JoAnne D Whitney1, E Patchen Dellinger2, James Weber1, Ron Edward Swenson3, Christopher D Kent4, Paul E Swanson5, Kurt Harmon6, Margot Perrin1. 1. 1 Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 2. 2 Department of Surgery, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 3. 3 Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Loma Linda University , Loma Linda, California. 4. 4 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 5. 5 Department of Pathology, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington. 6. 6 Swedish Medical Center , Proliance Surgeons, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) account for a major proportion of hospital-acquired infections. They are associated with longer hospital stay, readmissions, increased costs, mortality, and morbidity. Reducing SSI is a goal of the Surgical Care Improvement Project and identifying interventions that reduce SSI effectively is of interest. In a single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) we evaluated the effect of localized warming applied to surgical incisions on SSI development and selected cellular (immune, endothelial) and tissue responses (oxygenation, collagen). METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and consent, patients having open bariatric, colon, or gynecologic-oncologic related operations were enrolled and randomly assigned to local incision warming (6 post-operative treatments) or non-warming. A prototype surgical bandage was used for all patients. The study protocol included intra-operative warming to maintain core temperature ≥36°C and administration of 0.80 FIO2. Patients were followed for 6 wks for the primary outcome of SSI determined by U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria and ASEPSIS scores (additional treatment; presence of serous discharge, erythema, purulent exudate, and separation of the deep tissues; isolation of bacteria; and duration of inpatient stay). Tissue oxygen (PscO2) and samples for cellular analyses were obtained using subcutaneous polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) tubes and oxygen micro-electrodes implanted adjacent to the incision. Cellular and tissueePTFE samples were evaluated using flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and Sircol™ collagen assay (Biocolor Ltd., Carrickfergus, United Kingdom). RESULTS:One hundred forty-six patients participated (n=73 per group). Study groups were similar on demographic parameters and for intra-operative management factors. The CDC defined rate of SSI was 18%; occurrence of SSI between groups did not differ (p=0.27). At 2 wks, warmed patients had better ASEPSIS scores (p=0.04) but this difference was not observed at 6 wks. There were no significant differences in immune, endothelial cell, or collagen responses between groups. On post-operative days one to two, warmed patients had greater PscO2 change scores with an average PscO2 increase of 9-10 mm Hg above baseline (p<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative local warming compared with non-warming followed in this study, which included intra-operative warming to maintain normothermia and FIO2 level of 0.80, did not reduce SSI and had no effect on immune, endothelial cell presence, or collagen synthesis. PscO2 increased significantly with warming, however, the increase was modest and less than expected or what has been observed in studies testing other interventions.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) account for a major proportion of hospital-acquired infections. They are associated with longer hospital stay, readmissions, increased costs, mortality, and morbidity. Reducing SSI is a goal of the Surgical Care Improvement Project and identifying interventions that reduce SSI effectively is of interest. In a single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) we evaluated the effect of localized warming applied to surgical incisions on SSI development and selected cellular (immune, endothelial) and tissue responses (oxygenation, collagen). METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval and consent, patients having open bariatric, colon, or gynecologic-oncologic related operations were enrolled and randomly assigned to local incision warming (6 post-operative treatments) or non-warming. A prototype surgical bandage was used for all patients. The study protocol included intra-operative warming to maintain core temperature ≥36°C and administration of 0.80 FIO2. Patients were followed for 6 wks for the primary outcome of SSI determined by U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) criteria and ASEPSIS scores (additional treatment; presence of serous discharge, erythema, purulent exudate, and separation of the deep tissues; isolation of bacteria; and duration of inpatient stay). Tissue oxygen (PscO2) and samples for cellular analyses were obtained using subcutaneous polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) tubes and oxygen micro-electrodes implanted adjacent to the incision. Cellular and tissue ePTFE samples were evaluated using flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and Sircol™ collagen assay (Biocolor Ltd., Carrickfergus, United Kingdom). RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients participated (n=73 per group). Study groups were similar on demographic parameters and for intra-operative management factors. The CDC defined rate of SSI was 18%; occurrence of SSI between groups did not differ (p=0.27). At 2 wks, warmed patients had better ASEPSIS scores (p=0.04) but this difference was not observed at 6 wks. There were no significant differences in immune, endothelial cell, or collagen responses between groups. On post-operative days one to two, warmed patients had greater PscO2 change scores with an average PscO2 increase of 9-10 mm Hg above baseline (p<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative local warming compared with non-warming followed in this study, which included intra-operative warming to maintain normothermia and FIO2 level of 0.80, did not reduce SSI and had no effect on immune, endothelial cell presence, or collagen synthesis. PscO2 increased significantly with warming, however, the increase was modest and less than expected or what has been observed in studies testing other interventions.
Authors: Barbara Kabon; Romana Rozum; Corinna Marschalek; Gerhard Prager; Edith Fleischmann; Astrid Chiari; Andrea Kurz Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: D B Allen; J J Maguire; M Mahdavian; C Wicke; L Marcocci; H Scheuenstuhl; M Chang; A X Le; H W Hopf; T K Hunt Journal: Arch Surg Date: 1997-09
Authors: Elizabeth C Wick; Kenzo Hirose; Andrew D Shore; Jeanne M Clark; Susan L Gearhart; Jonathan Efron; Martin A Makary Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-05-16
Authors: Chandan K Sen; Savita Khanna; Bernard M Babior; Thomas K Hunt; E Christopher Ellison; Sashwati Roy Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2002-06-14 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Magdalena Pasarica; Olga R Sereda; Leanne M Redman; Diana C Albarado; David T Hymel; Laura E Roan; Jennifer C Rood; David H Burk; Steven R Smith Journal: Diabetes Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Zhenmi Liu; Jo C Dumville; Gill Norman; Maggie J Westby; Jane Blazeby; Emma McFarlane; Nicky J Welton; Louise O'Connor; Julie Cawthorne; Ryan P George; Emma J Crosbie; Amber D Rithalia; Hung-Yuan Cheng Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-02-06
Authors: João Paulo Tardivo; Rodrigo Serrano; Lívia Maria Zimmermann; Leandro Luongo Matos; Mauricio S Baptista; Maria Aparecida Silva Pinhal; Álvaro N Atallah Journal: Diabet Foot Ankle Date: 2017-09-19