Aqueous skin antisepsis before surgical fixation of open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine skin antisepsis is frequently recommended for most surgical procedures; however, it is unclear if these recommendations should apply to surgery involving traumatic contaminated wounds where povidone-iodine has previously been preferred. We aimed to compare the effect of aqueous 10% povidone-iodine versus aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate on the risk of surgical site infection in patients who required surgery for an open fracture.

METHODS

We conducted a multiple-period, cluster-randomised, crossover trial (Aqueous-PREP) at 14 hospitals in Canada, Spain, and the USA. Eligible patients were adults aged 18 years or older with an open extremity fracture treated with a surgical fixation implant. For inclusion, the open fracture required formal surgical debridement within 72 h of the injury. Participating sites were randomly assigned (1:1) to use either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate immediately before surgical incision; sites then alternated between the study interventions every 2 months. Participants, health-care providers, and study personnel were aware of the treatment assignment due to the colour of the solutions. The outcome adjudicators and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was surgical site infection, guided by the 2017 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Healthcare Safety Network reporting criteria, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ space infection within 90 days of surgery. The primary analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle and included all participants in the groups to which they were randomly assigned. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03385304.

FINDINGS

Between April 8, 2018, and June 8, 2021, 3619 patients were assessed for eligibility and 1683 were enrolled and randomly assigned to povidone-iodine (n=847) or chlorhexidine gluconate (n=836). The trial's adjudication committee determined that 45 participants were ineligible, leaving 1638 participants in the primary analysis, with 828 in the povidone-iodine group and 810 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (mean age 44·9 years [SD 18·0]; 629 [38%] were female and 1009 [62%] were male). Among 1571 participants in whom the primary outcome was known, a surgical site infection occurred in 59 (7%) of 787 participants in the povidone-iodine group and 58 (7%) of 784 in the chlorhexidine gluconate group (odds ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·74 to 1·65; p=0·61; risk difference 0·6%, 95% CI -1·4 to 3·4).

INTERPRETATION

For patients who require surgical fixation of an open fracture, either aqueous 10% povidone-iodine or aqueous 4% chlorhexidine gluconate can be selected for skin antisepsis on the basis of solution availability, patient contraindications, or product cost. These findings might also have implications for antisepsis of other traumatic wounds.

FUNDING

US Department of Defense, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster University Surgical Associates, PSI Foundation.

Association of COVID-19 With Achieving Time-to-Surgery Benchmarks in Patients With Musculoskeletal Trauma

Question

Were resource constraints due to the COVID-19 pandemic associated with a delay in urgent fracture surgery beyond national time-to-surgery benchmarks?

Findings

In this cohort pre-post study that included 3589 patients, there was no association between time to surgery and COVID-19 in either open fracture or closed femur/hip fracture cohorts.

Meaning

Despite concerns that the unprecedented challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic would delay acute management of urgent surgery, many hospital systems within the US were able to implement strategies in keeping with time-to-surgery standards for orthopedic trauma.

Importance

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many hospital systems were forced to reduce operating room capacity and reallocate resources. The outcomes of these policies on the care of injured patients and the maintenance of emergency services have not been adequately reported.

Objective

To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with delays in urgent fracture surgery beyond national time-to-surgery benchmarks.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data collected in the Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Preoperative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma among at 20 sites throughout the US and Canada and included patients who sustained open fractures or closed femur or hip fractures.

Exposure

COVID-19–era operating room restrictions were compared with pre–COVID-19 data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Surgery within 24 hours after injury.

Results

A total of 3589 patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [25.4] years; 1913 [53.3%] male) were included in this study, 2175 pre–COVID-19 and 1414 during COVID-19. A total of 54 patients (3.1%) in the open fracture cohort and 407 patients (21.8%) in the closed hip/femur fracture cohort did not meet 24-hour time-to-surgery benchmarks. We were unable to detect any association between time to operating room and COVID-19 era in either open fracture (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% CI, 0.77-2.55; P = .28) or closed femur/hip fracture (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.74-1.37; P = .97) cohorts. In the closed femur/hip fracture cohort, there was no association between time to operating room and regional COVID-19 prevalence (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.70-1.64; P = .76).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, there was no association between meeting time-to-surgery benchmarks in either open fracture or closed femur/hip fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic. This is counter to concerns that the unprecedented challenges associated with managing the COVID-19 pandemic would be associated with clinically significant delays in acute management of urgent surgical cases and suggests that many hospital systems within the US were able to effectively implement policies consistent with time-to-surgery standards for orthopedic trauma in the context of COVID-19–related resource constraints.

Usefulness of PCR Screening in the Initial Triage of Trauma Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Hospitals worldwide have postponed all nonessential surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, but non-COVID-19 patients are still in urgent need of care. Uncertainty about a patient's COVID-19 status risks infecting health care workers and non-COVID-19 inpatients. We evaluated the use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) screening for COVID-19 on admission for all patients with fractures.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients older than 18 years admitted with low-energy fractures who were tested by RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 at any time during hospitalization. Two periods based on the applied testing protocol were defined. During the first period, patients were only tested because of epidemiological criteria or clinical suspicion based on fever, respiratory symptoms, or radiological findings. In the second period, all patients admitted for fracture treatment were screened by RT-qPCR.

RESULTS

We identified 15 patients in the first period and 42 in the second. In total, 9 (15.8%) patients without clinical or radiological findings tested positive at any moment. Five (33.3%) patients tested positive postoperatively in the first period and 3 (7.1%) in the second period (P = 0.02). For clinically unsuspected patients, postoperative positive detection went from 3 of 15 (20%) during the first period to 2 of 42 (4.8%) in the second (P = 0.11). Clinical symptoms demonstrated high specificity (92.1%) but poor sensitivity (52.6%) for infection detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom-based screening for COVID-19 has shown to be specific but not sensitive. Negative clinical symptoms do not rule out infection. Protocols and separated areas are necessary to treat infected patients. RT-qPCR testing on admission helps minimize the risk of nosocomial and occupational infection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Accelerated surgery versus standard care in hip fracture (HIP ATTACK): an international, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications.

METHODS

HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896).

FINDINGS

Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10-42) in the standard-care group (p<0·0001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·91 (95% CI 0·72 to 1·14) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% (-1 to 3; p=0·40). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0·97 (0·83 to 1·13) and an ARR of 1% (-2 to 4; p=0·71).

INTERPRETATION

Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.