Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropanol and 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol for skin antisepsis in reducing surgical-site infection after cardiac surgery: the CLEAN 2 study protocol

Matthieu Boisson, Pierre Corbi, Thomas Kerforne, Lionel Camilleri, Mathieu Debauchez, Pierre Demondion, Vedat Eljezi, Erwan Flecher, Didier Lepelletier, Pascal Leprince, Nicolas Nesseler, Jacques Yves Nizou, Jean Christian Roussel, Bertrand Rozec, Stéphane Ruckly, Jean-Christophe Lucet, Jean-François Timsit, Olivier Mimoz, Matthieu Boisson, Pierre Corbi, Thomas Kerforne, Lionel Camilleri, Mathieu Debauchez, Pierre Demondion, Vedat Eljezi, Erwan Flecher, Didier Lepelletier, Pascal Leprince, Nicolas Nesseler, Jacques Yves Nizou, Jean Christian Roussel, Bertrand Rozec, Stéphane Ruckly, Jean-Christophe Lucet, Jean-François Timsit, Olivier Mimoz

Abstract

Introduction: Surgical-site infection (SSI) is the second most frequent cause of healthcare-associated infection worldwide and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Cardiac surgery is clean surgery with low incidence of SSI, ranging from 2% to 5%, but with potentially severe consequences.Perioperative skin antisepsis with an alcohol-based antiseptic solution is recommended to prevent SSI, but the superiority of chlorhexidine (CHG)-alcohol over povidone iodine (PVI)-alcohol, the two most common alcohol-based antiseptic solutions used worldwide, is controversial. We aim to evaluate whether 2% CHG-70% isopropanol is more effective than 5% PVI-69% ethanol in reducing the incidence of reoperation after cardiac surgery.

Methods and analysis: The CLEAN 2 study is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled clinical trial of 4100 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Patients will be randomised in 1:1 ratio to receive either 2% CHG-70% isopropanol or 5% PVI-69% ethanol for perioperative skin preparation. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients undergoing any re-sternotomy between day 0 and day 90 after initial surgery and/or any reoperation on saphenous vein/radial artery surgical site between day 0 and day 30 after initial surgery. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle.

Ethics and dissemination: This protocol has been approved by an independent ethics committee and will be carried out according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: EudraCT 2017-005169-33 and NCT03560193.

Keywords: cardiac surgery; chlorhexidine; povidone iodine; skin antisepsis; surgical-site infection.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: OM has received grant support from 3M and Carefusion-BD and honoraria for giving lectures from 3M and Carefusion-BD. Funders will have no role in the trial initiation, study design, choice of antiseptic products, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram (CHG, chlorhexidine; PVI, povidone iodine).

References

    1. World Health Organization. Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated infection worldwide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2011.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Annual epidemiological report 2014. Antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections. 2015. (Accessed 26 Apr 2016).
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance of surgical site infections in Europe 2010–2011. Eur. Cent. Dis Prev. Control 2013. (Accessed 24 Oct 2017).
    1. World Health Organization. Global guidelines on the prevention of surgical site infection. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016.
    1. Finkelstein R, Rabino G, Mashiah T, et al. . Surgical site infection rates following cardiac surgery: the impact of a 6-year infection control program. Am J Infect Control 2005;33:450–4. 10.1016/j.ajic.2005.07.002
    1. Lemaignen A, Birgand G, Ghodhbane W, et al. . Sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery: incidence and risk factors according to clinical presentation. Clin Microbiol Infect 2015;21:674.e11–8. 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.03.025
    1. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Itani KM, et al. . Chlorhexidine-Alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:18–26. 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988
    1. Ngai IM, Van Arsdale A, Govindappagari S, et al. . Skin Preparation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:1251–7. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001118
    1. Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, et al. . A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2016;374:647–55. 10.1056/NEJMoa1511048
    1. Park HM, Han SS, Lee EC, et al. . Randomized clinical trial of preoperative skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate or povidone-iodine. Br J Surg 2017;104:e145–50. 10.1002/bjs.10395
    1. Broach RB, Paulson EC, Scott C, et al. . Randomized controlled trial of two alcohol-based preparations for surgical site antisepsis in colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 2017;266:946–51. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002189
    1. Lee I, Agarwal RK, Lee BY, 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. 10.1086/657134
    1. Noorani A, Rabey N, Walsh SR, et al. . Systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative antisepsis with chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Br J Surg 2010;97:1614–20. 10.1002/bjs.7214
    1. Kamel C, McGahan L, Polisena J, et al. . Preoperative skin antiseptic preparations for preventing surgical site infections: a systematic review. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33:608–17. 10.1086/665723
    1. Allegranzi B, Bischoff P, de Jonge S, et al. . New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:e276–87. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30398-X
    1. SFAR. Antibioprophylaxie en chirurgie et médecine interventionnelle (patients adultes). 2018. (Accessed 7 Jan 2019).
    1. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Healthcare Safety Network. Surveillance definitions for specific types of infections. (Accessed 8 Jul 2018).
    1. Edwards PS, Lipp A, Holmes A. Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004:CD003949 10.1002/14651858.CD003949.pub2
    1. Mimoz O, Lucet JC, Kerforne T, et al. . Skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone iodine-alcohol, with and without skin scrubbing, for prevention of intravascular-catheter-related infection (CLEAN): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, two-by-two factorial trial. Lancet 2015;386:2069–77. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00244-5

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner