Alcoholic Chlorhexidine or Alcoholic Iodine Skin Antisepsis (ACAISA): protocol for cluster randomised controlled trial of surgical skin preparation for the prevention of superficial wound complications in prosthetic hip and knee replacement surgery

T N Peel, A C Cheng, K L Buising, M M Dowsey, P F M Choong, T N Peel, A C Cheng, K L Buising, M M Dowsey, P F M Choong

Abstract

Introduction: Wound complications following arthroplasty are associated with significant impact on the patient and healthcare system. Skin cleansing prior to surgical incision is a simple and effective method to prevent wound complications however, the question of which agent is superior for surgical skin antisepsis is unresolved.

Methods and analysis: This cluster randomised controlled trial aims to compare the incidence of superficial wound complications in patients undergoing elective prosthetic hip or knee replacement surgery receiving surgical skin antisepsis with either: 0.5% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone in 70% alcohol. The trial will be conducted at an Australian tertiary, university affiliated hospital over a 3-year period involving 750 participants. Participants will be drawn from the surgical waiting list. Consent for this study will be 'opt-out' consent. On a given day, all eligible participants will have skin preparation either with 0.5% chlorhexidine in 70% alcohol or 10% povidone iodine in 70% alcohol. The primary outcome is superficial wound complications (comprised of superficial incisional surgical site infections (SSI) and/or prolonged wound ooze) in the first 30 days following prosthetic joint replacement surgery. Secondary outcomes will include the incidence of wound complications according to the joint replaced, assessment of the causative agents of SSI and cost-effectiveness analysis. The primary analysis is an intention-to-treat analysis including all participants who undergo randomisation and will be performed at the individual level taking into account the clustering effect.

Ethics and dissemination: The study design and protocol was reviewed and approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC-A 016/14 10/3/2014). Study findings will be disseminated in the printed media, and learned forums. A written lay summary will be available to study participants on request.

Trial registration number: The trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12614000177651.

Keywords: WOUND MANAGEMENT.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

References

    1. Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC, et al. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 1998;27:1247–54
    1. Surin VV, Sundholm K, Backman L. Infection after total hip replacement. With special reference to a discharge from the wound. J Bone Joint Surg 1983;65-Br:412–18
    1. Peel TN, Dowsey MM, Daffy JR, et al. Risk factors for prosthetic hip and knee infections according to arthroplasty site. J Hosp Infect 2011;79:129–33
    1. Peel TN, Dowsey MM, Buising KL, et al. Cost analysis of debridement and retention for management of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Microbiol Infect 2013;19:181–6
    1. Whitehouse JD, Friedman ND, Kirkland KB, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections following orthopaedic surgery at a community hospital and a university hospital: adverse quality of life, excess length of stay and extra cost. Infect Control 2002;23:183–9
    1. Kirkland KB, Briggs JP, Trivette SL, et al. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725–30
    1. Edwards PS, Lipp A, Holmes A. Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(3):CD003949.
    1. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20: 250–78
    1. Dohmen PM. Antibiotic resistance in common pathogens reinforces the need to minimise surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect 2008;70(Suppl 2):15–20
    1. Fishman N. Antimicrobial stewardship. Am J Med 2006;119(6 Suppl 1):S53–61
    1. Paterson DL. Resistance in gram-negative bacteria: enterobacteriaceae. Am J Med 2006;119(6 Suppl 1):S20–8d
    1. Fredricks DN. Microbial ecology of human skin in health and disease. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc 2001;6:167–9
    1. Krizek TJ, Robson MC. Evolution of quantitative bacteriology in wound management. Am J Surg 1975;130:579–84
    1. Southwood RT, Rice JL, McDonald PJ, et al. Infection in experimental hip arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg 1985;67-Br:229–31
    1. Maiwald M, Chan ES. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e44277.
    1. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:18–26
    1. NHMRC. Australian guidelines for the prevention and control of infection in healthcare: commonwealth of Australia. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2010
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Surgical site infection prevention and treatment of surgical site infection. London: RCOG Press at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, 2008
    1. AORN. Recommended practices for preoperative patient skin antisepsis standards, recommended practices, and guidelines. New York: AORN, 2013
    1. Ingi Lee MM, Rajender K, Agarwal MM, et al. Systematic review and cost analysis comparing use of chlorhexidine with use of iodine for preoperative skin antisepsis to prevent surgical site infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1219–29
    1. Adams RJ, Tucker G, Hugo G, et al. Projected future trends of hospital service use for selected obesity-related conditions. Obes Res Clin Pract 2008;2:133–41
    1. Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Bone and Joint Registry Annual Report. 2012
    1. Caroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, et al. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect 2014;20:130–5
    1. Dowsey MM, Kilgour ML, Santamaria NM, et al. Clinical pathways in hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study. Med J Aust 1999;170:59–62
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:726–32
    1. Horan TC, Gaynes RP, Martone WJ, et al. CDC definitions of nosocomial surgical site infections, 1992: a modification of CDC definitions of surgical wound infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:606–8
    1. Wilson AP, Treasure T, Sturridge MF, et al. A scoring method (ASEPSIS) for postoperative wound infections for use in clinical trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Lancet 1986;1:311–13
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13
    1. Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari E, et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the workgroup of the musculoskeletal infection society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2992–4
    1. Marculescu CE, Cantey JR. Polymicrobial prosthetic joint infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1397–404
    1. Mirra JM, Amstutz HC, Matos M, et al. The pathology of the joint tissues and its clinical relevance in prosthesis failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976;117:221–40
    1. Trampuz A, Hanssen AD, Osmon DR, et al. Synovial fluid leukocyte count and differential for the diagnosis of prosthetic knee infection. Am J Med 2004;117:556–62
    1. Cook J, Bruckner T, MacLennan G, et al. Clustering in surgical trials—database of intracluster correlations. Trials 2012;13:2.
    1. Campbell MK, Mollison J, Steen N, et al. Analysis of cluster randomized trials in primary care: a practical approach. Fam Pract 2000;17:192–6
    1. Hemming K, Girling AJ, Sitch AJ, et al. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:102.
    1. Lilford RJ, Pauker SG, Braunholtz DA, et al. Decision analysis and the implementation of research findings. BMJ 1998;317: 405–9
    1. Briggs A, Sculpher M. An introduction to Markov modelling for economic evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:397–409
    1. Wesley D. Life table analysis. J Insur Med 1998;30:247–54

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner