Timo W Hakkarainen1, E Patchen Dellinger2, Heather L Evans2, Farhood Farjah2, Ellen Farrokhi3, Scott R Steele4, Richard Thirlby5, David R Flum2. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: timoh@uw.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Providence Medical Center, Everett, WA. 4. Department of Surgery, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, WA. 5. Department of Surgery, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are an important source of morbidity and mortality. Chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol is effective in preventing central venous-catheter associated infections, but its effectiveness in reducing SSI in clean-contaminated procedures is uncertain. Surgical studies to date have had contradictory results. We aimed to further evaluate the relationship of commonly used antiseptic agents and SSI, and to determine if isopropyl alcohol has a unique effect. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort analysis to evaluate the relationship of commonly used skin antiseptic agents and SSI for patients undergoing mostly clean-contaminated surgery from January 2011 through June 2012. Multivariate regression modeling predicted expected rates of SSI. Risk adjusted event rates (RAERs) of SSI were compared across groups using proportionality testing. RESULTS: Among 7,669 patients, the rate of SSI was 4.6%. The RAERs were 0.85 (p = 0.28) for chlorhexidine (CHG), 1.10 (p = 0.06) for chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol (CHG+IPA), 0.98 (p = 0.96) for povidone-iodine (PVI), and 0.93 (p = 0.51) for iodine-povacrylex in isopropyl alcohol (IPC+IPA). The RAERs were 0.91 (p = 0.39) for the non-IPA group and 1.10 (p = 0.07) for the IPA group. Among elective colorectal patients, the RAERs were 0.90 (p = 0.48) for CHG, 1.04 (p = 0.67) for CHG+IPA, 1.04 (p = 0.85) for PVI, and 1.00 (p = 0.99) for IPC+IPA. CONCLUSIONS: For clean-contaminated surgical cases, this large-scale state cohort study did not demonstrate superiority of any commonly used skin antiseptic agent in reducing the risk of SSI, nor did it find any unique effect of isopropyl alcohol. These results do not support the use of more expensive skin preparation agents.
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are an important source of morbidity and mortality. Chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol is effective in preventing central venous-catheter associated infections, but its effectiveness in reducing SSI in clean-contaminated procedures is uncertain. Surgical studies to date have had contradictory results. We aimed to further evaluate the relationship of commonly used antiseptic agents and SSI, and to determine if isopropyl alcohol has a unique effect. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a prospective cohort analysis to evaluate the relationship of commonly used skin antiseptic agents and SSI for patients undergoing mostly clean-contaminated surgery from January 2011 through June 2012. Multivariate regression modeling predicted expected rates of SSI. Risk adjusted event rates (RAERs) of SSI were compared across groups using proportionality testing. RESULTS: Among 7,669 patients, the rate of SSI was 4.6%. The RAERs were 0.85 (p = 0.28) for chlorhexidine (CHG), 1.10 (p = 0.06) for chlorhexidine in isopropyl alcohol (CHG+IPA), 0.98 (p = 0.96) for povidone-iodine (PVI), and 0.93 (p = 0.51) for iodine-povacrylex in isopropyl alcohol (IPC+IPA). The RAERs were 0.91 (p = 0.39) for the non-IPA group and 1.10 (p = 0.07) for the IPA group. Among elective colorectalpatients, the RAERs were 0.90 (p = 0.48) for CHG, 1.04 (p = 0.67) for CHG+IPA, 1.04 (p = 0.85) for PVI, and 1.00 (p = 0.99) for IPC+IPA. CONCLUSIONS: For clean-contaminated surgical cases, this large-scale state cohort study did not demonstrate superiority of any commonly used skin antiseptic agent in reducing the risk of SSI, nor did it find any unique effect of isopropyl alcohol. These results do not support the use of more expensive skin preparation agents.
Authors: Ingi Lee; Rajender K Agarwal; Bruce Y Lee; Neil O Fishman; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2010-10-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Naomi P O'Grady; Mary Alexander; Lillian A Burns; E Patchen Dellinger; Jeffrey Garland; Stephen O Heard; Pamela A Lipsett; Henry Masur; Leonard A Mermel; Michele L Pearson; Issam I Raad; Adrienne G Randolph; Mark E Rupp; Sanjay Saint Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Rabih O Darouiche; Matthew J Wall; Kamal M F Itani; Mary F Otterson; Alexandra L Webb; Matthew M Carrick; Harold J Miller; Samir S Awad; Cynthia T Crosby; Michael C Mosier; Atef Alsharif; David H Berger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Brian R Swenson; Traci L Hedrick; Rosemarie Metzger; Hugo Bonatti; Timothy L Pruett; Robert G Sawyer Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Margarita Ramos; Zain Khalpey; Stuart Lipsitz; Jill Steinberg; Maria Theresa Panizales; Michael Zinner; Selwyn O Rogers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sarah Tschudin-Sutter; Reno Frei; Diane Egli-Gany; Friedrich Eckstein; Victor Valderrabano; Marc Dangel; Manuel Battegay; Andreas Franz Widmer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Charles E Edmiston; Philip Lavin; Maureen Spencer; Gwen Borlaug; Gary R Seabrook; David Leaper Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.254