Skin preparation with alcohol versus alcohol followed by any antiseptic for preventing bacteraemia or contamination of blood for transfusion (Review)

Background: Blood for transfusion may become contaminated at any point between collection and transfusion and may result in bacteraemia (the presence of bacteria in the blood),severe illness or even death for the blood recipient. Donor arm skin is one potential source of blood contamination, so it is usual to cleanse the skin with an antiseptic before blood donation. One-step and two-step alcohol based antiseptic regimens are both commonly advocated but there is uncertainty as to which is most effective.----- Objectives: To assess the effects of cleansing the skin of blood donors with alcohol in a one-step compared with alcohol in a two-step procedure to prevent contamination of collected blood or bacteraemia in the recipient.----- Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (March 10 2009); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials(CENTRAL) The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1; Ovid MEDLINE - (1950 to February Week 4 2009); Ovid EMBASE - (1980 to 2009 Week 9); and EBSCO CINAHL - (1982 to February Week 4 2009). We also searched the reference lists of key papers.----- Selection criteria: All randomised trials (RCTs) comparing alcohol based donor skin cleansing in a one-step versus a two-step process that includes alcohol and any other antiseptic for pre-venepuncture skin cleansing were considered. Quasi randomised trials were to have been considered in the absence of RCTs.----- Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion.----- Main results: No studies (RCTs or quasi RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. Authors’ conclusions We did not identify any eligible studies for inclusion in this review. It is therefore unclear whether a two-step, alcohol followed by antiseptic skin cleansing process prior to blood donation confers any reduction in the risk of blood contamination or bacteraemia in blood recipients, or conversely whether a one-step process increases risk above that associated with a two-step process.

Incorporation of bioactive polyvinylpyrrolidone–iodine within bilayered collagen scaffolds enhances the differentiation and subchondral osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells

Polyvinylpyrrolidone–iodine (Povidone-iodine, PVP-I) is widely used as an antiseptic agent for lavation during joint surgery; however, the biological effects of PVP–I on cells from joint tissue are unknown. This study examined the biocompatibility and biological effects of PVP–I on cells from joint tissue, with the aim of optimizing cell-scaffold based joint repair. Cells from joint tissue, including cartilage derived progenitor cells (CPC), subchondral bone derived osteoblast and bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) were isolated. The concentration-dependent effects of PVP–I on cell proliferation, migration and differentiation were evaluated. Additionally, the efficacy and mechanism of a PVP–I loaded bilayer collagen scaffold for osteochondral defect repair was investigated in a rabbit model. A micromolar concentration of PVP–I was found not to affect cell proliferation, CPC migration or extracellular matrix production. Interestingly, micromolar concentrations of PVP–I promote osteogenic differentiation of BM-MSC, as evidenced by up-regulation of RUNX2 and Osteocalcin gene expression, as well as increased mineralization on the three-dimensional scaffold. PVP–I treatment of collagen scaffolds significantly increased fibronectin binding onto the scaffold surface and collagen type I protein synthesis of cultured BM-MSC. Implantation of PVP–I treated collagen scaffolds into rabbit osteochondral defect significantly enhanced subchondral bone regeneration at 6 weeks post-surgery compared with the scaffold alone (subchondral bone histological score of 8.80 ± 1.64 vs. 3.8 ± 2.19, p < 0.05). The biocompatibility and pro-osteogenic activity of PVP–I on the cells from joint tissue and the enhanced subchondral bone formation in PVP–I treated scaffolds would thus indicate the potential of PVP–I for osteochondral defect repair.

Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty : guideline recommendations and expert opinion

BACKGROUND: Numerous strategies are available to prevent surgical site infections in hip arthroplasty, but there is no consensus on which might be the best. This study examined infection prevention strategies currently recommended for patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Four clinical guidelines on infection prevention/orthopedics were reviewed. Infection control practitioners, infectious disease physicians, and orthopedic surgeons were consulted through structured interviews and an online survey. Strategies were classified as "highly important" if they were recommended by at least one guideline and ranked as significantly or critically important by >/=75% of the experts. RESULTS: The guideline review yielded 28 infection prevention measures, with 7 identified by experts as being highly important in this context: antibiotic prophylaxis, antiseptic skin preparation of patients, hand/forearm antisepsis by surgical staff, sterile gowns/surgical attire, ultraclean/laminar air operating theatres, antibiotic-impregnated cement, and surveillance. Controversial measures included antibiotic-impregnated cement and, considering recent literature, laminar air operating theatres. CONCLUSIONS: Some of these measures may already be accepted as routine clinical practice, whereas others are controversial. Whether these practices should be continued for this patient group will be informed by modeling the cost-effectiveness of infection prevention strategies. This will allow predictions of long-term health and cost outcomes and thus inform decisions on how to best use scarce health care resources for infection control.

Preoperative bathing or showering with skin antiseptics to prevent surgical site infection

Background Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after invasive (surgical) procedures. Preoperative bathing or showering with an antiseptic skin wash product is a well-accepted procedure for reducing skin bacteria (microflora). It is less clear whether reducing skin microflora leads to a lower incidence of surgical site infection. Objectives To review the evidence for preoperative bathing or showering with antiseptics for preventing hospital-acquired (nosocomial) surgical site infections. Search methods For this fifth update we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 18 December 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2014 Issue 11); Ovid MEDLINE (2012 to December Week 4 2014), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations December 18, 2014); Ovid EMBASE (2012 to 2014 Week 51), EBSCO CINAHL (2012 to December 18 2014) and reference lists of articles. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials comparing any antiseptic preparation used for preoperative full-body bathing or showering with non-antiseptic preparations in people undergoing surgery. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for selection, risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Main results We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this fifth update. Seven trials involving a total of 10,157 participants were included. Four of the included trials had three comparison groups. The antiseptic used in all trials was 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (Hibiscrub/Riohex). Three trials involving 7791 participants compared chlorhexidine with a placebo. Bathing with chlorhexidine compared with placebo did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SSIs; the relative risk of SSI (RR) was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.04). When only trials of high quality were included in this comparison, the RR of SSI was 0.95 (95%CI 0.82 to 1.10). Three trials of 1443 participants compared bar soap with chlorhexidine; when combined there was no difference in the risk of SSIs (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.84). Three trials of 1192 patients compared bathing with chlorhexidine with no washing, one large study found a statistically significant difference in favour of bathing with chlorhexidine (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.79). The smaller studies found no difference between patients who washed with chlorhexidine and those who did not wash preoperatively. Authors' conclusions This review provides no clear evidence of benefit for preoperative showering or bathing with chlorhexidine over other wash products, to reduce surgical site infection. Efforts to reduce the incidence of nosocomial surgical site infection should focus on interventions where effect has been demonstrated.