Incorporation of skin preparation guidelines in local surgical facility protocols: what kind of barriers does it face? A multi-centre study in France.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most frequent and severe adverse event after surgery. Among preventive measures, the preoperative skin preparation (PSP) is known to be heterogeneously implemented in routine practice. A prerequisite would be the actual incorporation of guidelines in French surgical local protocols. AIM: To assess whether PSP recommendations have been incorporated in local protocols and to identify the reasons for the non-incorporation. METHODS: An online survey was proposed to all infection control teams (ICTs) in facilities participating in the French national surveillance and prevention of SSI network Spicmi. The reference recommendations were based on the French Society for Hospital Hygiene guidelines. FINDINGS: In all, 485 healthcare facilities completed the questionnaire. The incorporation of recommendations in the facility protocol varied between 30% and 98% according to the recommendation. The measures most frequently incorporated were antisepsis with an alcoholic product and cessation of systematic hair removal. The least frequently incorporated were the use of plain soap for preoperative shower and the non-compulsory skin cleaning in the operating room. Barriers reported were either specific to PSP (e.g. 'Concern about an increase of SSI', 'Scepticism about recommendations', 'Force of habit') or non-specific (e.g. 'The protocol not yet due to be updated'). CONCLUSION: We suggest that although some major prevention measures have been incorporated in the local protocol of most facilities, local protocols still frequently include some non-evidence based former recommendations. Communication about evolution of SSI rates, diffusion of guidelines by learned societies, and exchange with judiciary experts could make clear the conditions for applying recommendations.

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.).

Comparison of Endophthalmitis Rates after Alcohol-Based Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine Antisepsis for Intravitreal Injections.

OBJECTIVE: Intravitreal injections (IVIs) are the most frequently performed intraocular procedure in Canada. Povidone-iodine (PI) is the current gold standard for antisepsis for IVI and is widely used; chlorhexidine (CH) is a possible alternative antiseptic agent. This study aims to compare rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 0.05% chlorhexidine with a 4% alcohol base antisepsis to rates of endophthalmitis after IVI with 10% PI antisepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Eyes that received IVI between May 2019 and October 2022 at a group retina practice in Edmonton, Canada. METHODS: Eyes at a single center received focal conjunctival application of either 10% PI antisepsis or 0.05% CH in 4% alcohol antisepsis for 30 seconds before each IVI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rates of endophthalmitis between the PI and CH groups. RESULTS: A total of 170 952 IVIs were performed during the study period. A total of 31 135 were performed using CH prophylaxis compared with 139 817 with PI prophylaxis. Among all IVIs there were 49 total cases of endophthalmitis, 29 in the PI group (0.021%) and 20 in the CH group (0.064%). There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of endophthalmitis between the 2 groups (P < 0.001). The odds ratio for developing endophthalmitis with CH antisepsis was 3.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-5.2) compared with PI antisepsis. There were increased odds of developing endophthalmitis with aflibercept injection compared with bevacizumab (odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-7.24). CONCLUSIONS: There is a statistically significant difference in rates of endophthalmitis between alcohol-based CH and PI antisepsis for IVI in our patient population utilizing the methods discussed. In our center, alcohol-based CH is now considered a second-line antiseptic agent. Further studies are warranted to further assess the endophthalmitis rate utilizing these 2 antiseptic agents. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Biopsia en ortopedia y riesgo de contaminación bacteriana durante el muestreo de tejidos: hechos y estrategias / Biopsy in orthopaedics and risk of bacterial contamination during tissue sampling: facts and strategies

Las biopsias en el campo de la ortopedia se utilizan para guiar las opciones de diagnóstico y tratamiento para el proceso de la enfermedad que puede estar ocurriendo. La preparación de la piel de estas biopsias sigue la preparación estándar para un procedimiento quirúrgico, con el objetivo de disminuir la cantidad de microbiota que podría conducir a la contaminación del tejido de la biopsia e incluso a una posible infección. El tejido obtenido de la biopsia a menudo se somete a un studio histopatológico y cultivo. La tasa de contaminación bacteriana informada es aproximadamente inferior al 4%. Esta revisión cuestiona si las muestras de las biopsias se contaminan con la microbiota que permanece en la piel y cómo puede afectar el manejo. Además, qué técnicas o pasos pueden disminuir la tasa de contaminación al realizar una biopsia. Nuestra revisión bibliográfica identificó pocos estudios sobre la contaminación bacteriana de las biopsias. Identificamos diferentes factores implicados en el conocimiento de la microbiota de la piel: técnicas y soluciones de preparación de la piel, variación de la microbiota típica que coloniza la piel según la región anatómica, retención preoperatoria versus administración profiláctica de antibióticos y uso de diferentes hojas de bisturí para la piel superficial y para tejidos profundos, entre otros. Aunque no pudimos identificar ningún dato que proporcionara respuestas a nuestra pregunta original y cuantificar cada factor individualmente, la mayoría de los estudios en diferentes campos ortopédicos proporcionaron hallazgos significativos hasta cierto punto. Describimos algunas recomendaciones prácticas basadas en el consenso y la efectividad teórica para disminuir la tasa de contaminación. Se necesitan más investigaciones en el campo de la ortopedia que impliquen la contaminación por microbiota de la piel de una biopsia

Biopsies in the field of orthopaedics are used to guide diagnostics and treatment options for the disease process that may be occurring such as a tumor or infection. Skin preparation of these biopsies follows the standard skin preparation for a surgical procedure, with the aim to decrease the amount of microbiota that could lead to contamination of the tissue biopsy and even possible infection. The tissue obtained from the biopsy often undergoes pathology and culture. The reported bacterial contamination rate is roughly below 4%. This review questions how samples from the biopsies are getting contaminated by microbiota that remains on the skin and how it affects infection management. In addition, which techniques or steps can decrease the rate of contamination when performing a biopsy. Our review identified little to no data on investigating bacterial contamination of biopsies. In doing this, the review identified different factors implicated in skin microbiota awareness: skin preparation techniques and solutions, variation of typical microbiota that colonize the skin based on the anatomical region, preoperative withholding versus administrating antibiotics prophylactically and using different scalpel blades for superficial and deep incisions, among others. Although we failed to identify any data that provided answers to our original question and quantify each factor individually, most studies in different orthopaedic fields provided significant findings to some extent. We outline some practical recommendations based on consensus and theoretical effectiveness in decreasing the contamination rate. Further research entailing skin microbiota contamination of a biopsy is needed in the field of orthopaedics.

Disinfection, sterilization and antisepsis: An overview.

BACKGROUND: Each year in the United States there are approximately 100,000,000 outpatient/inpatient surgical procedures. Each of these procedures involves contact by a medical device or surgical instrument with a patient's sterile tissue and/or mucous membrane. A major risk of all such procedures is the introduction of infection. METHODS: We searched published literature for articles on the use and effectiveness of disinfectants, sterilization methods and antiseptics. RESULTS: The level of disinfection is dependent on the intended use of the object: critical (items that contact sterile tissue such as surgical instruments), semicritical (items that contact mucous membrane such as endoscopes), and noncritical (devices that contact only intact skin such as stethoscopes) items require sterilization, high-level disinfection and low-level disinfection, respectively. Cleaning must always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Antiseptics are essential to infection prevention as part of a hand hygiene program as well as other uses such as surgical hand antisepsis and pre-operative patient skin preparation. CONCLUSIONS: When properly used, disinfection and sterilization can ensure the safe use of invasive and non-invasive medical devices. Cleaning should always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Strict adherence to current disinfection and sterilization guidelines is essential to prevent patient infections and exposures to infectious agents.

Best products for skin antisepsis.

BACKGROUND: Skin antiseptics are used for several purposes before surgical procedures, for bathing high-risk patients as a means of reducing central line-associated infections and other health care associated infections. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to update the evidence on skin antiseptic products and practices. RESULTS: Current guidelines for prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs) recommend preoperative baths or showers with a plain or antimicrobial soap prior to surgery, but do not make recommendations on the timing of baths, the total number of baths needed, or about the use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CGH)-impregnated cloths. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that pre-operative surgical hand antisepsis using an antimicrobial soap or alcohol-based hand rub yields similar SSI rates. Other studies have reported that using an alcohol-based hand rub caused less skin irritation, was easier to use, and required shorter scrub times than using antimicrobial soap. Current SSI prevention guidelines recommend using an alcohol-containing antiseptic for surgical site infection. Commonly used products contain isopropanol combined with either CHG or with povidone-iodine. Surgical site preparation protocols for shoulder surgery in men may need to include coverage for anaerobes. Several studies suggest the need to monitor and improve surgical site preparation techniques. Daily bathing of intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a CHG-containing soap reduces the incidence of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Evidence for a similar effect in non-ICU patients is mixed. Despite widespread CHG bathing of ICU patients, numerous barriers to its effective implementation exist. Measuring CHG levels on the skin is useful for identifying gaps in coverage and suboptimal skin concentrations. Using alcohol-based products with at least 2% CHG for skin preparation prior to central line insertion reduces CLABSIs. CONCLUSIONS: Progress has been made on skin antisepsis products and protocols, but improvements in technique are still needed.

Picture of Peri-Operative Antisepsis Practices (PPAP Survey) in France.

Abstract Background: Surgical skin preparation is performed according to peri-operative antisepsis protocols. These protocols are based on clinical practice recommendations and may vary from institution to institution. Materials and Methods: The objective of the survey, conducted among 481 surgeons and 98 scrub nurses of five specialties (cardiac, gastrointestinal, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, and urology) in France was to take stock of practices to identify the protocols used for surgical skin preparation, such as measures relating to pre-operative showering, hair removal, or antisepsis of the operating area. Results: Two pre-operative showers with hair washing are usually carried out on the same day as the procedure (63%) or the day before the procedure (37%), mostly with an antiseptic (54%, soap 42%). Hair removal and cleaning/scrubbing are most often performed before the procedure (in 62% and 79% of cases, respectively). Alcoholic povidone-iodine is the most widely used antiseptic, and 81% of surgeons opt for complete spontaneous drying. Before making the incision, 41% of surgeons use drapes and 62% opt for an operative field irrigation technique during or at the end of the procedure. Surgeons mainly use running subcuticular sutures or running locking sutures (39%) and 93% use dressings. Thirty-six percent of the surgeons surveyed said the antisepsis protocols described were likely to be adapted. Conclusions: The results showed that international and French recommendations are mostly well followed by surgeons and scrub nurses in France. However, some differences are observed between surgical specialties, depending on the clinical situations encountered and the type of practice.

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.

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.

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.

Optimizing skin antisepsis for neonatal surgery: A quality improvement initiative.

PURPOSE: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are a significant determinant of morbidity in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Chlorhexidine gluconate/isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) skin prep has demonstrated superiority over Povidone-Iodine (PI) in preventing SSIs in adults, however FDA labeling discourages CHG use in infants <2 months. This project aimed to i) create evidence for safe CHG skin antisepsis in neonates; and ii) evaluate the safety and effectiveness of CHG skin prep for neonatal surgery. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of neonatal CHG skin antisepsis. Following stakeholder engagement, a CHG surgical skin prep protocol and validated neonatal skin integrity tool to assess prep-associated skin injury were implemented in 50 consecutive, eligible neonates ≥1500 g and ≥34 weeks post conceptual age undergoing abdominal or thoracic surgery. SSI rates were compared to a matched, historical PI skin prep cohort. RESULTS: 2%CHG-70%IPA or 0.5%CHG-70%IPA were used based on gestational age cutoffs. None of the CHG patients experienced adverse skin prep outcomes while 8% developed SSIs, compared to 14% in the historical PI cohort. CONCLUSION: This project engaged NICU stakeholders in quality improvement work and informed the implementation of a safe and effective CHG skin prep protocol for neonatal surgery. LOE: IV.

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.

Aqueous chlorhexidine 1% versus 2% for neonatal skin antisepsis: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether 1% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) when compared with 2% aqueous chlorhexidine gluconate is non-inferior for neonatal skin antisepsis. DESIGN: Parallel, blinded, non-inferiority randomised trial. SETTING: Level III, academic, neonatal intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Infants born at 260/7 to 426/7 weeks of gestation from June 2019 to December 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to skin antisepsis by either 1% aqueous CHG or 2% aqueous CHG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of negative skin swab cultures after skin antisepsis. Secondary outcomes were local skin reactions at 0, 6, 12 and 24 hours and plasma chlorhexidine levels in a subset of the study population. RESULTS: A total of 308 neonates with a median gestation age of 34 (31-37) weeks and mean birth weight of 2029 g were randomised on 685 occasions (1% CHG: n=341; 2% CHG: n=344). 93.0% of the post-antisepsis skin swabs were sterile in 1% CHG group compared with 95.6% of the swabs in the 2% CHG group (risk difference -2.7%, 95% CI -6.2% to +0.8%). The lower bound of 95% CI crossed the pre-specified absolute non-inferiority limit of 5%. Neonates developed mild dermatitis on 16 (2.3%) occasions. There was no significant difference in median plasma CHG levels in the two groups, 19.6 (12.5-36.4) and 12.6 (8.7-26.6) ng/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Application of 1% aqueous CHG was not shown to be non-inferior to 2% chlorhexidine aqueous for skin antisepsis in neonates. There were no severe skin-related adverse events in either of the two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2019/06/019822; (http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pmaindet2.php?trialid=33453&EncHid=&userName=CTRI/2019/06/019822).

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.

Alcohol (70%) versus alcoholic chlorhexidine solution (0.5%) in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks: a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: to compare the use of 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol in skin antisepsis for neuraxial blocks. METHOD: this is a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial, with two parallel arms. Seventy patients who were candidates for neuraxial block were randomly allocated to group A (n = 35), in whom antisepsis was performed with 0.5% alcoholic chlorhexidine, or to group B (n = 35), in whom we used 70% hydrated ethyl alcohol. Swabs were harvested for culture at three times: before antisepsis, two minutes after application of the antiseptic, and immediately after puncture. The samples were sown in three culture media and the number of colony forming units (CFU) per cm² was counted. RESULTS: there was no difference between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, time to perform the block or type of block. There were no differences between groups in the CFU/cm² counts before antisepsis. There was less bacterial growth in group B two minutes after application of the antiseptic (p = 0.048), but there was no difference between the groups regarding the number of CFU/cm² at the end of the puncture. CONCLUSION: 70% alcohol was more effective in reducing the number of CFU/cm² after two minutes, and there was no difference between the two groups regarding skin colonization at the end of the procedure. These results suggest that 70% alcohol may be an option for skin antisepsis before neuraxial blocks. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02833376.