Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeWhether skin disinfection of the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol is superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol in reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates after major cardiac surgery remains unclear.MethodsCLEAN 2 was a multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-arm, assessor-blind, superiority trial conducted in eight French hospitals. We randomly assigned adult patients undergoing major heart or aortic surgery via sternotomy, with or without saphenous vein or radial artery harvesting, to have all surgical sites disinfected with either 2% chlorhexidine-alcohol or 5% povidone-iodine-alcohol. The primary outcome was any resternotomy by day 90 or any reoperation at the peripheral surgical site by day 30.ResultsOf 3242 patients (1621 in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1276 (78.7%) men] and 1621 in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group [median age, 69 years; 1247 (76.9%) men], the percentage required reoperation within 90 days was similar (7.7% [125/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 7.5% [121/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI), − 1.58–2.07], P = 0.79). The incidence of surgical site infections at the sternum or peripheral sites was similar (4% [65/1621] in the chlorhexidine-alcohol group vs 3.3% [53/1621] in the povidone-iodine-alcohol group; risk difference, 0.74 [95% CI − 0.55–2.03], P = 0.26). Length of hospital stay, intensive care unit or hospital readmission, mortality and surgical site adverse events were similar between the two groups.ConclusionAmong patients requiring sternotomy for major heart or aortic surgery, skin disinfection at the surgical site using chlorhexidine-alcohol was not superior to povidone-iodine-alcohol for reducing reoperation and surgical site infection rates.

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 aim of this study was to assess the profile of nasal microbiome and evaluate the effect of a specific nasal decolonization solution on the microbiome. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, and parallel-group clinical study of 50 volunteers aged 18 years and older. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a nasal antiseptic solution, containing povidone-iodine as the main ingredient, (n = 25) or a control solution (n = 25). Nasal swabs were obtained before application (baseline) and at 3 timepoints after application (5 min, 2 h, 24 h). Nasal swabs were subjected to next generation sequencing analysis and cultured in agar plates. At baseline, there were substantial associations between anaerobic species, Corynebacterium spp., Staphylococcus spp., and Dolosigranulum spp. Then, a high bioburden reduction was observed after the application of povidone-iodine (log 10 3.68 ± 0.69 at 5 min; log 10 3.57 ± 0.94 at 2 h; log 10 1.17 ± 1.40 at 24 h), compared to the control. The top species affected by the treatment were Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus, and Corynebacterium species. None of the subjects experienced any adverse effects, nor increases in mucociliary clearance time. Antiseptic solutions applied to the anterior nares can transiently and markedly reduce the bioburden of the nose. The registration number for this clinical trial is NCT05617729.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication worldwide. WHO guidelines to prevent SSI recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and fascial closure using triclosan-coated sutures, but called for assessment of both interventions in low-resource settings. This study aimed to test both interventions in low-income and middle-income countries. FALCON was a 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial stratified by whether surgery was clean-contaminated, or contaminated or dirty, including patients undergoing abdominal surgery with a skin incision of 5 cm or greater. This trial was undertaken in 54 hospitals in seven countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa). Patients were computer randomised 1:1:1:1 to: (1) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, (2) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, (3) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, or (4) 10% aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was SSI, reported by trained outcome assessors, and presented using adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749. Between Dec 10, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 5788 patients (3091 in clean-contaminated stratum, 2697 in contaminated or dirty stratum) were randomised (1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, 1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, 1447 to aqueous povidone–iodine and non-coated suture, and 1449 to aqueous povidone–iodine and triclosan-coated suture). 14·0% (810/5788) of patients were children and 66·9% (3873/5788) had emergency surgery. The overall SSI rate was 22·0% (1163/5284; clean-contaminated stratum 15·5% [454/2923], contaminated or dirty stratum 30·0% [709/2361]). For both strata, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI with alcoholic chlorhexidine versus povidone–iodine (clean-contaminated stratum 15·3% [223/1455] vs 15·7% [231/1468], relative risk 0·97 [95% CI 0·82–1·14]; contaminated or dirty stratum 28·3% [338/1194] vs 31·8% [371/1167], relative risk 0·91 [95% CI 0·81–1·02]), or with triclosan-coated sutures versus non-coated sutures (clean-contaminated stratum 14·7% [215/1459] vs 16·3% [239/1464], relative risk 0·90 [95% CI 0·77–1·06]; contaminated or dirty stratum 29·4% [347/1181] vs 30·7% [362/1180], relative risk 0·98 [95% CI 0·87–1·10]). With both strata combined, there were no differences using alcoholic chlorhexidine or triclosan-coated sutures. This trial did not show benefit from 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation compared with povidone–iodine, or with triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures, in preventing SSI in clean-contaminated or contaminated or dirty surgical wounds. Both interventions are more expensive than alternatives, and these findings do not support recommendations for routine use. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant, BD.

Bacterial nanocellulose (BNC) is chemically identical with plant cellulose but free of byproducts like lignin, pectin, and hemicelluloses, featuring a unique reticulate network of fine fibers. BNC sheets are mostly obtained by static cultivation. Now, a Horizontal Lift Reactor may provide a cost efficient method for mass production. This is of particular interest as BNC features several properties of an ideal wound dressing although it exhibits no bactericidal activity. Therefore, BNC was functionalized with the antiseptics povidone-iodine (PI) and polihexanide (PHMB). Drug loading and release, mechanical characteristics, biocompatibility, and antimicrobial efficacy were investigated. Antiseptics release was based on diffusion and swelling according to Ritger–Peppas equation. PI-loaded BNC demonstrated a delayed release compared to PHMB due to a high molar drug mass and structural changes induced by PI insertion into BNC that also increased the compressive strength of BNC samples. Biological assays demonstrated high biocompatibility of PI-loaded BNC in human keratinocytes but a distinctly lower antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus compared to PHMB-loaded BNC. Overall, BNC loaded with PHMB demonstrated a better therapeutic window. Moreover, compressive and tensile strength were not changed by incorporation of PHMB into BNC, and solidity during loading and release could be confirmed.

Background and Aims: Surgical site infection (SSI) remains a common postoperative complication for patients with acute appendicitis. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dilute povidone-iodine and normal saline in preventing post-appendectomy surgical site infections. Methods The study included 224 consecutive patients who underwent open appendectomy for acute appendicitis between October 2020 and December 2021 at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital in Ghana. Patients were randomly assigned to have irrigation with either povidone iodine or normal saline after appendectomy. The surgical wounds were assessed for infection using the Southampton wound grading system at 5 days post-surgery till 30 days. Result The mean age of the patients was 30.8 ± 14.4 years. The overall incidence of SSI was 8.04% (10.7% in the N/S group and 5.4% in the PI group). Both groups had a higher percentage of male patients (58% in the N/S group and 58.9% in the PI group). The mean length of hospital stays for patients with and without SSI was 10.11 ± 5.06 days and 4.69 ± 2.07 days respectively. The mean length of stay for the N/S group and PI group patients was 5.25 ± 2.95 days and 5.02 ± 2.81 days respectively. The mean cost for patients with and without SSI was GHC3,813.64(US$238.3) and GHC2,364.45 (US$147.7) respectively. Conclusion We conclude that there was no difference in SSI rates when comparing normal saline and povidone-iodine as irrigant fluids in patients undergoing an open appendectomy.

Background To prevent infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-PB), some studies have investigated the efficacy of rectal disinfection using povidone-iodine (PI) and antibiotic prophylaxis (AP). Objective To summarize available data and compare the efficacy of rectal disinfection using PI with non-PI methods prior to TRUS-PB. Evidence acquisition Three databases were queried through November 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) analyzing patients who underwent TRUS-PB. We compared the effectiveness of rectal disinfection between PI groups and non-PI groups with or without AP. The primary outcomes of interest were the rates of overall infectious complications, fever, and sepsis. Subgroups analyses were conducted to assess the differential outcomes in patients using fluoroquinolone groups compared to those using other antibiotics groups. Evidence synthesis We included ten RCTs in the meta-analyses. The overall rates of infectious complications were significantly lower when rectal disinfection with PI was performed (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42–0.74, p  < 0.001). Compared to AP monotherapy, the combination of AP and PI was associated with significantly lower risk of infectious complications (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40–0.73, p  < 0.001) and fever (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.75, p  = 0.001), but not with sepsis (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.23–1.04, p  = 0.06). The use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics was associated with a lower risk of infectious complications and fever compared to non-FQ antibiotics. Conclusion Rectal disinfection with PI significantly reduces the rates of infectious complications and fever in patients undergoing TRUS-PB. However, this approach does not show a significant impact on reducing the rate of sepsis following the procedure.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common problem after surgery. Although several guidelines have indicated the efficacy of antiseptics, such as chlorhexidine-alcohol and povidone-iodine, in reducing SSI rate, the optimal recommendation is still not established. Olanexidine might have higher bactericidal activity than other antiseptic agents. However, no randomised study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of olanexidine over conventional antiseptics. We compared the effect of aqueous olanexidine and aqueous povidone-iodine on the incidence of SSI following clean-contaminated surgery. This was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, blinded-endpoint superiority trial for surgical skin antisepsis in clean-contaminated gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary pancreatic surgeries in four Japanese hospitals. Patients aged 20 years or older who underwent elective clean-contaminated wound surgery were randomly assigned in a 1:1 replacement ratio using a computer-generated block randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned to surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 1·5% olanexidine or surgical skin antisepsis with an aqueous formulation of 10% povidone-iodine before surgery. We used olanexidine in a ready-to-use applicator, and povidone-iodine was administered by a brush or by compression using pliers. Both antiseptics were applied from the papilla with a cranial limit and to the upper thigh with a caudal limit. The antiseptics were allowed to dry for 3 min, and then surgery started. Participants, some investigators, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. Participant enrolment was done by non-masked investigators. The primary outcome was 30-day SSI assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The surgical wound site of each participant was observed daily. After discharge, participants underwent at least one outpatient visit within 30 days after surgery. This trial is registered with University hospital Medical Information Network, 000031560. Between June 10, 2018, and April 18, 2019, 883 patients were assessed for eligibility. 587 patients were eligible and 294 received olanexidine and 293 received aqueous povidone-iodine before surgery. 30-day SSI occurred in 19 (7%) patients in the olanexidine group and 39 patients (13%) patients in the povidone-iodine group (adjusted risk difference −0·069; 90% CI −0·109 to −0·029; adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·48, 90% CI 0·30 to 0·74; p=0·002). Five patients (2%) in the olanexidine group and five (2%) in the povidone-iodine group developed adverse skin reactions (adjusted RR 0·99, 95% CI 0·29 to 3·40; p=1·00). Olanexidine significantly reduced the occurrence of overall SSI and superficial incisional SSI compared with aqueous povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Our results indicate that olanexidine might have a role to prevent SSI in patients who undergo clean-contaminated surgeries. Keio University and Ohyama Health Foundation.

This study was designed to assess the efficacy of using povidone-iodine (PVI) 10% and levofloxacin 0.5% about one hour before cataract surgery in minimizing aqueous contamination compared with using PVI 10%. The intervention group received three drops of mixed povidone-iodine and levofloxacin (PVI/Levofloxacin) solution one hour before surgery. After making the corneal incision in cataract surgery, 0.1 cc aqueous humor sample was taken and sent for culture. We compared the intervention group and control group using t-test and chi-square test in SPSS 25(Chicago IL, USA). 147 eyes of 147 patients were analyzed. The intervention and control groups consisted of 72 and 75 patients, respectively. The Control group showed significantly more positive cultures (16 cultures: 22.2%). the intervention group had four positive cultures (5.3%). ( P -value = 0.005). Topical levofloxacin 0.5% and povidone-iodine 10% mixture showed promising results in reducing the number of bacteria in the aqueous humor.