Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site infections: a systematic review, GRADE assessment, and network meta-analysis.

Hasti Jalalzadeh, H. Groenen, D. Buis, Yasmine E.M. Dreissen, Jon HM Goosen, F. IJpma, M. J. van der Laan, Roald R Schaad, P. Segers, W. C. van der Zwet, M. Griekspoor, W. Harmsen, N. Wolfhagen, M. Boermeester
{"title":"Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site infections: a systematic review, GRADE assessment, and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Hasti Jalalzadeh, H. Groenen, D. Buis, Yasmine E.M. Dreissen, Jon HM Goosen, F. IJpma, M. J. van der Laan, Roald R Schaad, P. Segers, W. C. van der Zwet, M. Griekspoor, W. Harmsen, N. Wolfhagen, M. Boermeester","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4047135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nSurgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThis systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554.\n\n\nFINDINGS\nOverall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I2=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups.\n\n\nINTERPRETATION\nFor adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed.\n\n\nFUNDING\nDutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.","PeriodicalId":344281,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet. Microbe","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet. Microbe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4047135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

BACKGROUND Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication and substantially increases health-care costs. Published meta-analyses and international guidelines differ with regard to which preoperative skin antiseptic solution and concentration has the highest efficacy. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different skin preparation solutions and concentrations for the prevention of SSIs, and to provide an overview of current guidelines. METHODS This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different preoperative skin antiseptics in the prevention of SSIs in adult patients undergoing surgery of any wound classification. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, published up to Nov 23, 2021, that directly compared two or more antiseptic agents (ie, chlorhexidine, iodine, or olanexidine) or concentrations in aqueous and alcohol-based solutions. We excluded paediatric, animal, and non-randomised studies, and studies not providing standard preoperative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis. Studies with no SSIs in both groups were excluded from the quantitative analysis. Two reviewers screened and reviewed eligible full texts and extracted data. The primary outcome was the occurrence of SSI (ie, superficial, deep, and organ space). We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis to estimate the network effects of the skin preparation solutions on the prevention of SSIs. A risk-of-bias and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment were done to determine the certainty of the evidence. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021293554. FINDINGS Overall, 2326 articles were identified, 33 studies were eligible for the systematic review, and 27 studies with 17 735 patients reporting 2144 SSIs (overall incidence of 12·1%) were included in the quantitative analysis. Only 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol (relative risk 0·75, 95% CI 0·61-0·92) and 1·5% olanexidine (0·49, 0·26-0·92) significantly reduced the rate of SSIs compared with aqueous iodine. For clean surgery, we found no difference in efficacy between different concentrations of chlorhexidine in alcohol. Seven RCTs were at high risk of bias, 24 had some concerns, and two had low risk of bias. Heterogeneity across the studies was moderate (I2=27·5%), and netsplitting did not show inconsistencies between direct and indirect comparisons. Five of ten studies that mentioned adverse events related to the skin preparation solutions reported no adverse events, and five reported a total of 56 mild events (mainly erythema, pruritus, dermatitis, skin irritation, or mild allergic symptoms); none reported a substantial difference in adverse events between groups. INTERPRETATION For adult patients undergoing a surgical procedure of any wound classification, skin preparation using either 2·0-2·5% chlorhexidine in alcohol or 1·5% olanexidine is most effective in the prevention of SSIs. For clean surgery, no specific concentration of chlorhexidine in alcohol can be recommended. The efficacy of olanexidine was established by a single randomised trial and further investigation is needed. FUNDING Dutch Association for Quality Funds Medical Specialists.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同术前皮肤杀菌剂对手术部位感染发生率的影响:系统综述、GRADE评估和网络荟萃分析。
背景:手术部位感染(SSI)是最常见的术后并发症,大大增加了医疗费用。已发表的荟萃分析和国际指南在哪种术前皮肤消毒溶液和浓度具有最高功效方面存在差异。我们的目的是比较不同的皮肤准备溶液和浓度对预防ssi的功效,并提供当前指南的概述。方法本系统综述和网络荟萃分析比较了术前不同皮肤防腐剂在预防任何伤口分类的成人手术患者ssi中的作用。我们在MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane CENTRAL检索了截至2021年11月23日发表的随机对照试验(RCTs),这些试验直接比较了两种或两种以上的防腐剂(如氯己定、碘或奥烷西定)或水溶液和醇基溶液中的浓度。我们排除了儿科、动物和非随机研究,以及不提供标准术前静脉注射抗生素预防的研究。两组均无ssi的研究被排除在定量分析之外。两名审稿人筛选和审查了符合条件的全文并提取了数据。主要结局是SSI(即浅表、深部和器官间隙)的发生。我们进行了一项频率随机效应网络荟萃分析,以估计皮肤准备溶液对预防ssi的网络效应。对推荐、评估、发展和评价进行偏倚风险和分级评估,以确定证据的确定性。本研究已注册为PROSPERO, CRD42021293554。结果:共纳入2326篇文献,33项研究符合系统评价标准,27项研究共17735例患者报告2144例ssi(总发病率12.1%)被纳入定量分析。与水碘相比,只有2% ~ 2.5%的氯己定(相对危险度为0.75,95% CI为0.61 ~ 0.92)和1.5%的奥烷西定(相对危险度为0.49,95% CI为0.26 ~ 0.92)能显著降低ssi发生率。对于清洁手术,我们发现不同浓度的氯己定在酒精中的疗效没有差异。7项随机对照试验具有高偏倚风险,24项有一定的顾虑,2项具有低偏倚风险。各研究的异质性为中等(I2= 27.5%),净分割在直接和间接比较中没有显示不一致。提到与皮肤制剂溶液相关的不良事件的10项研究中有5项报告没有不良事件,5项报告总共有56项轻度事件(主要是红斑、瘙痒、皮炎、皮肤刺激或轻度过敏症状);没有报告组间不良事件有实质性差异。对于接受外科手术的任何伤口分类的成年患者,使用2.0 - 2.5%的酒精氯己定或1.5%的奥烷定进行皮肤准备对预防ssi最有效。对于清洁手术,不建议在酒精中使用特定浓度的氯己定。奥兰内西定的疗效是通过一项单随机试验确定的,需要进一步的研究。资助荷兰质量资助医学专家协会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of different preoperative skin antiseptics on the incidence of surgical site infections: a systematic review, GRADE assessment, and network meta-analysis. Nirsevimab: a promising therapy for RSV. Correction to Lancet Microbe 2022; 3: e92. Health inequities and HTLV-1. Correction to Lancet Microbe 2021; published online Dec 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00241-X.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1