Search

Background: The application of antiseptic skin agents prior to incision minimizes the rate of surgical site infection. Despite their ubiquity, the optimal skin preparation agent remains uncertain. A retrospective economic analysis was conducted to complement the results from the NEWSkin Prep trial which prospectively compared three preparation agents., Methods: A cost and cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare service perspective to compare chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine, against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. Resource use estimates accounted for hospital admissions, readmissions associated with surgical site infection, outpatient and general practitioner attendances, visits from community nurses and therapeutic consumables. The measure of effectiveness comprised the net difference in number of patients with surgical site infections per 1000 patients. Costs were compared using a two-sample Welch's t-test. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio., Results: The null hypothesis that the mean costs for the trial arms were significantly different was not rejected (Welch's t-test P value: 0.771 for chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol; and 0.955 for aqueous povidone-iodine against povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol). Based on bootstrap averages, the chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol intervention generated 8.0 fewer surgical site infections per 1000 patients and net cost savings of €151,698 (Euros) per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol, and aqueous povidone-iodine produced a net cost saving of €37,494 per 1000 patients but generated an additional 11.6 surgical site infections per 1000 patients compared with povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol. The comparison of chlorhexidine with 70% ethanol to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the inclusion of cost outliers, while the comparison of aqueous povidone-iodine to povidone-iodine with 70% ethanol was sensitive to the estimated cost per surgical site infection., Conclusion: Based on the outcomes from the NEWSkin Prep study, this economic analysis found no definitive evidence in favour of any one of the study comparators. Future model-based economic analyses of alternative skin preparations should critically address the quality of evidence and integrate the results from the NEWSkin Prep study., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.)

Background: There remains debate as to the ideal skin preparation agent to prevent surgical site infection (SSI) after clean implant surgery. This study is a subgroup analysis of all patients undergoing implant surgery in the NEWSkin prep trial. Patients and Methods: The NEWSkin prep trial is a randomized clinical trial (RCT; n = 3300) comparing the three antiseptic skin preparation agents commonly used prior to incisional surgery: chlorhexidine with alcohol (C-Alc), povidone iodine with alcohol (PI-Alc), and aqueous povidone iodine (PI-Aq). All participants who underwent clean incisional surgeries with implants from this trial were selected for analysis. The primary outcome was SSI rate; secondary outcomes were complication rates and re-admission rates. Results: A total of 712 patients in the NEWSkinPrep study underwent clean implant surgery between January 2015 and December 2018. Randomization resulted in the following distribution: C-Alc, 238; PI-Alc, 243; and PI-Aq, 231. Median age of participants was 63 years and 41% were female. Surgical site infection rates were: C-Alc, 10.13%; PI-Alc,11.52%; and PI-Aq, 11.26%. Povidone iodine with alcohol did not appear to be non-inferior to C-Alc (mean difference, 1.39%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.17 to 6.95) and PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq (mean difference, 0.27%; 95% CI, -5.45 to 5.99; p = 0.9271). There were no differences seen in secondary outcomes between groups. Conclusions: These results indicate a similarity between PI-Alc and C-Alc and that PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq. Because this study was not powered to assess these differences in clean cases with implants, additional studies are needed to assess these agents.

Background: There is much debate surrounding the ideal antiseptic skin preparation agent to reduce postoperative surgical site infection. International guidelines suggest that chlorhexidine- and alcohol-containing compounds have superior efficacy. However, there are minimal clinical trials specifically looking at skin preparation agents for colorectal surgery., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine in alcohol versus povidone-iodine in alcohol versus povidone-iodine in aqueous solution for the prevention of surgical site infection in colorectal surgery., Design: This is a prospective, 3-armed, randomized controlled trial., Setting: This study was conducted at the 800-bed John Hunter Hospital and Newcastle Private Hospital, with all subspecialty services in New South Wales, Australia., Patients: All eligible, consenting adults undergoing colorectal surgery between July 2015 and December 2018 were included., Interventions: Patients were andomized to receive preincision skin preparation with one of the following: chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol, povidone-iodine in 70% alcohol, or povidone-iodine in aqueous solution., Main Outcome Measure: The primary measure was surgical site infection within 30 days., Results: A total of 482 patients were randomized to chlorhexidine in alcohol, povidone-iodine in alcohol, or aqueous povidone-iodine. The overall surgical site infection rate was 22% (107/482). There was no difference in rates of surgical site infection: 20.6% (29/141), 22.8% (44/193), and 23.0% (34/148), respectively ( p = 0.5267). There was no difference in complication rates: 54.6% (77/141), 46.1% (89/193), and 49.3% (73/148), respectively ( p = 0.1762). The median length of stay was 6 days in all 3 groups., Limitations: This is a subset analysis of a larger clinical trial for all forms of incisional surgery (the NewSKIN Prep trial), and noninferiority cannot be assessed. Changes in government regulations resulted in a change from 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol to 2% chlorhexidine in 70% ethanol during the trial., Conclusion: This large, prospective, randomized clinical trial appears to indicate that there is no difference in surgical site infection, complications, or length of stay among the 3 commonest forms of skin preparation in colorectal surgery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B875 .New Zealand Clinical Trials registry: ACTRN12615000021572Agentes antisépticos para la preparación de la piel para prevenir la infección del sitio quirúrgico en la cirugía colorrectal: un ensayo clínico aleatorizado de tres grupos., Antecedentes: Existe un gran debate en torno al agente de preparación de la piel antiséptico ideal para reducir la infección posoperatoria del sitio quirúrgico. Las pautas internacionales sugieren que los compuestos que contienen clorhexidina y alcohol tienen una eficacia. Sin embargo, existen ensayos clínicos mínimos que analizan específicamente los agentes de preparación de la piel para la cirugía colorrectal., Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia de la clorhexidina en alcohol versus povidona yodada en alcohol versus povidona yodada en solución acuosa para la prevención de la infección del sitio quirúrgico en cirugía colorrectal., Diseo: Este es un ensayo controlado aleatorio prospectivo de tres brazos., Ajuste: Este estudio se realizó en el Hospital John Hunter de 800 camas y el Hospital Privado de Newcastle con todos los servicios de subespecialidad en Nueva Gales del Sur, Australia., Pacientes: Se incluyeron todos los adultos elegibles que dieron su consentimiento para someterse a una cirugía colorrectal entre julio de 2015 y diciembre de 2018., Intervenciones: Aleatorizados para recibir una preparación para la piel previa a la incisión con uno de: clorhexidina en alcohol al 70%, povidona yodada en alcohol al 70% o povidona yodada en solución acuosa., Medida De Resultado Principal: La medida principal fue la infección del sitio quirúrgico dentro de los 30 días., Resultados: Un total de 482 pacientes fueron aleatorizados para recibir clorhexidina en alcohol, povidona yodada en alcohol o povidona yodada acuosa. La tasa global de infección del sitio quirúrgico fue del 22% (107/482). No hubo diferencias en las tasas de infección del sitio quirúrgico; 20,6% (29/141), 22,8% (44/193) y 23,0% (34/148) respectivamente; p = 0,5267. No hubo diferencia en las tasas de complicaciones; 54,6% (77/141), 46,1% (89/193) y 49,3% (73/148) respectivamente; p = 0,1762. La duración media de la estancia hospitalaria fue de 6,0 días en los tres grupos., Limitaciones: Este es un análisis de subconjunto de un ensayo clínico más grande para todas las formas de cirugía incisional (el ensayo NewSKIN Prep) y no se puede evaluar la no inferioridad. Los cambios en las regulaciones gubernamentales dieron como resultado un cambio de clorhexidina al 0,5% en etanol al 70% a clorhexidina al 2% en etanol al 70% durante la prueba., Conclusines: Este gran ensayo clínico prospectivo y aleatorizado parece indicar que no hay diferencia en la infección del sitio quirúrgico, las complicaciones o la duración de la estancia entre las 3 formas más comunes de preparación de la piel en la cirugía colorrectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B875 . (Traducción-Dr. Gonzalo Hagerman )Este ensayo se registró de forma prospectiva en el registro de ensayos clínicos de Australia Nueva Zelanda el 15/01/2015: ACTRN12615000021572., (Copyright © The ASCRS 2021.)

Objective: To compare SSI rates between the skin preparation agents: PI-Aq, povidone-iodine with alcohol (PI-Alc), and chlorhexidine with alcohol (C-Alc)., Background: Guidelines suggest that alcohol-containing chlorhexidine solutions are the gold standard for skin preparation before surgery. It remains difficult to determine whether it is the chlorhexidine component or the addition of alcohol that confers the most benefit., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, combined non-inferiority (PI-Alc vs C-Alc) and superiority (PI-Alc vs PI-Aq) randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either C-Alc, PI-Alc, or PI-Aq. The primary outcome was SSI rate as defined by the Centers for Disease Control. Secondary outcomes were complication rates, length of hospital stay, readmissions, and skin reactions., Results: Between January 2015 and December 2018, 3213 patients were randomized (C-Alc: 1076, PI-Alc: 1075, and PI-Aq: 1062). Mean age of participants was 57% and 55% were female. SSI rates were: C-Alc 11.09%, PI-Alc 10.88%, and PI-Aq 12.56%. PI-Alc was found to be non-inferior to C-Alc (mean difference, -0.21%; 95% confidence interval, -2.85 to 2.44; P = 0.0009 non-inferiority), whereas PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq (mean difference, -1.68%; 95% confidence interval, -4.40 to 1.05; P = 0.2302). There were no differences seen in secondary outcomes between groups and no treatment related adverse events or deaths occurred., Conclusions: PI-Alc is non-inferior to C-Alc and not superior to PI-Aq. This is at odds with current guidelines that suggest alcohol-based chlorhexidine solutions should routinely be used for surgical skin preparation., Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12615000021571. www.anzctr.org.au., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)