Explore the vast range of titles available.

Skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in patients with closed limb fractures but not in those with open fractures.

The Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 004 trial assessed the effectiveness and safety of a 1% vaginal gel formulation of tenofovir, a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, for the prevention of HIV acquisition in women. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing tenofovir gel (n = 445 women) with placebo gel (n = 444 women) in sexually active, HIV-uninfected 18- to 40-year-old women in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. HIV serostatus, safety, sexual behavior, and gel and condom use were assessed at monthly follow-up visits for 30 months. HIV incidence in the tenofovir gel arm was 5.6 per 100 women-years (person time of study observation) (38 out of 680.6 women-years) compared with 9.1 per 100 women-years (60 out of 660.7 women-years) in the placebo gel arm (incidence rate ratio = 0.61; P = 0.017). In high adherers (gel adherence > 80%), HIV incidence was 54% lower (P = 0.025) in the tenofovir gel arm. In intermediate adherers (gel adherence 50 to 80%) and low adherers (gel adherence < 50%), the HIV incidence reduction was 38 and 28%, respectively. Tenofovir gel reduced HIV acquisition by an estimated 39% overall, and by 54% in women with high gel adherence. No increase in the overall adverse event rates was observed. There were no changes in viral load and no tenofovir resistance in HIV seroconverters. Tenofovir gel could potentially fill an important HIV prevention gap, especially for women unable to successfully negotiate mutual monogamy or condom use.

In this single-center trial comparing chlorhexidine–alcohol with iodine–alcohol for skin antisepsis before cesarean delivery, the use of chlorhexidine–alcohol resulted in a risk of surgical-site infection that was significantly lower than that associated with iodine–alcohol. Cesarean delivery is the most common major surgical procedure among women in the United States. 1 In 2013, more than 32.7% (1.3 million) of the 3.9 million births were by cesarean section. 2 Surgical-site infections complicate 2 to 5% of all surgical procedures and 5 to 12% of cesarean deliveries. 3 – 6 Infection occurring after delivery places an extra burden on the new mother and may impair mother–infant bonding and breast-feeding. The average attributable hospital cost per surgical-site infection after cesarean delivery is estimated to be $3,529. 7 The skin is a major source of pathogens that cause surgical-site infections. Therefore, preoperative skin antisepsis . . .

PurposeAntiseptic bathing has garnered attention in an effort to reduce hospital-acquired infections. Previous studies have shown the efficacy of antiseptic bathing in high-risk environments, such as intensive care units (ICUs), using chlorhexidine. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of octenidine as a potential alternative due to its established popularity and widespread use in Europe.MethodsWe compared the rates of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and ICU-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in a multicenter, cluster-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study using octenidine-impregnated and placebo washcloths. On 44 ICUs in 23 hospitals throughout Germany, we compared individual ICUs with themselves over two 12-month time periods. All data were obtained digitally via hospital information systems as individual ward-movement data and microbiological test results; both endpoints were algorithmically derived.Results104,039 ICU episodes from 93,438 patients with 712,784 microbiological test results were analyzed, thereby detecting 1508 cases of ICU-acquired primary bacteremia and 1871 cases of ICU-acquired MDRO. Bathing with octenidine-impregnated washcloths prevented ICU-acquired primary bacteremia; a risk reduction of 17% was seen homogeneously across all participating ICUs (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.75; 0.92], p = 0.0003). This reduction affected predominantly coagulase-negative staphylococci (53%) and enterococci (17%). However, no intervention effect was seen for ICU-acquired MDROs (adjusted HR 0.98, 95% CI [0.83; 1.15]). Heterogeneity among intra-ICU intervention effects on MDRO acquisition was substantial.ConclusionsAntiseptic bathing with octenidine may be effective in preventing ICU-acquired primary bacteremia, particularly due to Gram-positive bacteria and common skin commensals.

Nursing home residents are often colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In this trial involving 28 nursing homes, decolonization with chlorhexidine and povidone–iodine reduced the risk of hospitalization for infection.

The skin is a source of infection associated with surgery. In this multicenter, randomized trial, the preoperative application of chlorhexidine–alcohol was found to be a more effective skin preparation than povidone–iodine for preventing incisional infections. The preoperative application of chlorhexidine–alcohol was found to be a more effective skin preparation than povidone–iodine for preventing incisional infections. Despite the implementation of preoperative preventive measures, which include skin cleansing with povidone–iodine, surgical-site infection occurs in 300,000 to 500,000 patients who undergo surgery in the United States each year. 1 – 6 Since the patient's skin is a major source of pathogens, it is conceivable that improving skin antisepsis would decrease surgical-site infections. 7 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that 2% chlorhexidine-based preparations be used to cleanse the site of insertion of vascular catheters. 8 However, the CDC has not issued a recommendation as to which antiseptics should be used preoperatively to prevent postoperative surgical-site infection in the 27 . . .

The use of topical antimicrobials is beneficial for infection control in wound care because wound infection is the major cause of delayed healing. The advantages of topical over systemic antimicrobials include a higher concentration at the target site, fewer systemic adverse effects, and a lower incidence of antimicrobial resistance. Nowadays, topical antimicrobials are divided into three groups: disinfectants, antiseptics, and antibiotics. Only antiseptics and antibiotics can be applied to living skin; therefore, this review will focus only on these groups. The advantages of each topical antimicrobial are well established; however, their disadvantages remain prominent. It is widely known that antiseptics show higher cytotoxicity and a broader spectrum of activity than antibiotics, whereas antibiotics show a higher probability of bacterial resistance development. However, there are still many adverse effects, resulting from each topical antimicrobial. This review aims to summarize the possible adverse effects of commonly used antiseptics (biguanide, silver, iodine, chlorine compounds, and other antiseptics), antibiotics (bacitracin, mafenide, mupirocin, neomycin, and silver sulfadiazine), and natural antimicrobials (curcumin and honey). Moreover, the antimicrobials that should be avoided in particular populations are also summarized in this review in order to increase awareness for antimicrobial selection in those populations.

Most public health measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic are based on preventing the pathogen spread, and the use of oral antiseptics has been proposed as a strategy to reduce transmission risk. The aim of this manuscript is to test the efficacy of mouthwashes to reduce salivary viral load in vivo. This is a multi-centre, blinded, parallel-group, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that tests the effect of four mouthwashes (cetylpyridinium chloride, chlorhexidine, povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide) in SARS-CoV-2 salivary load measured by qPCR at baseline and 30, 60 and 120 min after the mouthrinse. A fifth group of patients used distilled water mouthrinse as a control. Eighty-four participants were recruited and divided into 12–15 per group. There were no statistically significant changes in salivary viral load after the use of the different mouthwashes. Although oral antiseptics have shown virucidal effects in vitro, our data show that salivary viral load in COVID-19 patients was not affected by the tested treatments. This could reflect that those mouthwashes are not effective in vivo, or that viral particles are not infective but viral RNA is still detected by PCR. Viral infectivity studies after the use of mouthwashes are therefore required. ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04707742 ; Identifier: NCT04707742)

The indications for collagenase ointment (CO) and its efficacy are not clearly established in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. To evaluate the efficacy of CO versus silver sulfadiazine ointment (SSD) in the treatment of second-degree burn wounds. A total of 170 eligible patients with deep second-degree burns, aged 18–65 years, with injuries occurring within 48–96 h, and having a total wound area of less than 30% of the total body surface area were included from 5 centers in China. The primary outcome was the wound healing time, and the secondary outcomes were the clearance time of wound necrotic tissues, wound healing rate, and wound inflammation. The study included 85 patients in SSD group and 84 in CO group in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. The median time of wound healing was comparable in both groups (10 days vs. 10.5 days P  = 0.16). The time for wound necrotic tissue removal was significantly shortened by CO compared with SSD (5 vs. 10 days P  < 0.01). Wound inflammation, pain, wound healing rate, and scar were compared with SSD (all P-values > 0.05). No adverse events, such as infection or allergic reactions to the drugs and materials used, were reported. Both CO and SSD could heal the burn wounds at 10 days of treatment. However, CO significantly shortened the time of wound necrotic tissue removal by 5 days. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2100046971.

New catheter materials for peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may reduce the risk of device failure due to infectious, thrombotic, and catheter occlusion events. However, data from randomized trials comparing these catheters are lacking. We conducted a randomized, controlled, superiority trial in three Australian tertiary hospitals. Adults and children who were referred for PICC placement were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive a hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICC or a standard polyurethane PICC and were followed for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was device failure, which was a composite of infectious (bloodstream or local) or noninfectious (thrombosis, breakage, or occlusion) complications. A total of 1098 participants underwent randomization; 365 were assigned to the hydrophobic group, 365 to the chlorhexidine group, and 368 to the standard-polyurethane group. Device failure occurred in 21 of 358 participants (5.9%) in the hydrophobic group, in 36 of 363 (9.9%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 22 of 359 (6.1%) in the standard-polyurethane group (risk difference, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, -0.2 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.7 to 3.2; P = 0.89]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 3.8 percentage points [95% CI, -0.1 to 7.8; P = 0.06]). In the hydrophobic group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio for device failure was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.78), and in the chlorhexidine group as compared with the standard-polyurethane group, the odds ratio was 1.71 (95% CI, 0.98 to 2.99). Complications from any cause during the period of PICC placement occurred in 77 participants (21.5%) in the hydrophobic group, in 140 (38.6%) in the chlorhexidine group, and in 78 (21.7%) in the standard-polyurethane group (odds ratio, hydrophobic vs. standard polyurethane, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.42]; and chlorhexidine vs. standard polyurethane, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.68 to 3.29]). No adverse events were attributable to the interventions. Among adults and children who were referred for PICC placement, the risk of device failure due to noninfectious or infectious complications was not lower with hydrophobic or chlorhexidine PICCs than with standard polyurethane PICCs. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; PICNIC Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12619000022167.).