Economic evaluation of chlorhexidine cloths on healthcare costs due to surgical site infections following total knee arthroplasty

The Utility of Chlorhexidine Cloth Use for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Surgical as well as Basic Science Applications: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Skin antisepsis, such as ready-to-use, no-rinse, 2% chlorhexidine-impregnated cloths, is one of the fundamental cornerstones for reducing periprosthetic infections after primary lower extremity total joint arthroplasties. This systematic review presents background material concerning the problem and methods to deal with and then describes the use of chlorhexidine cloth prophylaxis related to various surgical applications. The authors found an almost universal benefit of the cloths. In the meta-analysis, the total pooled effect showed a reduction in infection rates. The use of chlorhexidine cloths is appropriate for prophylaxis for knee arthroplasty, hip arthroplasty, and a variety of other surgeries.

Pre-Admission Use of Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Gauze for Skin Preparation Reduces the Incidence of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection after Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort with Retrospective Controls

Background: Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has long been a devastating complication after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with native skin flora always identified as the causative agents. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of pre-admission use of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauze for pre-operative skin preparation on infection rates after primary TKA surgeries. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing TKAs performed from January 2017 until January 2021 were prospectively recruited. The experimental group included patients who used chlorhexidine-impregnated gauze the evening before surgery for skin preparation. These patients were compared with a retrospective cohort of TKAs performed during the previous four years without this step as control group. During a one-year follow-up, complications including PJI and superficial infections were collected as the primary outcomes for analysis. Results: A total of 1,218 TKAs in the experimental group and 1,033 TKAs in the control group were included in the study. A total of seven (0.6%) cases of PJI were identified in the experimental group, whereas 16 (1.5%) cases were diagnosed in the control group; a significant difference was detected (χ² = 5.245; p = 0.022). Eighteen (1.5%) cases of superficial infection were identified in the experimental group, and 28 (2.7%) cases were observed in the control group; a significant difference was found between groups (χ² = 4.243; p = 0.039). No significant differences were found on other wound-related complications. Conclusions: Pre-admission use of chlorhexidine-impregnated gauze for skin preparation was found to be an effective practice in reducing the incidence of PJI after TKA procedures, which has the potential of being utilized for patients undergoing TKA surgeries.

Oral versus intravenous antibiotics for bone and joint infections: the OVIVA non-inferiority RCT

BACKGROUND

Management of bone and joint infection commonly includes 4-6 weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics, but there is little evidence to suggest that oral (PO) therapy results in worse outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether or not PO antibiotics are non-inferior to IV antibiotics in treating bone and joint infection.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, randomised (1 : 1), open-label, non-inferiority trial. The non-inferiority margin was 7.5%.

SETTING

Twenty-six NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with a clinical diagnosis of bone, joint or orthopaedic metalware-associated infection who would ordinarily receive at least 6 weeks of antibiotics, and who had received ≤ 7 days of IV therapy from definitive surgery (or start of planned curative treatment in patients managed non-operatively).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were centrally computer-randomised to PO or IV antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on PO therapy was permitted in either arm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was the proportion of participants experiencing treatment failure within 1 year. An associated cost-effectiveness evaluation assessed health resource use and quality-of-life data.

RESULTS

Out of 1054 participants (527 in each arm), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.30%) participants. Treatment failure was identified in 141 out of 1015 (13.89%) participants: 74 out of 506 (14.62%) and 67 out of 509 (13.16%) of those participants randomised to IV and PO therapy, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, using multiple imputation to include all participants, the imputed risk difference between PO and IV therapy for definitive treatment failure was -1.38% (90% confidence interval -4.94% to 2.19%), thus meeting the non-inferiority criterion. A complete-case analysis, a per-protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses for missing data each confirmed this result. With the exception of IV catheter complications [49/523 (9.37%) in the IV arm vs. 5/523 (0.96%) in the PO arm)], there was no significant difference between the two arms in the incidence of serious adverse events. PO therapy was highly cost-effective, yielding a saving of £2740 per patient without any significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two arms of the trial.

LIMITATIONS

The OVIVA (Oral Versus IntraVenous Antibiotics) trial was an open-label trial, but bias was limited by assessing all potential end points by a blinded adjudication committee. The population was heterogenous, which facilitated generalisability but limited the statistical power of subgroup analyses. Participants were only followed up for 1 year so differences in late recurrence cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

PO antibiotic therapy is non-inferior to IV therapy when used during the first 6 weeks in the treatment for bone and joint infection, as assessed by definitive treatment failure within 1 year of randomisation. These findings challenge the current standard of care and provide an opportunity to realise significant benefits for patients, antimicrobial stewardship and the health economy.

FUTURE WORK

Further work is required to define the optimal total duration of therapy for bone and joint infection in the context of specific surgical interventions. Currently, wide variation in clinical practice suggests significant redundancy that likely contributes to the excess and unnecessary use of antibiotics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91566927.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial 'Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics' (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections. Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial ‘Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics’ (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA.

Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up.

Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031).

Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Cost-effectiveness of oral versus intravenous antibiotics (OVIVA) in patients with bone and joint infection: evidence from a non-inferiority trial

Background: Bone and joint infections are becoming increasingly common and are usually treated with surgery and a course of intravenous antibiotics. However, there is no evidence to support the superiority of intravenous therapy and there is a growing body of literature showing that oral therapy is effective in treating these infections.Given this lack of evidence the clinical trial 'Oral Versus Intravenous Antibiotics' (OVIVA) was designed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous versus oral antibiotics for the treatment of bone and joint infections, using a non-inferiority design. Clinical results from the trial indicate that oral antibiotics are non-inferior to intravenous antibiotics. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous compared to oral antibiotics for treating bone and joint infections, using data from OVIVA. Methods: A cost-utility analysis was carried out, the main economic outcome measure was the quality adjusted life-year, measured using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, combined with costs to estimate cost-effectiveness over 12-months follow-up. Results: Results show that costs were significantly lower in the oral arm compared to the intravenous arm, a difference of £2,740 (95% confidence interval £1,488 to £3,992). Results of four sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case results. QALYs were marginally higher in the oral arm, however this difference was not statistically significant; -0.007 (95% confidence interval -0.045 to 0.031). Conclusions: Treating patients with bone and joint infections for the first six weeks of therapy with oral antibiotics is both less costly and does not result in detectable differences in quality of life compared to treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Adopting a practice of treating bone and joint infections with oral antibiotics early in the course of therapy could potentially save the UK National Health Service over £17 million annually.

Control Strategies for Infection Prevention in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Despite the development of newer preventative measures, the rate of infection continues to be approximately 1% for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The extent of the infection can range from a mild superficial infection to a more serious periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). PJIs not only play a significant role in the clinical well-being of the TJA patient population, but also have substantial economic implications on the health care system. Several approaches are currently being used to mitigate the risk of PJI after TJA. The variety of prophylactic measures to prevent infection after TJA must be thoroughly discussed and evaluated.

Economic Evaluation of Antibacterial Coatings on Healthcare Costs in First Year Following Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Antibacterial coatings (ABCs) of implants have proven safe and effective to reduce postsurgical infection, but little is known about their possible economic impact on large-scale use. This study evaluated the point of economic balance, during the first year after surgery, and the potential overall annual healthcare cost savings of 3 different antibacterial technologies applied to joint arthroplasty: a dual-antibiotic-loaded bone cement (COPAL G + C), an antibacterial hydrogel coating (DAC), and a silver coating (Agluna).

METHODS

The variables included in the algorithm were average cost and number of primary joint arthroplasties; average cost per patient of the ABC; incidence of periprosthetic joint infections and expected reduction using the ABCs; average cost of infection treatment and expected number of cases.

RESULTS

The point of economic balance for COPAL G + C, DAC, and Agluna in the first year after surgery was reached in patient populations with an expected postsurgical infection rate of 1.5%, 2.6%, and 19.2%, respectively. If applied on a national scale, in a moderately high-risk population of patients with a 5% expected postsurgical infection rate, COPAL G + C and DAC hydrogel would provide annual direct cost savings of approximately €48,800,000 and €43,200,000 (€1220 and €1080 per patient), respectively, while the silver coating would be associated with an economic loss of approximately €136,000,000.

CONCLUSION

This economic evaluation shows that ABC technologies have the potential to decrease healthcare costs primarily by decreasing the incidence of surgical site infections, provided that the technology is used in the appropriate risk class of patients.

Topical adjuvants incompletely remove adherent Staphylococcus aureus from implant materials

Adjuvant treatments including Betadine, Dakin's solution (sodium hypochlorite), or hydrogen peroxide (H₂ O₂ ) have been attempted to eradicate prosthetic joint infection caused by biofilm or intracellular bacteria. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro abilities of chemical adjuvants to decrease Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) biofilm presence on orthopaedic implant grade materials, including titanium, stainless steel, and cobalt chrome. S. aureus biofilms were grown for 48 h and evaluated for baseline colony forming units/centimeter squared (CFU/cm² ) and compared to treatments with Betadine, Dakin's solution, H₂ O₂ , or 1% chlorine dioxide (ClO₂ ). Control discs (n = 18) across all metals had an average of 4.2 × 10⁷ CFU/cm² . All treatments had statistically significant reductions in CFU/cm² when compared to respective control discs (p < 0.05). For all metals combined, the most efficacious treatments were Betadine and H₂ O₂ , with an average 98% and 97% CFU/cm² reduction, respectively. There were no significant differences between reductions seen with Betadine and H₂ O₂ , but both groups had statistically greater reductions than Dakin's solution and ClO₂ . There was no change in antibiotic resistance patterns after treatment. Analysis of S. aureus biofilms demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in biofilm after a five-minute treatment with the modalities, with an average two log reduction in CFU/cm² . Statement of clinical significance: While statistically significant reductions in CFU/cm² were accomplished with chemical adjuvant treatments, the overall concentration of bacteria never fell below 10⁵ CFU/cm² , leading to questionable clinical significance. Further techniques to eradicate biofilm should be investigated. © 2017 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:1599-1604, 2018.

Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Orthopedic Literature in Medical Journals-Is It Negatively Biased?

BACKGROUND

Healthcare policy is often determined by well-designed studies most often published in high-impact medical journals. However, concern about the presence of publication bias against lower-extremity arthroplasty-related studies has called into question some of the validity of certain reports. There are only a few studies investigating the presence of the bias in high-impact medical journals against lower-extremity arthroplasty intervention, particularly in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and the Lancet. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess (1) the distribution of positive, neutral, and negative results; (2) the number of reports focused on lower-extremity arthroplasty complications among these 3 journals; and (3) difference in bias between 2 time periods (1975 to 1990 and 2000 to 2016).

METHODS

A review of the literature from 3 major medical journals (NEJM, Lancet, and JAMA) was performed using PubMed electronic databases, which retrieved articles between January 1976 and December 2016. Studies were categorized as being positive, neutral, and negatively biased by 2 reviewers. Studies were categorized as reporting on lower-extremity arthroplasty-related complications if they were based on complications including deep vein thrombosis, infection, metal-related complication, fat embolism, readmission, or mortality. In addition, we have compared the journal bias between 2 different time points (1975 to 1990 and 2000 to 2016). Descriptive analyses were performed to assess frequencies. Chi-squared analysis was conducted for categorical variables, whereas a z-test was performed for dichotomous data.

RESULTS

When assessing all 3 journals, there were 46 positive (30.3%), 46 negative (30.3%), and 60 neutral reports (39.5%). There was no statistically significant difference in classification proportions between the 3 groups (P = .905). There was a higher percentage of medical literature reporting on the complications of arthroplasty (55.9%); however, this was not statistically significant (z-score = 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.64; P = .17). There was no difference in overall journal reporting between 1975 to 1990 and 2000 to 2016 (P = .548).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of publication bias of lower-extremity arthroplasty reports in the major medical journals (JAMA, NEJM, and Lancet). However, there were more published studies reporting on complications of lower-extremity arthroplasty. This may be due to systematic bias among journal editors in these journals, or due to low journal submission reporting noncomplications after arthroplasty intervention. We did not find the time period to be a factor in bias reporting of orthopedic literature in major medical journals. More work is needed to verify the results of this study.

No Clear Benefit of Chlorhexidine Use at Home Before Surgical Preparation

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of home use of chlorhexidine before surgery to reduce bacterial colonization. However, these studies have provided conflicting evidence about the potential efficacy of this strategy in decreasing bacterial loads and infection rates across surgical populations, and no prior study has analyzed the benefit of this intervention before spine surgery. We prospectively analyzed the effectiveness of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes for decreasing bacterial counts on the posterior neck.

METHODS

Sixteen healthy adults participated in this prospective study. The right side of each participant's neck was wiped twice (the night before and the morning of the experiment) with chlorhexidine gluconate wipes. The left side was used as the control region. Bacterial swabs were obtained as a baseline upon enrollment in the study, then upon arrival at the hospital, and, finally, after both sides of the neck had received standard preoperative scrubbing.

RESULTS

All patients had positive baseline bacterial growth (median >1,000 colonies/mL). When chlorhexidine gluconate wipes were used, decreased bacterial counts were noted before the preoperative scrub, but this finding was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). All patients had zero bacteria identified on either side of their neck after completion of the preoperative scrub.

CONCLUSION

At-home use of chlorhexidine gluconate wipes did not decrease the topical bacterial burden. Therefore, using chlorhexidine gluconate wipes at home before surgery may offer no added benefit.

Preoperative bathing with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of surgical site infections after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection is a devastating postoperative complication, and the occurrence ranges from 1% to 2% after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The efficacy of the preoperative use of chlorhexidine for reducing infection has been debated. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the efficacy of the use of chlorhexidine to prevent surgical site infections after TKA.

METHODS

In February 2017, a systematic literature review was conducted using the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Google database. Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective comparative study (RCS) that compared the use of chlorhexidine versus control washes to prep patients for TKA were retrieved. The primary endpoint was to compare the total incidence of infection with and without the use of chlorhexidine. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of infection in low-risk category patients, moderate-risk category patients, and high-risk category patients. After testing for publication bias and heterogeneity between studies, data were aggregated for random-effects modeling when necessary.

RESULTS

Four clinical trials that included 8787 patients (chlorhexidine group: n = 2615, control group: n = 6172) were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Chlorhexidine was associated with a reduced total incidence of infection, corresponding to a reduction of 1.69% [risk ratio (RR) = 0.22; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.12-0.40; P = .000]. Similarly, chlorhexidine was associated with a reduction in the incidence of infection among patients in the moderate-risk category (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63; P = .007) and the high-risk category (RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.67; P = .014). There was no significant difference between the incidence of infection in low-risk category patients with chlorhexidine use compared with the use of control washes (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.22-1.60; P = .330).

CONCLUSION

The preoperative use of chlorhexidine could reduce the total incidence of infection and the incidence of infection in moderate-risk and high-risk category patients. The overall evidence and the number of included studies was limited; thus, a greater number of high-quality RCTs is still needed to further identify the effects of chlorhexidine on reducing the incidence of infection after TKA.

Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Surgical Preparation Solutions in Hand Surgery

BACKGROUND

Decontamination of the skin prior to incision is part of the standard of care for any surgical procedure. Previous studies have demonstrated variable efficacy of different surgical preparation solutions based on anatomic location. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of 3 commonly used surgical preparation solutions in eliminating bacteria from the skin prior to incision for common elective soft tissue hand procedures.

METHODS

A total of 240 patients undergoing clean, elective, soft tissue hand surgery were prospectively randomized to 1 of 3 groups (ChloraPrep, DuraPrep, or Betadine). Prepreparation and postpreparation cultures were obtained adjacent to the surgical incision and neutralization was performed on the obtained specimen. Cultures were held for 14 days and patients followed for 6 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postpreparation cultures were positive in 21 of 80 (26.3%) ChloraPrep patients, 3 of 79 (3.8%) DuraPrep patients, and 1 of 81 (1.2%) Betadine patients ( P < .001). There was no difference in the postpreparation culture rate between DuraPrep and Betadine ( P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Duraprep and Betadine were found to be superior to Chloraprep for skin decontamination prior to clean elective soft tissue hand surgery. The bacterial flora of the hand was found to be different from those of the shoulder and spine. The clinical significance of this finding requires clinical consideration because the majority of prepreparation and postpreparation positive cultures were of Bacillus species, which are rarely a cause of postoperative infections.

Prevention of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections through chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated washcloth bathing in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised crossover trials

We assessed the impact of 2% daily patient bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) washcloths on the incidence of hospital-acquired (HA) and central line-associated (CLA) bloodstream infections (BSI) in intensive care units (ICUs). We searched randomised studies in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) and Web of Science databases up to April 2015. Primary outcomes were total HABSI, central line, and non-central line-associated BSI rates per patient-days. Secondary outcomes included Gram-negative and Gram-positive BSI rates and adverse events. Four randomised crossover trials involved 25 ICUs and 22,850 patients. Meta-analysis identified a total HABSI rate reduction (odds ratio (OR): 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60–0.90; p = 0.002) with moderate heterogeneity (I² = 36%). Subgroup analysis identified significantly stronger rate reductions (p = 0.01) for CLABSI (OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35–0.71; p < 0.001) than other HABSI (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70–0.97; p = 0.02) with low heterogeneity (I² = 0%). This effect was evident in the Gram-positive subgroup (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.31–0.99; p = 0.05), but became non-significant after removal of a high-risk-of-bias study. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the intervention effect remained significant for total and central line-associated HABSI. We suggest that use of CHG washcloths prevents HABSI and CLABSI in ICUs, possibly due to the reduction in Gram-positive skin commensals.

Use of Chlorhexidine Preparations in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Chlorhexidine is a widely used antiseptic because of its rapid and persistent action. It is well tolerated and available in different formulations at various concentrations. Chlorhexidine can be used for pre-operative skin cleansing, surgical site preparation, hand antisepsis of the surgical team and intra-articular irrigation of infected joints. The optimal intra-articular concentration of chlorhexidine gluconate in irrigation solution is 2%, to provide a persistent decrease in biofilm formation, though cytotoxicity might be an issue. Although chlorhexidine is relatively cheap, routine use of chlorhexidine without evidence of clear benefits can lead to unnecessary costs, adverse effects and even emergence of resistance. This review focuses on the current applications of various chlorhexidine formulations in TJA. As the treatment of PJI is challenging and expensive, effective preparations of chlorhexidine could help in the prevention and control of PJI.

A Randomized, Clinical Trial of Preadmission Chlorhexidine Skin Preparation for Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic infections are devastating postoperative complications of total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with native skin flora commonly identified as causative organisms. We compared 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths to standard-of-care antiseptic bathing in patients before TJA, to evaluate periprosthetic infection risk at 1-year follow-up.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial at a single institution of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. Chlorhexidine-treated patients (275 arthroplasties) applied 2% chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated cloths the night before and morning of admission. The standard-of-care cohort (279 arthroplasties) bathed with soap and water preadmission. Patients were excluded according to the following: (1) unable to comply with study requirements, (2) pregnant, (3) <18 years, (4) medical history of immunosuppression or steroid use, (5) chronic hepatitis B/C infection, (6) had infection around joint requiring surgery, or (7) chose not to participate. A total of 539 patients (554 arthroplasties) were included in the final population. There were no significant differences in American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, cut time, risk scores, or diabetes and smoking prevalence between cohorts (P > .05).

RESULTS

A lower periprosthetic infection rate was found in the chlorhexidine cohort (0.4%) when compared to standard-of-care cohorts (2.9%). The infection odds ratio was 8.15 (95% confidence interval = 1.01-65.6; P = .049) for the standard-of-care cohort compared to the chlorhexidine cohort. No differences in assessed risk factors were found between groups. No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative chlorhexidine cloth use decreased the risk of periprosthetic infection. This may be an appropriate antiseptic protocol to implement for patients undergoing lower extremity TJA.

Risk Factors for Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Series of 3836 Cases from One Institution

Higher PJI rates may be related to identifiable risk factors, which may or may not be modifiable. Identifying risk factors preoperatively provides opportunities for modification and potentially decreasing the incidence of PJI. The purposes of this study were to: (1) retrospectively identify and quantify risk factors for PJI following primary TKA, and (2) to classify those significant risk factors as either non-modifiable or modifiable for intervention prior to surgery. Optimization of modifiable risk factors such as Staphylococcus aureus colonization, and tobacco use prior to primary TKA may decrease the incidence of periprosthetic joint infection after primary TKA, thereby reducing morbidity and the costs associated with treating those infections.

Staphylococcus aureus infections following knee and hip prosthesis insertion procedures

Background

Staphylococcus aureus is the most common and most important pathogen following knee and hip arthroplasty procedures. Understanding the epidemiology of invasive S. aureus infections is important to quantify this serious complication.

Methods

This nested retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients who had undergone insertion of knee or hip prostheses with clean or clean-contaminated wound class at 11 hospitals between 2003–2006. Invasive S. aureus infections, non-superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSIs) and blood stream infections (BSIs), were prospectively identified following each procedure. Prevalence rates, per 100 procedures, were estimated.

Results

13,719 prosthetic knee (62%) and hip (38%) insertion procedures were performed. Of 92 invasive S. aureus infections identified, SSIs were more common (80%) than SSI and BSI (10%) or BSI alone (10%). The rate of invasive S. aureus infection/100 procedures was 0.57 [95% CI: 0.43-0.73] for knee insertion and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.61-1.08] for hip insertion. More than half (53%) were methicillin-resistant. Median time-to-onset of infection was 34 and 26 days for knee and hip insertion, respectively. Infection was associated with higher National Healthcare Safety Network risk index (p ≤ 0.0001).

Conclusions

Post-operative invasive S. aureus infections were rare, but difficult-to-treat methicillin-resistant infections were relatively common. Optimizing preventative efforts may greatly reduce the healthcare burden associated with S. aureus infections.

The Otto Aufranc Award: Modifiable versus nonmodifiable risk factors for infection after hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are associated with increased morbidity and cost. It would be important to identify any modifiable patient- and surgical-related factors that could be modified before surgery to decrease the risk of PJI.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to identify and quantify the magnitude of modifiable risk factors for deep PJIs after primary hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

A series of 3672 primary and 406 revision hip arthroplasties performed at a single specialty hospital over a 3-year period were reviewed. All deep PJIs were identified using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definitions (ie, occurs within 30-90 days postoperatively, involves deep soft tissues of the incision, purulent drainage, dehiscence and fever, localized pain or tenderness). Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the association between patient and surgical risk factors and PJIs. For the elective patients, the procedure was performed on the day of admission ("same-day procedure"), whereas for the fracture and nonelective patients, the procedure was performed 1 or more days postadmission ("nonsame-day procedure"). Staphylococcus aureus colonization, tobacco use, and body mass index (BMI) were defined as patient-related modifiable risk factors.

RESULTS

Forty-seven (1.3%) deep PJIs were identified. Infection developed in 20 of 363 hips of nonsame-day procedures and 27 of 3309 same-day procedures (p=0.006). There were eight (2%) infections in the revision group. After controlling for confounding variables, our multivariate analysis showed that BMI≧40 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 4.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-12.88; p=0.01), operating time>115 minutes (OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.23-9.28; p=0.018), nonsame-day surgery (OR, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.44-12.02; p=0.008), and revision surgery (OR, 4.23; 95% CI, 1.67-10.72; p<0.001) are significant risk factors for PJIs. Tobacco use and S aureus colonization were additive risk factors when combined with other significant risk factors (OR, 12.76; 95% CI, 2.47-66.16; p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsame-day hip and revision arthroplasties have higher infection rates than same-day primary surgeries. These characteristics are not modifiable and should be categorized as a separate cohort for complication-reporting purposes. Potentially modifiable risk factors in our patient population include operating time, elevated BMI, tobacco use, and S aureus colonization. Modifying risk factors may decrease the incidence of PJIs. When reporting deep PJI rates, stratification into preventable versus nonpreventable infections may provide a better assessment of performance on an institutional and individual surgeon level.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Infections after breast surgery: potential ways to reduce infection rates

SUMMARY 

Breast infection rates are higher than expected for clean cases and are decreased with the use of prophylactic preoperative antibiotics. Surgical care bundles include evidence-based measures such as selection of preoperative antibiotics to cover skin flora, skin preparation, stopping antibiotics within 24 h, normothermia and hair removal. Glycemic control should be addressed but there is no additional benefit with tight control. Drain antisepsis provides a promising new approach to reducing infections in breast operations that use surgical drains. Other surgical disciplines have shown benefit with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus decolonization, vancomycin powder application and use of gentamicin-impregnated collagen plugs.

Cost burden of 30-day readmissions following Medicare total hip and knee arthroplasty

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has proposed bundling of payments for acute care episodes for certain procedures, including total joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to quantify the readmission burden of TJA as a function of readmission rate and reimbursement for the bundled payment. Using the hospital's administrative database, we identified all unplanned 30-day readmissions following index admissions for total hip and total knee arthroplasty, and revision hip and knee arthroplasty among Medicare beneficiaries from 2009 to 2012. For each group, we determined 30-day readmission rates and direct costs of each readmission. The hospital cost margins for Medicare TJAs are small and any decrease in these margins can potentially make performing these procedures economically unfeasible potentially decreasing Medicare patient access.