Dataset Information

Alcoholic versus aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis: the AVALANCHE trial.

ABSTRACT: Preoperative skin antisepsis is routine practice. We compared alcoholic chlorhexidine with aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection after minor skin excisions in general practice.We conducted this prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial in 4 private general practices in North Queensland, Australia, from October 2015 to August 2016. Consecutive adult patients presenting for minor skin excisions were randomly assigned to undergo preoperative skin antisepsis with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol (intervention) or 0.5% chlorhexidine aqueous solution (control). Our primary outcome was surgical site infection within 30 days of excision. We also measured the incidence of adverse reactions.A total of 916 patients were included in the study: 454 underwent antisepsis with alcoholic chlorhexidine and 462 with aqueous chlorhexidine. Of these, 909 completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analysis of cases available at follow-up, there was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infection between the alcoholic chlorhexidine arm (5.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6% to 7.9%) and the aqueous chlorhexidine arm (6.8%, 95% CI 4.5% to 9.1%). The attributable risk reduction was 0.010 (95% CI -0.021 to 0.042), the relative risk was 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.41), and the number needed to treat to benefit was 100. Per protocol and sensitivity analyses produced similar results. The incidence of adverse reactions was low, with no difference between groups (p = 0.6).There was no significant difference in efficacy between alcoholic and aqueous chlorhexidine for the prevention of surgical site infection after minor skin excisions in general practice. Trial registration: https://www.anzctr.org.au, no. ACTRN12615001045505.

SUBMITTER: Charles D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5548541 | biostudies-other | 2017 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Catheter-related sepsis is one of the most dangerous complications of neonatal intensive care and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Use of catheter-care 'bundles' has reduced the incidence of catheter-related sepsis, although individual components have not been well studied. Better evidence is needed to guide selection of the most appropriate antiseptic solution for skin disinfection in preterm neonates. This study will inform the feasibility and design of the first randomised controlled trial to examine the safety and efficacy of alcohol-based versus aqueous-based chlorhexidine antiseptic formulations for skin disinfection prior to percutaneous central venous catheterisation in preterm neonates. The antiseptics to be compared are 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) aqueous and 2% CHG in 70% isopropyl alcohol. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The Antiseptic Randomised Controlled Trial for Insertion of Catheters (ARCTIC) is a two-centre randomised-controlled feasibility trial. At least 100 preterm infants born at <34 weeks' gestation and due to undergo percutaneous insertion of a central venous catheter will be randomly allocated to receive prior skin disinfection with one of the two antiseptic solutions. Outcomes include: i) recruitment and retention rates; ii) completeness of data collection; iii) numbers of enrolled infants meeting case definitions for definite catheter-related sepsis, catheter-associated sepsis and catheter colonisation and iv) safety outcomes of skin morbidity scores recorded daily from catheter insertion until 48?hours post removal. The key feasibility metrics will be reported as proportions with 95% CIs. Estimated prevalence of catheter colonisation will allow calculation of sample size for the large-scale trial. The data will inform whether it will be feasible to progress to a large-scale trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:ARCTIC has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service Committee East of England (Cambridge South) (IRAS ID 163868), was adopted onto the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio (CPMS ID 19899) and is registered with an International Standard Randomised Control Trials Number (ISRCTN: 82571474; Pre-results) and European Clinical Trials Database number 2015-000874-36. Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and sharing of the findings with parents via the support of Bliss baby charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN82571474; Pre-results.

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:BackgroundChlorhexidine-gluconate (CHG) impregnated dressings may prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI). Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponge dressings (sponge-dress) and gel dressings (gel-dress) have never been directly compared. We used the data collected for two randomized-controlled trials to perform a comparison between sponge-dress and gel-dress.MethodsAdult critically ill patients who required short-term central venous or arterial catheter insertion were recruited. Our main analysis included only patients with CHG-impregnated dressings. The effect of gel-dress (versus sponge-dress) on major catheter-related infections (MCRI) and CRBSI was estimated using multivariate marginal Cox models. The comparative risks of dressing disruption and contact dermatitis were evaluated using logistic mix models for clustered data. An explanatory analysis compared gel-dress with standard dressings using either CHG skin disinfection or povidone iodine skin disinfection.ResultsA total of 3483 patients and 7941 catheters were observed in 16 intensive care units. Sponge-dress and gel-dress were utilized for 1953 and 2108 catheters, respectively. After adjustment for confounders, gel-dress showed similar risk for MCRI compared to sponge-dress (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.28-2.31, p = 0.68) and CRBSI (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.34-3.70, p = 0.85), less dressing disruptions (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60-0.86, p < 0.001), and more contact dermatitis (OR 3.60, 95% CI 2.51-5.15, p < 0.01). However, gel-dress increased the risk of contact dermatitis only if CHG was used for skin antisepsis (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.38-2.71, p < 0.01).ConclusionsWe described a similar infection risk for gel-dress and sponge-dress. Gel-dress showed fewer dressing disruptions. Concomitant use of CHG for skin disinfection and CHG-impregnated dressing may significantly increase contact dermatitis.Trials registrationThese studies were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov (numbers NCT01189682 and NCT00417235 ).

Project description:Hospital-based data from Africa suggest that newborn skin-cleansing with chlorhexidine may reduce neonatal mortality. Evaluation of this intervention in the communities where most births occur in the home has not been done. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of a 1-time skin-cleansing of newborn infants with 0.25% chlorhexidine on neonatal mortality.The design was a community-based, placebo-controlled, cluster-randomized trial in Sarlahi District in southern Nepal. Newborn infants were cleansed with infant wipes that contained 0.25% chlorhexidine or placebo solution as soon as possible after delivery in the home (median: 5.8 hours). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality by 28 days. After the completion of the randomized phase, all newborns in study clusters were converted to chlorhexidine treatment for the subsequent 9 months.A total of 17,530 live births occurred in the enrolled sectors, 8650 and 8880 in the chlorhexidine and placebo groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar in the treatment groups. Intention-to-treat analysis among all live births showed no impact of the intervention on neonatal mortality. Among live-born infants who actually received their assigned treatment (98.7%), there was a nonsignificant 11% lower neonatal mortality rate among those who were treated with chlorhexidine compared with placebo. Low birth weight infants had a statistically significant 28% reduction in neonatal mortality; there was no significant difference among infants who were born weighing > or = 2500 g. After conversion to active treatment in the placebo clusters, there was a 37% reduction in mortality among low birth weight infants in the placebo clusters versus no change in the chlorhexidine clusters.Newborn skin-wiping with chlorhexidine solution once, soon after birth, reduced neonatal mortality only among low birth weight infants. Evidence from additional trials is needed to determine whether this inexpensive and simple intervention could improve survival significantly among low birth weight infants in settings where home delivery is common and hygiene practices are poor.

Dataset Information

Alcoholic versus aqueous chlorhexidine for skin antisepsis: the AVALANCHE trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets