Reducing surgical site infections in low-income and middle-income countries (FALCON): a pragmatic, multicentre, stratified, randomised controlled trial

NIHR Global Research Health Unit on Global Surgery

Abstract

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common postoperative complication worldwide. WHO guidelines to prevent SSI recommend alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation and fascial closure using triclosan-coated sutures, but called for assessment of both interventions in low-resource settings. This study aimed to test both interventions in low-income and middle-income countries.

Methods: FALCON was a 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial stratified by whether surgery was clean-contaminated, or contaminated or dirty, including patients undergoing abdominal surgery with a skin incision of 5 cm or greater. This trial was undertaken in 54 hospitals in seven countries (Benin, Ghana, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa). Patients were computer randomised 1:1:1:1 to: (1) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, (2) 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, (3) 10% aqueous povidone-iodine and non-coated suture, or (4) 10% aqueous povidone-iodine and triclosan-coated suture. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was SSI, reported by trained outcome assessors, and presented using adjusted relative risks and 95% CIs. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03700749.

Findings: Between Dec 10, 2018, and Sept 7, 2020, 5788 patients (3091 in clean-contaminated stratum, 2697 in contaminated or dirty stratum) were randomised (1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and non-coated suture, 1446 to alcoholic chlorhexidine and triclosan-coated suture, 1447 to aqueous povidone-iodine and non-coated suture, and 1449 to aqueous povidone-iodine and triclosan-coated suture). 14·0% (810/5788) of patients were children and 66·9% (3873/5788) had emergency surgery. The overall SSI rate was 22·0% (1163/5284; clean-contaminated stratum 15·5% [454/2923], contaminated or dirty stratum 30·0% [709/2361]). For both strata, there was no evidence of a difference in the risk of SSI with alcoholic chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine (clean-contaminated stratum 15·3% [223/1455] vs 15·7% [231/1468], relative risk 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·14]; contaminated or dirty stratum 28·3% [338/1194] vs 31·8% [371/1167], relative risk 0·91 [95% CI 0·81-1·02]), or with triclosan-coated sutures versus non-coated sutures (clean-contaminated stratum 14·7% [215/1459] vs 16·3% [239/1464], relative risk 0·90 [95% CI 0·77-1·06]; contaminated or dirty stratum 29·4% [347/1181] vs 30·7% [362/1180], relative risk 0·98 [95% CI 0·87-1·10]). With both strata combined, there were no differences using alcoholic chlorhexidine or triclosan-coated sutures.

Interpretation: This trial did not show benefit from 2% alcoholic chlorhexidine skin preparation compared with povidone-iodine, or with triclosan-coated sutures compared with non-coated sutures, in preventing SSI in clean-contaminated or contaminated or dirty surgical wounds. Both interventions are more expensive than alternatives, and these findings do not support recommendations for routine use.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit Grant, BD.

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests.

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of patients analysed in the primary outcome analysis Patients who were lost to follow-up, died before outcome assessment, or had missing primary outcome data could not be assessed for the primary outcome and were excluded from primary outcome analysis. Sensitivity analyses for patients with missing data (coding them as having a positive or negative primary outcome) are shown in appendix pp 24–25. These patients could contribute to analysis of secondary outcomes if relevant data were available. A more detailed breakdown of allocation is shown in appendix p 19.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adjusted risks of SSI in each stratum and overall Adjustment made for minimisation factors (age, urgency, hospital [random effect]) and interventions. SSI=surgical site infection.

References

    1. Allegranzi B, Nejad SB, Combescure C, et al. Burden of endemic health-care-associated infection in developing countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2011;377:228–241.
    1. WHO Report on the burden of endemic health care-associated infection worldwide, a systematic review of the literature. 2011.
    1. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Annual Epidemiological Report for 2017. 2019.
    1. Badia JM, Casey AL, Petrosillo N, Hudson PM, Mitchell SA, Crosby C. Impact of surgical site infection on healthcare costs and patient outcomes: a systematic review in six European countries. J Hosp Infect. 2017;96:1–15.
    1. Cassini A, Plachouras D, Eckmanns T, et al. Burden of six healthcare-associated infections on European population health: estimating incidence-based disability-adjusted life years through a population prevalence-based modelling study. PLoS Med. 2016;13
    1. Astagneau P, Rioux C, Golliot F, Brücker G. Morbidity and mortality associated with surgical site infections: results from the 1997–1999 INCISO surveillance. J Hosp Infect. 2001;48:267–274.
    1. GlobalSurg Collaborative Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18:516–525.
    1. Shrime MG, Dare AG, Alkire BC, O'Neill K, Meara JG. Catastrophic expenditure to pay for surgery worldwide: a modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(suppl 2):S38–S44.
    1. WHO Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. 2016.
    1. National Institute for Health Research Global Research Health Unit on Global Surgery Delphi prioritization and development of global surgery guidelines for the prevention of surgical-site infection. Br J Surg. 2020;107:970–977.
    1. Rodrigues AL, Simoes ML. Incidence of surgical site infection with pre-operative skin preparation using 10% polyvidone-iodine and 0.5% chlorhexidine-alcohol. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2013;40:443–448.
    1. Sistla SC, Prabhu G, Sistla S, Sadasivan J. Minimizing wound contamination in a ‘clean’ surgery: comparison of chlorhexidine-ethanol and povidone-iodine. Chemotherapy. 2010;56:261–267.
    1. Srinivas A, Kaman L, Raj P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone iodine as preoperative skin preparation for the prevention of surgical site infections in clean-contaminated upper abdominal surgeries. Surg Today. 2015;45:1378–1384.
    1. Paocharoen V, Mingmalairak C, Apisarnthanarak A. Comparison of surgical wound infection after preoperative skin preparation with 4% chlorhexidine and povidone iodine: a prospective randomized trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009;92:898–902.
    1. Veiga DF, Damasceno CAV, Veiga-Filho J, et al. Povidone iodine versus chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis before elective plastic surgery procedures: a randomized controlled trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122:170e–171e.
    1. Mingmalairak C, Ungbhakorn P, Paocharoen V. Efficacy of antimicrobial coating suture coated polyglactin 910 with triclosan (Vicryl plus) compared with polyglactin 910 (Vicryl) in reduced surgical site infection of appendicitis, double blind randomized control trial, preliminary safety report. J Med Assoc Thai. 2009;92:770–775.
    1. Olmez T, Berkesoglu M, Turkmenoglu O, Colak T. Effect of triclosan-coated suture on surgical site infection of abdominal fascial closures. Surg Infect; 20: 658–64.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332.
    1. NIHR Global Health Research Unit on Global Surgery Pragmatic multicentre factorial randomized controlled trial testing measures to reduce surgical site infection in low- and middle-income countries: study protocol of the FALCON trial. Colorectal Dis. 2020;23:298–306.
    1. McAlister FA, Straus SE, Sackett DL, Altman DG. Analysis and reporting of factorial trials: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003;289:2545–2553.
    1. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New Eng J Medicine. 2009;360:491–499.
    1. GlobalSurg Collaborative Pooled analysis of WHO surgical safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy. Br J Surg. 2019;106:e103–e112.
    1. Nelson RL, Iqbal NM, Kravets A, et al. Topical antimicrobial prophylaxis in colorectal surgery for the prevention of surgical wound infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22:573–587.
    1. COVIDSurg Collaborative Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study. Lancet. 2020;396:27–38.
    1. Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386:569–624.
    1. Matthews JH, Bhanderi S, Chapman SJ, Nepogodiev D, Pinkney T, Bhangu A. Underreporting of secondary endpoints in randomized trials cross-sectional, observational study. Ann Surg. 2016;264:982–986.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅