quality ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSION: IPA may provide rapid, effective relief of nausea when compared with 5-HT3 antagonists.

Isopropyl alcohol inhalation for the treatment of nausea in adult emergency department patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nausea and vomiting is a common ED chief complaint. However, randomised trials comparing antiemetic agents to placebo have not demonstrated superiority. This systematic review investigates the efficacy of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) compared with usual care or placebo in adults presenting to the ED with nausea and vomiting. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, other relevant trial registries, journals, and conference proceedings up to September 2022. Randomised controlled trials using IPA to treat adult ED patients with nausea and vomiting were included. The primary outcome was change in severity of nausea, measured by a validated scale. A secondary outcome was vomiting during the ED stay. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and assessed certainty of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Two trials comparing inhaled IPA to saline placebo and including a total of 195 patients were pooled for meta-analysis of the primary outcome. A third study comparing a group receiving inhaled IPA and oral ondansetron to another group receiving inhaled saline placebo and oral ondansetron did not qualify for the original registered protocol, but was included in a secondary analysis. All studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. The pooled mean difference for the primary analysis was a reduction in reported nausea of 2.18 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.60 to 2.76), favouring IPA over placebo, where the minimum clinically significant difference was defined as 1.5. The evidence level was graded as moderate, due to imprecision from low patient numbers. Only the study included in the secondary analysis assessed the secondary outcome of vomiting, and did not find a difference between intervention and control. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that IPA likely has a modest effect in reducing nausea in adult ED patients, compared with placebo. Larger multicentre trials are needed, as the evidence is limited by few trials and patients. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022299815.

Inhalation of Isopropyl Alcohol for the Management of Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review.

Background: The use of inhaled isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention for the relief of nausea in various settings. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the existing evidence for the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Methods: We performed a literature search on Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases before November 2021. The following concepts were searched using subject headings and keywords as needed "aromatherapy," "alcohol," "ethylic alcohol," "ethanol," "isopropyl alcohol," "emesis," "chemotherapy-induced," "pregnancy," "hyperemesis gravidarum," "motion sickness," "emetics," "antiemetics," "inhalation," and "inhale." Searches were not limited to a specific language. The bibliographies of identified articles were also manually searched. Two authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias. Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials out of 158 studies identified met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1253 participants. Twelve studies were conducted in the postoperative anesthesia care unit and two studies were performed in the emergency department setting. Four studies were double blinded, one was single blind, and eight were open label. Three studies assessed the use of inhaled IPA for prevention, whereas 10 studies evaluated its use in the treatment of nausea and vomiting. Seven studies reported IPA to be more effective, four studies reported no difference, and two studies reported IPA to be ineffective. Participant satisfaction was high overall, regardless of intervention received. No adverse effects were reported. The overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: There is a lack of strong evidence to support the use of inhaled IPA in the management of nausea and vomiting. Additional trials are warranted to confirm this finding and to further explore the use of inhaled IPA in various populations and settings.

Systematic review on factors influencing the effectiveness of alcohol-based hand rubbing in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of hand rubbing with alcohol-based handrub (ABHR) is impacted by several factors. To investigate these, World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a systematic review. AIM: To evaluate the impact of ABHR volume, application time, rubbing friction and hand size on microbiological load reduction, hand surface coverage or drying time. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science and ScienceDirect databases were searched for healthcare or laboratory-based primary studies, published in English, (1980- February 2021), investigating the impact of ABHR volume, application time, rubbing friction or hand size on bacterial load reduction, hand coverage or drying time. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The results are presented narratively. FINDINGS: Twenty studies were included in the review. Categories included: ABHR volume, application time and rubbing friction. Sub-categories: bacterial load reduction, hand size, drying time or hand surface coverage. All used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Findings showed as ABHR volume increased, bacterial load reduced, and drying times increased. Furthermore, one study showed that the application of sprayed ABHR without hand rubbing resulted in significantly lower bacterial load reduction than poured or sprayed ABHR with hand rubbing (- 0.70; 95%CI: - 1.13 to - 0.28). Evidence was heterogeneous in application time, volume, technique, and product. All studies were assessed as high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to change WHO recommendation of a palmful of ABHR in a cupped hand applied for 20-30 s or manufacturer-recommended volume applied for about 20 s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Future hand hygiene research should standardise volume, application time, and consider hand size.

[STUDY OF URINATION TREATMENT AFTER BCG INTRAVESICAL INSTILLATION THERAPY].

(Background and methods) Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) intravesical instillation therapy is used to treat non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Instilled BCG is typically collected at the time of initial urination and disposed of after sterilization with 10% sodium hypochlorite or household bleach, however, these methods can have unpleasant effects, such as pungent odor, rapid foaming and fever. We investigated whether isopropanol be used to sterilize and dispose of urine after BCG intravesical instillation therapy, because isopropanol at a concentration of 33% or higher (70% isopropanol was used in this study) has the same disinfectant and bactericidal effects against Mycobacterium tuberculosis as 10% sodium hypochlorite or household bleach. (Results) Use of isopropanol eliminated the unpleasant effects experienced with sodium hypochlorite and no growth of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was observed in culture tests. (Conclusion) Isopropanol is safer than sodium hypochlorite, and should be considered for sterilizing and disposing of urine after BCG intravesical instillation therapy in the future. However, fire and ventilation precautions are required.

A Protocol to Set Up Needle-Free Connector with Positive Displacement on Central Venous Catheter in Intensive Care Unit.

Needle-free connectors were initially designed and promoted to avoid blood exposure for healthcare workers. Some recent data suggest that the latest generation of connectors (with positive displacement) may be of interest for reducing central venous line infections. We have been using needle-free connectors for several years in our intensive care unit and here we present a protocol for installing these connectors on central venous catheters. After insertion of the catheter and control of the permeability of the lines, the connectors must be purged with 0.9% NaCl before being connected. The connectors replace all disposable caps used on infusion stopcocks and manifolds. All the connectors are changed every 7 days as recommended by the manufacturer (except when there is macroscopic contamination, which requires an immediate change of the connector). Before each injection, the connector must be disinfected for at least 3 seconds with 70% isopropyl alcohol. The connectors must not be disconnected (unless changed), as the injection is done through the device. Setting up the connectors slightly increases the total time required to place the catheter and there is no formal evidence that these connectors reduce the incidence of infectious or thrombotic complications. However, these devices simplify the management of central venous lines and prevent the catheter circuit from "opening" once it has been sterilely installed.

Current Practices of Antiseptic Use in Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units.

OBJECTIVE: This article assesses the degree of variability in the current practice of skin antiseptics used in Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and different experiences related to each antiseptic used. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed to a clinical representative of each of the 124 Canadian level II and level III NICUs. RESULTS: One hundred and two respondents (82.2%), representing all Canadian provinces, completed the survey. Chlorhexidine gluconate with/without alcohol was the antiseptic most used (96%) and the antiseptic with the highest reported adverse effects (68% reported skin burns/breakdown). Other antiseptics used include povidone-iodine (35%) and isopropyl alcohol (22%). Specific guidelines for antiseptic use were available in only 50% of the units with many NICUs lacking gestational and/or chronological age restrictions. Only 23% of responders believed that there was awareness among health care providers of the adverse effects of antiseptics used. Less than half (43%) were completely satisfied with the antiseptics used in their units. CONCLUSION: Chlorhexidine gluconate is the most commonly used antiseptic in Canadian NICUs. The high number of associated adverse effects and the lack of guidelines regulating antiseptic use are of concern. Large clinical trials are urgently needed to guide practice and improve the safety of antiseptics.

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).

Comparison of chlorhexidine-isopropanol with isopropanol skin antisepsis for prevention of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of surgical-site infection (SSI) has received increasing attention. Clinical trials have focused on the role of skin antisepsis in preventing SSI. The benefit of combining antiseptic chlorhexidine with alcohol has not been compared with alcohol-based skin preparation alone in a prospective controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Between August and October 2014, patients undergoing abdominal surgery received preoperative skin antisepsis with 70 per cent isopropanol (PA). Those treated between November 2014 and January 2015 received 2 per cent chlorhexidine with 70 per cent isopropanol (CA). The primary endpoint was SSI on postoperative day (POD) 10, which was evaluated using univariable analysis, and a multivariable logistic regression model correcting for known independent risk factors for SSI. The study protocol was published in the German Registry of Clinical Studies (DRKS00011174). RESULTS: In total, 500 patients undergoing elective midline laparotomy were included (CA 221, PA 279). The incidence of superficial and deep SSIs was significantly different on POD 10: 14 of 212 (6·6 per cent) among those treated with CA and 32 of 260 (12·3 per cent) in those who received PA (P = 0·038). In the multivariable analysis, skin antisepsis with CA was an independent factor for reduced incidence of SSI on POD 10 (P = 0·034). CONCLUSION: This study showed a benefit of adding chlorhexidine to alcohol for skin antisepsis in reducing early SSI compared with alcohol alone.

Aromatherapy Versus Oral Ondansetron for Antiemetic Therapy Among Adult Emergency Department Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We compare aromatherapy with inhaled isopropyl alcohol versus oral ondansetron for treating nausea among emergency department (ED) patients not requiring immediate intravenous access. METHODS: In a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of adults presenting to an urban tertiary care ED with chief complaints including nausea or vomiting. We randomized subjects to 1 of 3 arms: inhaled isopropyl alcohol and 4 mg oral ondansetron, inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral placebo, and inhaled saline solution placebo and 4 mg oral ondansetron. The primary outcome was mean nausea reduction measured by a 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale from enrollment to 30 minutes postintervention. Secondary outcomes included receipt of rescue antiemetic medications and adverse events. RESULTS: We enrolled 122 subjects, of whom 120 (98.3%) completed the study. Of randomized subjects, 40 received inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral ondansetron, 41 received inhaled isopropyl alcohol and oral placebo, and 41 received inhaled saline solution placebo and oral ondansetron. The mean decrease in nausea visual analog scale score in each arm was 30 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 22 to 37 mm), 32 mm (95% CI 25 to 39 mm), and 9 mm (95% CI 5 to 14 mm), respectively. The proportions of subjects who received rescue antiemetic therapy in each arm were 27.5% (95% CI 14.6% to 43.9%), 25.0% (95% CI 12.7% to 41.2%), and 45.0% (95% CI 29.3% to 61.5%), respectively. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among ED patients with acute nausea and not requiring immediate intravenous access, aromatherapy with or without oral ondansetron provides greater nausea relief than oral ondansetron alone.

Features of Terra Firma-Forme Dermatosis.

Terra-firma-forme dermatosis (TFFD) is a little known hyperpigmented skin disease that is more common than expected. We examined retrospectively the medical records of 79 patients: 88.6% were children, the mean age was 10.4 years (SD = 7.5 years), and 64.6% were female. The dermatoses were found on the trunk in 27.8%, extremities in 26.6%, fold zones in 8.9%, and head in 2.5% of the patients. The lesions appeared in more than 1 location in 34.2% of the patients and were symmetrically located 77.2% of the time. Swabbing with alcohol is sufficient for diagnosis and treatment. TFFD, mostly seen in children and female patients, should be kept in mind to avoid unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment.

Terra Firma-Forme Dermatosis in Singaporean Patients: The "Alcohol Wipe" Sign.

The term terra firma-forme dermatosis arises from the Latin phrase terra firma, meaning dry land (dirt), thus implying dirt-like dermatosis. The authors highlight five cases of patients with terra firma-forme dermatosis presenting to our dermatology center between 2012 and 2013. All patients presented to the dermatologist for persistent reticulated brown patches on the skin. These patients ranged in age from 6 to 22 years. All patients had tried various cleansing soaps and agents but were unable to remove the patches. The condition was cosmetically unacceptable to the patients and parents. Clinically, these patients had reticulated brown patches. Rubbing 70% isopropyl alcohol wipes on the affected areas demonstrated clearance of the brown pigmented patches in all cases. The diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis (TFFD) was confirmed by forceful rubbing with a gauze pad immersed in 70% isopropyl alcohol or ethyl alcohol. Patients should be reassured about the benign nature of TFFD and educated about the cleaning procedure. Recognition of this condition can assist physicians in making a diagnosis and therapy with a simple alcohol wipe, preventing further unnecessary tests for patients.

Non-invasive methods to establish the diagnosis of terra firma-forme dermatosis: The SMART (Skin Modified by Alcohol Rubbing Test) evaluation and dermoscopy.

Terra firma-forme dermatosis may mimic a variety of hyper pigmented dermatoses.  The diagnosis can be characterized using dermoscopy and confirmed with the SMART (Skin Modified by Alcohol Rubbing Test) evaluation.  When terra firma-forme dermatosis (Duncan's dirty dermatosis) is clinically suspected, clearance of the dermatosis follows rubbing the affected skin with 70% isopropyl alcohol.