Dataset Information

Cluster-randomized crossover trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus iodine-alcohol for prevention of surgical-site infection (SKINFECT trial).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surgical-site infection (SSI) is a serious surgical complication that can be prevented by preoperative skin disinfection. In Western European countries, preoperative disinfection is commonly performed with either chlorhexidine or iodine in an alcohol-based solution. This study aimed to investigate whether there is superiority of chlorhexidine-alcohol over iodine-alcohol for preventing SSI.

Methods

This prospective cluster-randomized crossover trial was conducted in five teaching hospitals. All patients who underwent breast, vascular, colorectal, gallbladder or orthopaedic surgery between July 2013 and June 2015 were included. SSI data were reported routinely to the Dutch National Nosocomial Surveillance Network (PREZIES). Participating hospitals were assigned randomly to perform preoperative skin disinfection using either chlorhexidine-alcohol (0·5 per cent/70 per cent) or iodine-alcohol (1 per cent/70 per cent) for the first 3?months of the study; every 3?months thereafter, they switched to using the other antiseptic agent, for a total of 2?years. The primary endpoint was the development of SSI.

Results

A total of 3665 patients were included; 1835 and 1830 of these patients received preoperative skin disinfection with chlorhexidine-alcohol or iodine-alcohol respectively. The overall incidence of SSI was 3·8 per cent among patients in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group and 4·0 per cent among those in the iodine-alcohol group (odds ratio 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·69 to 1·35).

Conclusion

Preoperative skin disinfection with chlorhexidine-alcohol is similar to that for iodine-alcohol with respect to reducing the risk of developing an SSI.

SUBMITTER: Charehbili A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6773639 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cluster-randomized crossover trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol <i>versus</i> iodine-alcohol for prevention of surgical-site infection (SKINFECT trial).

Charehbili A A Koek M B G MBG de Mol van Otterloo J C A JCA Bronkhorst M W G A MWGA van der Zwaal P P Thomassen B B Waasdorp E J EJ Govaert J A JA Bosman A A van den Bremer J J Ploeg A J AJ Putter H H Meijs A P AP van de Velde C J H CJH van Gijn W W Swijnenburg R J RJ

BJS open 20190520 5

<h4>Background</h4>Surgical-site infection (SSI) is a serious surgical complication that can be prevented by preoperative skin disinfection. In Western European countries, preoperative disinfection is commonly performed with either chlorhexidine or iodine in an alcohol-based solution. This study aimed to investigate whether there is superiority of chlorhexidine-alcohol over iodine-alcohol for preventing SSI.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective cluster-randomized crossover trial was conducted in five ...[more]

PMID: 31592513

Similar Datasets

Project description: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).

Project description:IntroductionWound complications following arthroplasty are associated with significant impact on the patient and healthcare system. Skin cleansing prior to surgical incision is a simple and effective method to prevent wound complications however, the question of which agent is superior for surgical skin antisepsis is unresolved.Methods and analysisThis cluster randomised controlled trial aims to compare the incidence of superficial wound complications in patients undergoing elective prosthetic hip or knee replacement surgery receiving surgical skin antisepsis with either: 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone in 70% alcohol. The trial will be conducted at an Australian tertiary, university affiliated hospital over a 3-year period involving 750 participants. Participants will be drawn from the surgical waiting list. Consent for this study will be 'opt-out' consent. On a given day, all eligible participants will have skin preparation either with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone iodine in 70% alcohol. The primary outcome is superficial wound complications (comprised of superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSI) and/or prolonged wound ooze) in the first 30?days following prosthetic joint replacement surgery. Secondary outcomes will include the incidence of wound complications according to the joint replaced, assessment of the causative agents of SSI and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary analysis is an intention-to-treat analysis including all participants who undergo randomisation and will be performed at the individual level taking into account the clustering effect.Ethics and disseminationThe study design and protocol was reviewed and approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-A 016/14 10/3/2014). Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learned forums. A written lay summary will be available to study participants on request.Trial registration numberThe trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12614000177651.

Project description:BackgroundUniversal skin and nasal decolonisation reduces multidrug-resistant pathogens and bloodstream infections in intensive care units. The effect of universal decolonisation on pathogens and infections in non-critical-care units is unknown. The aim of the ABATE Infection trial was to evaluate the use of chlorhexidine bathing in non-critical-care units, with an intervention similar to one that was found to reduce multidrug-resistant organisms and bacteraemia in intensive care units.MethodsThe ABATE Infection (active bathing to eliminate infection) trial was a cluster-randomised trial of 53 hospitals comparing routine bathing to decolonisation with universal chlorhexidine and targeted nasal mupirocin in non-critical-care units. The trial was done in hospitals affiliated with HCA Healthcare and consisted of a 12-month baseline period from March 1, 2013, to Feb 28, 2014, a 2-month phase-in period from April 1, 2014, to May 31, 2014, and a 21-month intervention period from June 1, 2014, to Feb 29, 2016. Hospitals were randomised and their participating non-critical-care units assigned to either routine care or daily chlorhexidine bathing for all patients plus mupirocin for known methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. The primary outcome was MRSA or vancomycin-resistant enterococcus clinical cultures attributed to participating units, measured in the unadjusted, intention-to-treat population as the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period in the decolonisation group versus the HR in the routine care group. Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reductions across groups, accounting for clustering within hospitals. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02063867.FindingsThere were 189 081 patients in the baseline period and 339 902 patients (156 889 patients in the routine care group and 183 013 patients in the decolonisation group) in the intervention period across 194 non-critical-care units in 53 hospitals. For the primary outcome of unit-attributable MRSA-positive or VRE-positive clinical cultures (figure 2), the HR for the intervention period versus the baseline period was 0·79 (0·73-0·87) in the decolonisation group versus 0·87 (95% CI 0·79-0·95) in the routine care group. No difference was seen in the relative HRs (p=0·17). There were 25 (<1%) adverse events, all involving chlorhexidine, among 183 013 patients in units assigned to chlorhexidine, and none were reported for mupirocin.InterpretationDecolonisation with universal chlorhexidine bathing and targeted mupirocin for MRSA carriers did not significantly reduce multidrug-resistant organisms in non-critical-care patients.FundingNational Institutes of Health.