Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preoperative Antisepsis with Combination Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine.

ABSTRACT: Importance Effective preoperative antisepsis is recognized to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), although the definitive method is unclear. Many have compared chlorhexidine (CHG) with povidone-iodine (PVI), but there is emerging evidence for combination usage. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate if combination skin preparation (1) reduces colonization at the operative site and (2) prevents SSI compared with single-agent use. Data Sources A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials was performed. Study Selection Comparative, human trials considering the combination use of CHG and PVI, as preoperative antisepsis, to single-agent CHG or PVI use were included. Studies were excluded from meta-analysis if the use or absence of alcohol was inconsistent between study arms. Data Extraction and Synthesis The study was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome for meta-analysis was surgical site infection. The secondary outcome was colonization at the operative site. Results Eighteen publications with a combination of CHG and PVI use were identified. Of these, 12/14 inferred promise for combination usage, including four trials eligible for meta-analysis. Only one trial reported SSI as its outcome. The remaining three considered bacterial colonization. Combination preparation had a pooled odds ratio for complete decolonization of 5.62 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 9.7, p < 0.00001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q 2.1, 2 df , p = 0.35). Conclusions and Relevance There is emerging, albeit low-quality, evidence in favor of combination CHG and PVI preoperative antisepsis. Further rigorous investigation is indicated.

SUBMITTER: Davies BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5553484 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Inadequate postoperative pain control is common and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies in any language were included if they evaluated postoperative pain using a validated instrument in adults (≥18 years) and reported a measure of association between poor postoperative pain control (defined by study authors) and at least one preoperative predictor during the hospital stay. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers screened articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. Measures of association for each preoperative predictor were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS:Thirty-three studies representing 53 362 patients were included in this review. Significant preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control included younger age (OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.32], number of studies, n=14), female sex (OR 1.29 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.43], n=20), smoking (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.61], n=9), history of depressive symptoms (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.32 to 2.22], n=8), history of anxiety symptoms (OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.36], n=10), sleep difficulties (OR 2.32 [95% CI 1.46 to 3.69], n=2), higher body mass index (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.03], n=2), presence of preoperative pain (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.32], n=13) and use of preoperative analgesia (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.18 to 2.03], n=6). Pain catastrophising, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, chronic pain, marital status, socioeconomic status, education, surgical history, preoperative pressure pain tolerance and orthopaedic surgery (vs abdominal surgery) were not associated with increased odds of poor pain control. Study quality was generally high, although appropriate blinding of predictor during outcome ascertainment was often limited. CONCLUSIONS:Nine predictors of poor postoperative pain control were identified. These should be recognised as potentially important factors when developing discipline-specific clinical care pathways to improve pain outcomes and to guide future surgical pain research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017080682.

Project description:The operative treatment combined with preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been established as a safe Klatskin tumor (KT) treatment strategy. However, there has always been a dispute for the preferred technique for PBD technique. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis between percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD), to identify the best technique in the management of KT.PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched systematically for prospective or retrospective studies reporting the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis in patients with KT. A meta-analysis was performed, using the fixed or random-effect model, with Review Manager 5.3.PTBD was associated with lower risk of cholangitis (risk ratio [RR]?=?0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.67; P?<?.00001), particularly in patients with Bismuth-Corlette type II, III, IV KT (RR?=?0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; P?=?.05). Compared with EBD, PTBD was also associated with a lower risk of pancreatitis (RR?=?0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; P?=?0.003) and with higher successful rates of palliative relief of cholestasis (RR?=?1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31; P?<?.0001). The incidence of hemorrhage was similar in these 2 groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.51-3.27; P?=?.59). The risk of biliary drainage-related cholangitis (RR?=?1.96, 95% CI: 0.96-4.01; P?=?.06) and pancreatitis (RR?=?1.62, 95% CI: 0.76-3.47; P?=?.21) was similar between endoscopic nasobiliary drainage groups and biliary stenting.In patients with type II or type III or IV KT who need to have PBD, PTBD should be performed as an initial method of biliary drainage in terms of reducing the incidence of procedure related cholangitis, pancreatitis, and improving the rates of palliative relief of cholestasis. Well-conducted randomized controlled trials with a universial criterion for PBD are required to confirm these findings.

Project description:Study objectivePreoperative assessment is a standard evaluation, traditionally done in-person in a preanesthesia clinic, for patients who will be undergoing a procedure involving anesthesia. Given the increased adoption of virtual care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to review the effectiveness of virtual preoperative assessment for the evaluation of surgical patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingMEDLINE (Ovid), MEDLINE InProcess/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the initial coverage of the respective database to May 2021. A manual citation search of Google Scholar and PubMed was conducted to identify missed articles. Continued literature surveillance was done through July 2021.PatientsPatients aged 18 years and older undergoing virtual preoperative anesthesia assessment.InterventionsVirtual preoperative assessment.MeasurementsSurgery cancellation rates, patient experience, resources saved, staff experience, success in using the data collected to diagnose and manage patients.Main resultsFifteen studies (n = 31,496 patients) were included in this review. The average age of patients was 58 ± 15 years, and 47% were male. Virtual preoperative assessment resulted in similar surgery cancellation rates compared to in-person evaluation, with a pooled cancellation rate of 2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-3%). Most studies reported a positive patient experience, with a pooled estimate of 90% (95% CI, 81-95%). There was a high success rate in using the information collected with virtual care, in the range of 92-100%, to diagnose and manage patients resulting in time and cost savings in the range of 24-137 min and $60-67 per patient.ConclusionsThis systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates the utility of virtual care for preoperative assessment of surgical patients. Virtual preanesthesia evaluation had similar surgery cancellation rates, high patient satisfaction, and reduced costs compared to in-person evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundChlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of effect, implementation fidelity, and patient-centered outcomes are unclear. In this meta-analysis, we examined the effect of CHG bathing on prevention of HABSIs and assessed fidelity to implementation of this behavioral intervention.MethodsWe undertook a meta-analysis by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane's CENTRAL registry from database inception through January 4, 2019 without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of CHG bathing versus a non-CHG comparator for prevention of HABSIs in any adult healthcare setting. Studies of pediatric patients, of pre-surgical CHG use, or without a non-CHG comparison arm were excluded. Outcomes of this study were HABSIs, patient-centered outcomes, such as patient comfort during the bath, and implementation fidelity assessed through five elements: adherence, exposure or dose, quality of the delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality; a random-effects model was used.ResultsWe included 26 studies with 861,546 patient-days and 5259 HABSIs. CHG bathing markedly reduced the risk of HABSIs (IRR = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.68). The effect of CHG bathing was consistent within subgroups: randomized (0.67, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85) vs. non-randomized studies (0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65), bundled (0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70) vs. non-bundled interventions (0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), CHG impregnated wipes (0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.73) vs. CHG solution (0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.64), and intensive care unit (ICU) (0.58, 95% CI: 0.49-0.68) vs. non-ICU settings (0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.83). Only three studies reported all five measures of fidelity, and ten studies did not report any patient-centered outcomes.ConclusionsPatient bathing with CHG significantly reduced the incidence of HABSIs in both ICU and non-ICU settings. Many studies did not report fidelity to the intervention or patient-centered outcomes. For sustainability and replicability essential for effective implementation, fidelity assessment that goes beyond whether a patient received an intervention or not should be standard practice particularly for complex behavioral interventions such as CHG bathing.Trial registrationStudy registration with PROSPERO CRD42015032523 .

Dataset Information

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preoperative Antisepsis with Combination Chlorhexidine and Povidone-Iodine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets