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.).

Effect of Water and Chlorhexidine with Different Pressures of Oral Irrigation Device on the Surface Roughness and Topography of Giomer

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the effect of different pressures of an oral irrigation device (OID) and the irrigation solution type on the surface roughness of the giomer restorative material. Material and Methods: In this in vitro study, disk-shaped giomer samples were fabricated and assigned to 5 groups (n=23): Group 1, storage in distilled water (control); Group 2, OID #7 pressure/ water; Group 3, OID #10 pressure/ water; Group 4, OID #7 pressure/ 0.05% CHX; Group 5, OID #10 pressure/ 0.05% CHX. The samples' treatment simulated a one-year application of OID. Surface roughness (Ra) and topography of the giomer were evaluated using profilometry and scanning electron microscopy. The data were analyzed with Paired t-test, Tukey, and ANOVA tests (α=0.05). Results: The Ra of the samples increased significantly after treatment with OID (p<0.001). The roughness increase in groups with a pressure of 10 was higher than those with a pressure of 7 (p<0.001). The effect of pressure on surface changes was significant (p<0.001). However, the solution type and the cumulative effect of these two factors were insignificant (p=0.08 and p=0.43, respectively). Conclusion: Oral irrigation device with both solutions significantly increased the surface roughness and topographic changes of the giomer. The severity of these changes was related to the device's pressure.

The Effects of Antimicrobial Mouthwashes on Systemic Disease: What Is the Evidence?

The potential association between antimicrobial mouthwash use and systemic health has gained attention in recent years with reports highlighting how some common systemic conditions are influenced by the use of different types of mouthwashes. In this context, links between mouthwash use and cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, oral cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and preeclampsia have been proposed, albeit with limited levels of evidence. Chlorhexidine mouthwash in particular has been the most widely studied agent while available data on other types of over-the-counter mouthwashes are generally scarce. Furthermore, there is currently no evidence-based recommendations on the appropriate use of mouthwashes during pregnancy. This article will present the current evidence on the association between mouthwash use and the aforementioned conditions with emphasis on the mechanisms that may underlie such an association.

Avaliação antimicrobiana de uma resina Bulk Fill Fluida com inserção do xilitol / Antimicrobial evaluation of a Fluid Bulk Fill resin with xylitol insertion

Introdução: As resinas Bulk Fill apresentam uma boa procura pelos profissionais, pois o seu uso diminui o tempo clínico, como também a melhora qualidade das restaurações, porém não possuem atividade antibacteriana, sendo um dos fatores que ainda causam impacto negativo na vida das pessoas. A biomodificação com o xilitol tem o sentido de produzir ação microbiana e com isso aperfeiçoar as suas características clínicas. Objetivo: Avaliar a ação antimicrobiana de uma resina Bulk Fill flow após a inserção do xilitol. Metodologia: A resina Tetric® N-Flow Bulk Fill foi misturada às concentrações de xilitol (0% [Controle], 2,5% e 5% p/p). Amostras cilíndricas (n=5 do grupo controle e n=3 dos demais grupos experimentais) foram confeccionadas em moldes acrílicos de diâmetro de 2mm espessura, fotoativadas por 10s e armazenadas a 37ºC por 24h. Os espécimes foram esterilizados por luz ultravioleta por 20 minutos antes de serem acomodadas em uma placa de 48 poços estéril, sendo adicionado em cada poço 0,5mL de caldo Mueller Hinton. Então, adicionou-se 50µL do inóculo de S. mutans nos poços correspondentes. A placa foi incubada a 37 ± 1 ˚C durante 48 horas. Após o período de incubação, os espécimes foram gentilmente removidos e o crescimento microbiano foi indicado pela adição de 100µL da solução aquosa de resazurina (SigmaAldrich) a 0,01% com a posterior incubação a 37 ± 1 ˚C por duas horas. Micro-organismos viáveis reduzem o corante mudando sua coloração azul para rosa e a CIM foi definida como a menor concentração da substância que inibiu a mudança de coloração da resazurina. Em um poço contendo o grupo controle foi acrescentado clorexidina a 0,12% com o intuito de comparar o resultado gerado dos grupos testes. Resultado: Não houve inibição do crescimento bacteriano nos poços com inóculos que continham S. mutans e corpo de prova de resina acrescida de xilitol. Conclusão: Esse estudo mostrou que o acréscimo de 2,5% e 5% de Xilitol à resina Tetric® N-Flow Bulk Fill não apresentou inibição do crescimento bacteriano (AU).

Introduction: Bulk Fill resins are in good demand among professionals, as their use reduces clinical time and improves the quality of restorations, but they do not have antibacterial activity, which is one of the factors that still hurt people's lives. Biomodification with xylitol aims to improve its clinical characteristics. Objective: To evaluate the antimicrobial action of a Bulk Fill flow resin after inserting xylitol. Methodology: Tetric® N-Flow Bulk Fill resin was mixed with xylitol concentrations (0% [Control], 2.5% and 5% w/w). Cylindrical samples (n=5 from the control group and n=3 from the other groups) were made in acrylic molds with a diameter of 2 mm thick, light-cured for 10 s and stored at 37ºC for 24h. The specimens were sterilized by ultraviolet light for 20 minutes before being placed in a sterile 48-well plate, with 0.5 mL of Mueller Hinton broth added to each well. The plate was incubated at 37 ± 1 ˚C for 48 hours. After the incubation period, the specimens were gently removed, and microbial growth was indicated by adding 100 µL of 0.01% resazurin aqueous solution with subsequent incubation at 37 ± 1 ˚C for two hours. Viable microorganisms reduce the dye, changing its color from blue to pink. The MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of the substance that inhibited the color change of resazurin. In 0.12%, chlorhexidine was added to a well containing the control group to compare the results generated from the test groups. Result: There was no inhibition of bacterial growth in the wells with inocula containing S. mutans and the resin specimen with xylitol added. Conclusion: This study showed that adding 2.5% and 5% Xylitol to the Tetric® N-Flow Bulk Fill resin did not inhibit bacterial growth (AU).

Patch Testing to Chlorhexidine Digluconate, 1% Aqueous: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2015-2020.

Background: Chlorhexidine is an antiseptic that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of chlorhexidine allergy and characterize positive patch test reactions. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients patch tested to chlorhexidine digluconate 1% aqueous by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2015-2020. Results: Of 14,731 patients tested to chlorhexidine digluconate, 107 (0.7%) had an allergic reaction; of these, 56 (52.3%) reactions were currently clinically relevant. Most (59%) reactions were mild (+), followed by strong (++, 18.7%) and very strong (+++, 6.5%). Common primary dermatitis anatomic sites in chlorhexidine-positive patients were hands (26.4%), face (24.5%), and scattered/generalized distribution (17.9%). Compared with negative patients, chlorhexidine-positive patients were significantly more likely to have dermatitis involving the trunk (11.3% vs 5.1%; P = 0.0036). The most commonly identified source category was skin/health care products (n = 41, 38.3%). Only 11 (10.3%) chlorhexidine reactions were occupationally related; of these, 81.8% were in health care workers. Conclusions: Chlorhexidine digluconate allergy is uncommon, but often clinically relevant. Involvement of the hands, face, and scattered generalized patterns was frequent. Occupationally related reactions were found predominantly in health care workers.

It is not always chlorhexidine: Identification of benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide as culprit allergens in a popular antiseptic in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: A popular antiseptic spray in Switzerland (Merfen spray), containing chlorhexidine digluconate, benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide, is frequently used to treat skin wounds. However, it is also increasingly reported as a major cause of adverse skin reactions, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the contact allergens responsible for ACD from this antiseptic. PATIENTS/METHODS: Patch tests were performed on seven patients with a clinical history compatible with contact dermatitis from this antiseptic mixture. RESULTS: All patients presented with acute eczematous reactions following contact with either Merfen spray alone, or with multiple products including this spray. Patients showed positive reactions to this product in both patch tests and repeated open application tests (ROATs). Four patients showed dose-dependent reactions to both benzoxonium chloride and lauramine oxide. One patient showed a dose-dependent reaction to the former and a non-dose-dependent reaction to the latter. Finally, two subjects showed responses only to lauramine oxide. One patient reacted to chlorhexidine digluconate 0.5% aq. in addition to both other allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Two commercially unavailable allergens, that is, benzoxonium chloride and/or lauramine oxide were identified as major causes of ACD from Merfen antiseptic spray, whereas chlorhexidine digluconate was a contributing culprit in only one patient.

A comparison of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine solutions in neonatal intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Povidone-iodine (10%; PI) and 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IA) solutions are among the most widely used disinfectants in the neonatal intensive care units. This study compares the use of these disinfectants and helps decide which is superior to the other for neonatal use. METHODS: All term and preterm infants born and hospitalized in Bursa Uludag University Hospital between July 2018-March 2020 were included. The infants were randomized into two disinfectant groups before birth. The application site was cleaned with the assigned disinfectant before intervention. The infants were screened for rates of neonatal sepsis, thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels, free thyroxine (fT4) levels, skin reactions to the assigned solution, and acute neurological side effects. RESULTS: We enrolled 208 term and preterm infants (PI:104 vs. CHG-IA: 104) in the study. The prematurity rates were identical (PI: 74.0%; CHG-IA: 72.1%; p = 0.755). Neonatal sepsis rates among these groups were not statistically different (PI: 8.7%; CHG-IA: 4.8%; p = 0.406). The median TSH value of the PI group was high (4.05 mIU/L) in comparison with that of the CHG-IA group (3.09 mIU/L; p = 0.016). No cutaneous or neurological side effects were recorded in patients treated with CHG-IA solution. CONCLUSIONS: Although these two solutions were equally protective against infections, the CHG-IA solution was a better alternative to PI for neonatal use. Considering that the PI solution may be responsible for impaired thyroid function, the CHG-IA solution is a good alternative because it provides sufficient protection with a safer adverse effect profile.

Bacterial Decolonization for Prevention of Radiation Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence-based approaches for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) are limited, and additional strategies are necessary to optimize care. Objective: To determine the efficacy of bacterial decolonization (BD) to reduce ARD severity compared with standard of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2/3 randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 2019 to August 2021 with investigator blinding at an urban academic cancer center and enrolled patients with breast cancer or head and neck cancer receiving radiation therapy (RT) with curative intent. Analysis was performed on January 7, 2022. Interventions: Intranasal mupirocin ointment twice daily and chlorhexidine body cleanser once daily for 5 days prior to RT and repeated for 5 days every 2 weeks through RT. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome as planned prior to data collection was the development of grade 2 or higher ARD. Based on wide clinical variability of grade 2 ARD, this was refined to grade 2 ARD with moist desquamation (grade 2-MD). Results: Of 123 patients assessed for eligibility via convenience sampling, 3 were excluded, and 40 refused to participate, with 80 patients in our final volunteer sample. Of 77 patients with cancer (75 patients with breast cancer [97.4%] and 2 patients with head and neck cancer [2.6%]) who completed RT, 39 were randomly assigned BC, and 38 were randomly assigned standard of care; the mean (SD) age of the patients was 59.9 (11.9) years, and 75 (97.4%) were female. Most patients were Black (33.7% [n = 26]) or Hispanic (32.5% [n = 25]). Among patients with breast cancer and patients with head and neck cancer (N = 77), none of the 39 patients treated with BD and 9 of the 38 patients (23.7%) treated with standard of care developed ARD grade 2-MD or higher (P = .001). Similar results were observed among the 75 patients with breast cancer (ie, none treated with BD and 8 [21.6%] receiving standard of care developed ARD grade ≥2-MD; P = .002). The mean (SD) ARD grade was significantly lower for patients treated with BD (1.2 [0.7]) compared with patients receiving standard of care (1.6 [0.8]) (P = .02). Of the 39 patients randomly assigned to BD, 27 (69.2%) reported regimen adherence, and only 1 patient (2.5%) experienced an adverse event related to BD (ie, itch). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that BD is effective for ARD prophylaxis, specifically for patients with breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03883828.

Antiseptic solutions for skin preparation during central catheter insertion in neonates.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVC) are associated with potentially dangerous complications such as thromboses, pericardial effusions, extravasation, and infections in neonates. Indwelling catheters are amongst the main risk factors for nosocomial infections. The use of skin antiseptics during the preparation for central catheter insertion may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) and central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). However, it is still not clear which antiseptic solution is the best to prevent infection with minimal side effects. OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of different antiseptic solutions in preventing CRBSI and other related outcomes in neonates with CVC. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries up to 22 April 2022. We checked reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews that related to the intervention or population examined in this Cochrane Review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in this review if they were performed in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and were comparing any antiseptic solution (single or in combination) against any other type of antiseptic solution or no antiseptic solution or placebo in preparation for central catheter insertion. We excluded cross-over trials and quasi-RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods from Cochrane Neonatal. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials that had two different comparisons: 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) versus 10% povidone-iodine (PI) (two trials); and CHG-IPA versus 2% chlorhexidine in aqueous solution (CHG-A) (one trial). A total of 466 neonates from level III NICUs were evaluated. All included trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence for the primary and some important secondary outcomes ranged from very low to moderate. There were no included trials that compared antiseptic skin solutions with no antiseptic solution or placebo. CHG-IPA versus 10% PI Compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI (risk ratio (RR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 3.25; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06; 352 infants, 2 trials, low-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.68; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 304 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.08; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.11; 48 infants, 1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.48; RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 352 infants, 2 trials, very low-certainty evidence), compared to PI. Based on a single trial, infants receiving CHG-IPA appeared less likely to develop thyroid dysfunction compared to PI (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.85; RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.02; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 17, 95% CI 10 to 50; 304 infants). Neither of the two included trials assessed the outcome of premature central line removal or the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. CHG-IPA versus CHG-A The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.87; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence) and CLABSI (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.84; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.15; 106 infants, 1 trial, low-certainty evidence), compared to CHG-A. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in premature catheter removal (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.19; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.13; 106 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence) and chemical burns (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.03; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.18; 114 infants, 1 trial, moderate-certainty evidence). No trial assessed the outcome of all-cause mortality and the proportion of infants or catheters with exit-site infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, compared to PI, CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in CRBSI and mortality. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CHG-IPA on CLABSI and chemical burns. One trial showed a statistically significant increase in thyroid dysfunction with the use of PI compared to CHG-IPA. The evidence suggests CHG-IPA may result in little to no difference in the rate of proven CRBSI and CLABSI when applied on the skin of neonates prior to central line insertion. Compared to CHG-A, CHG-IPA probably results in little to no difference in chemical burns and premature catheter removal. Further trials that compare different antiseptic solutions are required, especially in low- and middle-income countries, before stronger conclusions can be made.

Life-threatening chlorhexidine anaphylaxis caused by skin preparation before chlorhexidine-free central venous catheter insertion: a case report and literature review.

Chlorhexidine is a common cause of perioperative anaphylaxis, and global regulatory authorities have issued warnings about anaphylaxis due to chlorhexidine-containing central venous catheters (CVC) and its mucosal absorption. We present a case of life-threatening anaphylaxis after CVC insertion caused by chlorhexidine used for skin preparation. The onset of anaphylaxis was rapid and very severe, resulting in pulseless electrical activity. The patient was successfully resuscitated by emergency veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Our case suggests that even skin preparation before chlorhexidine-free CVC insertion can cause life-threatening anaphylaxis. We reviewed the literature on chlorhexidine anaphylaxis cases and categorized all potential routes of chlorhexidine exposure to assess the risk following skin preparation. Our results showed that skin preparation before CVC insertion was the third most common cause of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis after transurethral exposure and chlorhexidine-containing CVCs. However, skin preparation with chlorhexidine before CVC insertion was sometimes overlooked as a cause of chlorhexidine anaphylaxis, and its risk might be underestimated. Further, no previous reports have described life-threatening anaphylaxis solely due to chlorhexidine skin preparation before CVC insertion. CVC insertion might cause the chlorhexidine used for skin preparation to reach the vascular system and should be recognized as a potential cause of life-threatening chlorhexidine anaphylaxis.

Chlorhexidine bathing in a tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding potential risk of dermal irritation have led to the exclusion of NICU patients from the recommendation regarding the use of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) wash for daily skin cleansing to reduce bloodstream infections. Our aim was to assess the safety of 2% CHG bathing in NICU patients. METHODS: The regulator required a stepwise study enrollment to three successive groups: term infants, followed by near-term and pre-term infants. For comparison, we used a cohort of matched controls. A propensity score-adjusted regression model was used to compare the groups. INTERVENTION: Infants were bathed thrice-weekly with 2% CHG-impregnated washcloths. Participant's skin was examined daily. RESULTS: Over a total of 661 days of treatment: 384,129, and 148 days for the term, near-term and pre-term groups, respectively, no skin reactions were observed. The intervention group was generally sicker, however, bloodstream infections were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: For infants >30 weeks and >3 days old, 2% CHG bathing was safe. Large multicenter studies are urgently needed to establish the effectiveness of this practice in the NICU.

Inhibition of Transglutaminase 2 Reduces Peritoneal Injury in a Chlorhexidine-Induced Peritoneal Fibrosis Model.

Long-term peritoneal dialysis (PD) is often associated with peritoneal dysfunction leading to withdrawal from PD. The characteristic pathologic features of peritoneal dysfunction are widely attributed to peritoneal fibrosis and angiogenesis. The detailed mechanisms remain unclear, and treatment targets in clinical settings have yet to be identified. We investigated transglutaminase 2 (TG2) as a possible novel therapeutic target for peritoneal injury. TG2 and fibrosis, inflammation, and angiogenesis were investigated in a chlorhexidine gluconate (CG)-induced model of peritoneal inflammation and fibrosis, representing a noninfectious model of PD-related peritonitis. Transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß type I receptor (TGFßR-I) inhibitor and TG2-knockout mice were used for TGF-ß and TG2 inhibition studies, respectively. Double immunostaining was performed to identify cells expressing TG2 and endothelial-mesenchymal transition (EndMT). In the rat CG model of peritoneal fibrosis, in situ TG2 activity and protein expression increased during the development of peritoneal fibrosis, as well as increases in peritoneal thickness and numbers of blood vessels and macrophages. TGFßR-I inhibitor suppressed TG2 activity and protein expression, as well as peritoneal fibrosis and angiogenesis. TGF-ß1 expression, peritoneal fibrosis, and angiogenesis were suppressed in TG2-knockout mice. TG2 activity was detected by α-smooth muscle actin-positive myofibroblasts, CD31-positive endothelial cells, and ED-1-positive macrophages. CD31-positive endothelial cells in the CG model were α-smooth muscle actin-positive, vimentin-positive, and vascular endothelial-cadherin-negative, suggesting EndMT. In the CG model, EndMT was suppressed in TG2-knockout mice. TG2 was involved in the interactive regulation of TGF-ß. As inhibition of TG2 reduced peritoneal fibrosis, angiogenesis, and inflammation associated with TGF-ß and vascular endothelial growth factor-A suppression, TG2 may provide a new therapeutic target for ameliorating peritoneal injuries in PD.

Perioperative anaphylactic reactions to central venous and pulmonary artery catheters containing chlorhexidine, sulfadiazine, or latex: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Central venous catheters (CVCs) and pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) containing chlorhexidine, silver sulfadiazine, or latex can cause perioperative anaphylaxis. We examined the incidence of and outcomes associated with anaphylaxis caused by CVCs/PACs. METHODS: In a historical cohort study, we retrospectively identified adult patients fitted with CVCs/PACs at the Mayo Clinics in Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida from 1 January 2008 to 1 March 2018. Potential and confirmed cases of perioperative anaphylactic reactions were individually reviewed and classified. RESULTS: During the study period, 39,505 procedures were performed during which CVCs/PACs were inserted. Of these, 2,937 patients with pre-existing chlorhexidine, sulfonamide (sulfa), and/or latex allergies had CVCs/PACs inserted that contained these substances. Perioperative anaphylaxis, in which CVCs/PACs were the confirmed or potential causative agent, occurred during 53 procedures. Seven patients had a preoperatively reported sulfa or latex allergy; no patients had a preoperative chlorhexidine allergy. Six of the seven patients with reported allergies to sulfa or latex had a CVC/PAC inserted that contained these substances. Twenty-four patients with anaphylaxis had postoperative allergic disease consultation; ten of these (42%) underwent skin testing. CONCLUSION: Perioperative anaphylactic reactions related to CVCs/PACs containing chlorhexidine, silver sulfadiazine, or latex were rare in this large historical cohort study. We identified 2,937 patients with pre-existing chlorhexidine, sulfa, and/or latex allergies and had CVCs/PACs inserted that contained these substances. Although few cases of perioperative anaphylaxis attributable to these substances were observed in patients with corresponding allergies, the potential for substantial complication exists. Providers should be aware of the potential for these hidden exposures.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les cathéters veineux centraux (CVC) et les cathéters artériels pulmonaires (CAP) contenant de la chlorhexidine, de la sulfadiazine argentique ou du latex peuvent provoquer une anaphylaxie périopératoire. Nous avons examiné l'incidence et les devenirs associés à l'anaphylaxie causée par les CVC/CAP. MéTHODE: Dans une étude de cohorte historique, nous avons identifié rétrospectivement des patients adultes chez lesquels un CVC/CAP avait été installé aux cliniques Mayo du Minnesota, de l'Arizona et de la Floride du 1er janvier 2008 au 1er mars 2018. Les cas potentiels et confirmés de réactions anaphylactiques périopératoires ont été examinés et classés individuellement. RéSULTATS: Au cours de la période à l'étude, 39 505 interventions ont été réalisées au cours desquelles des CVC/CAP ont été insérés. Parmi celles-ci, des CVC/CAP contenant de la chlorhexidine, des sulfamides et/ou du latex ont été insérés chez 2937 patients présentant des allergies préexistantes à ces substances. Une anaphylaxie périopératoire, dont l'agent causal confirmé ou potentiel était le CVC/CAP, s'est produite dans 53 interventions. Sept patients présentaient une allergie aux sulfamides ou au latex signalée avant l'opération; aucun patient n'a eu d'allergie préopératoire à la chlorhexidine. Un CVC/CAP contenant des sulfamides ou du latex a été inséré chez six des sept patients ayant signalé des allergies à ces substances. Vingt-quatre patients atteints d'anaphylaxie ont eu une consultation postopératoire pour une maladie allergique; dix d'entre eux (42 %) ont subi des tests cutanés. CONCLUSION: Les réactions anaphylactiques périopératoires liées aux CVC/CAP contenant de la chlorhexidine, de la sulfadiazine argentique ou du latex étaient rares dans cette vaste étude de cohorte historique. Nous avons identifié 2937 patients présentant des allergies préexistantes à la chlorhexidine, aux sulfamides et/ou au latex chez lesquels des CVC/CAP contenant ces substances ont été insérés. Bien que peu de cas d'anaphylaxie périopératoire attribuable à ces substances aient été observés chez des patients présentant des allergies correspondantes, il existe un risque de complication importante. Les fournisseurs doivent être conscients du potentiel de ces expositions cachées.

The impact of gingivitis reduction on lung function: a randomized trial under intensified oral hygiene.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease and lung function impairment were found to be associated with low-grade systemic or local inflammation, and it might be that gingival/periodontal inflammation triggers lung function due to systemic inflammation or the transfer of oral bacteria or its components to the lung. A recent observational study in non-smoking subjects showed that lung volumes and flow rates were significantly reduced by 71-185 ml for severe gingivitis regardless of the adjustment for potential confounders. The result did not show any confounding by smoking, and the association between gingivitis and lower lung function was not modified by systemic inflammation. The designed interventional trial primarily aims to test the hypothesis that gingivitis reduction by optimized daily oral hygiene, professional tooth cleaning and antibacterial chlorhexidine (CHX)-containing mouth rinse improves lung function in terms of forced vital capacity (FVC) by at least 2%. The secondary objective will test the hypothesis that gingivitis reduction improves forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of the pulmonary volume (FEF25-75) by at least 2%. Furthermore, the influence of the oral microbiome will be taken into account. METHODS: The study has to include 120 non-smoking subjects aged between 18 and 30 years with biofilm-induced gingivitis. The chosen "waiting control group design" will compare the immediate intervention group with the delayed intervention group, which serves as a control group. Dental and gingival status, lung function and oral microbiome will be recorded. The intensified preventive intervention-professional tooth cleaning, one-stage full-mouth disinfection with CHX and safeguarding an optimal daily oral hygiene by each subject-cannot be blinded, but the outcome measurement in terms of lung function tests is blind. DISCUSSION: This proposed multidisciplinary study has several strengths. Only one previous intervention study with patients with severe periodontitis (mostly smokers) has been performed. It is novel to include non-smoking subjects with mild and potentially reversible oral inflammation. Furthermore, this research is innovative, because it includes evidence-based interventions for gingivitis reduction, standardized measures of the outcome on lung function and oral microbiome and combines expertise from dentistry, lung physiology, oral microbiology and epidemiology/statistical modelling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00028176. Registered on February 2022.

Ten-year outcomes of Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong (PAWS-HK): Performance of diagnostic modalities.

BACKGROUND: Studies on perioperative anaphylaxis (PA) in Asia are lacking. Furthermore, allergy workup for PA has largely been limited to the "silver standard" of skin tests (ST). Using in vitro tests as an adjunct to ST may improve and overcome these diagnostic challenges. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical characteristics and diagnostic tests of patients with suspected PA through the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong cohort. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of PA over a 10-year period were recruited into the Perioperative Anaphylaxis Workup Study in Hong Kong. We reviewed the medical records, tryptase elevation, and diagnostic tests including ST, specific immunoglobulin E, and basophil activation tests (BAT). RESULTS: In 151 patients with PA, diagnosis was reached in three-fourths of the cases (113/151, 74.8%). The most common culprits identified were neuromuscular blocking agents (25.8%), ß lactams (17.2%) and chlorhexidine (13.9%). Severe anaphylaxis was associated with female sex, older age, elevated acute tryptase levels, and more cardiovascular manifestations during induction. Skin tests remained the most sensitive diagnostic modality overall (66.2%). BAT showed better performance for chlorhexidine and gelofusine anaphylaxis, with sensitivity of 80.0% and 79.6%, respectively. Specific Immunoglobulin E indicated even higher sensitivity (95.2%) than did ST (85.0%) and BAT (80.0%) for chlorhexidine anaphylaxis but performed poorly for other drugs. CONCLUSION: Neuromuscular blocking agents remain the most common culprit in PA. There was a higher prevalence of gelofusine anaphylaxis in our cohort than was seen in the literature. Skin tests remain the most sensitive testing modality. In vitro tests for chlorhexidine and gelofusine showed promising results, but more studies to further elucidate its use are warranted.

Immediate Hypersensitivity to Chlorhexidine: Experience from an Allergy Center in China.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine generally has a good safety profile. However, allergic reactions are reported with increasing frequency. In China, it is rarely reported, and its characteristics are unknown. The purpose of this study was to summarize the experience of a Chinese allergy center with chlorhexidine allergy. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent chlorhexidine allergy testing in the Allergy Center of West China Hospital, Sichuan University (Chengdu, China), in the period February 2018 to May 2022 (n = 43 patients) and included the patients diagnosed with chlorhexidine allergy for analysis. RESULTS: Ten patients who were diagnosed by skin prick and serum-specific immunoglobulin E tests were included. They experienced a total of 30 allergic reactions to chlorhexidine (mean ± SD, 3.0 ± 1.3). Five patients experienced six allergic reactions (6 of 30, 20%) during general or local anesthesia, and they may have been exposed to chlorhexidine via different routes. Only one allergic reaction (1 of 30, 3%) was recorded with exposure via a mouthwash. The other 23 allergic reactions (23 of 30, 77%) were caused via a skin disinfectant; the route of exposure was IV cannulation in 22 allergic reactions (22 of 23, 96%) and broken skin in one allergic reaction (1 of 23, 4%). The symptoms included a quick onset and great severity. Two patients (2 of 10, 20%) had been accidentally re-exposed to chlorhexidine after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This study conducted in China showed that the majority of reactions to chlorhexidine were attributed to skin disinfectants, and IV cannulation was the most common exposure route; in general, however, chlorhexidine allergy was easily overlooked. The potential allergenicity of chlorhexidine used for skin preparation before IV cannulation or should be considered in patients who develop allergic reactions perioperatively.

Combating chlorhexidine allergy in perioperative setting.

Chlorhexidine is labelled as hidden allergen as the health care professionals (HCPs) are unaware of the wide range of products containing chlorhexidine. Adverse events from chlorhexidine allergy can be reduced by appropriate perioperative management especially heeding on positive history during preoperative assessment, awareness regarding this hidden allergen, and educating HCPs on possible chlorhexidine-containing products. The regulatory agencies all over the world have issued recommendations regarding safety and risk of hypersensitivity reactions with chlorhexidine-containing products. The onus lies on HCPs to disseminate this knowledge to the stakeholders. We present a brief update to combat chlorhexidine allergy in perioperative setting.