WHO's recommendation for surgical skin antisepsis is premature – Authors' reply

Evaluation of the role of povidone‑iodine in the prevention of surgical site infections

Background

The occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) is associated with increased risk of mortality, development of other infections, and the need for reintervention, posing a significant health burden. The aim of this review was to examine the current data and guidelines around the use of antiseptic povidone‑iodine (PVP-I) for the prevention of SSIs at each stage of surgical intervention.

Methods

A literature search for selected key words was performed using PubMed. Additional papers were identified based on author expertise.

Results

Scientific evidence demonstrates that PVP-I can be used at every stage of surgical intervention: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. PVP-I is one of the most widely used antiseptics on healthy skin and mucous membranes for preoperative surgical site preparation and is associated with a low SSI rate. For intraoperative irrigation, aqueous PVP-I is the recommended agent and has been demonstrated to decrease SSIs in a range of surgical settings, and for postoperative wound healing, there is a growing body of evidence to support the use of PVP-I.

Conclusions

There is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation. The use of a single agent (PVP-I) at each stage of surgical intervention could potentially provide advantages, including economic benefits, over agents that can only be used at discrete stages of the surgical procedure.

Key message

Evidence supports the use of PVP-I at all stages of surgical intervention, from preoperative measures (including skin preparation, preoperative washing, and nasal decolonization) to intraoperative irrigation, through to postoperative wound management. However, there is a need for more stringent study designs in clinical trials to enable meaningful comparisons between antiseptic agents, particularly for preoperative skin preparation.

Comparing Surgeon Adherence with World Health Organization Antiseptic Guidelines for Surgical Site Preparation in the United Kingdom and India

Background: Skin preparation with an antiseptic solution aims to reduce surgical site infection rates. Surgical site infections (SSIs) create a high burden on healthcare systems with impacts on morbidity, mortality, and cost. In 2016, The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an extensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing evidence. From this, they recommended the use of "alcohol based antiseptic solutions based on CHG for surgical site skin preparation in patients undergoing surgical procedures." This study aimed to assess surgeon compliance with this guidance in the United Kingdom and India. Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire was developed to assess surgeon preferences for antiseptic use in their surgical site preparation. The end point of data collection was defined after 50 responses in each region. Results: The majority of respondents in each center was general surgeons (n = 24, 48% United Kingdom; n = 21, 45% India), and registrars (n = 22, 44% United Kingdom; n = 23, 49% India). No surgeon preferred the use of any aqueous preparation. Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) was the preparation used most commonly in both centers (n = 30, 64% India; n = 24, 48% United Kingdom). In India, this represented a statistically significant difference (p = 0.0008), however, this was not observed in the United Kingdom (p = 0.22). There were no statistically significant differences between surgeon's reasons between the United Kingdom and India, other than "easier to see" (p = 0.016). Conclusions: This data show a reduced compliance of U.K. surgeons with WHO guidance for antiseptic use compared with Indian surgeons. Although the WHO has attempted to summarize the existing data to minimize the previous uncertainty surrounding antiseptic choices, the use of CHG continues to not be adopted widely. To draw robust conclusions to provide the foundations of further guidelines, future research should focus on prospective randomized controlled trials with large numbers across multiple surgical specialties.

Adaptive bacterial response to low level chlorhexidine exposure and its implications for hand hygiene

Chlorhexidine digluconate (CHG) is commonly used in healthcare, e.g. in skin antiseptics, antimicrobial soaps, alcohol-based hand rubs and oral or wound antiseptics. Aim of the literature review was to evaluate the potential of bacteria to adapt to low level CHG exposure. A maximum 4fold MIC increase to CHG was found after low level exposure in most of the 71 evaluated bacterial species. A strong adaptive mostly stable MIC change was described in strains or isolates of the healthcare-associated species E. coli, S. marcescens and P. aeruginosa (up to 500fold, 128fold or 32fold, respectively). The highest MIC values after adaptation were 2,048 mg/l (S. marcescens) and 1,024 mg/l (P. aeruginosa). A new resistance to tetracycline, gentamicin, meropeneme or triclosan was found in some adapted isolates. In E. coli horizontal gene transfer was induced (sulfonamide resistance by conjugation), pointing out an additional risk of sublethal CHG. The use of CHG in patient care - but also all other settings such as consumer products and households - should therefore be critically assessed and restricted to indications with a proven health benefit or justifiable public health benefits. Additional CHG has no health benefit when used in alcohol-based hand rubs and is not recommended by the WHO. For routine hand washing of soiled hands the use of plain soap is sufficient, CHG in soaps has no health benefit. In surgical hand antisepsis alcohol-based hand rubs should be preferred to CHG soaps. Implementation of these principles will help to reduce avoidable selection pressure.