Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus Povidone-Iodine-alcohol for surgical site antisepsis in caesarean section
Keywords:Chlorhexidine, Preoperative antisepsis, Surgical-site infection
Background: Caesarean section is one of the most common procedures performed. Recent studies found that surgical-site infection (SSI) was the most common healthcare-associated infection. Authors hypothesized that optimization of preoperative skin antisepsis may decrease postoperative infections. The objective was to establish the efficacy of chlorhexidine-based antiseptic protocol versus povidone-iodine protocol in reducing SSI for patients undergoing caesarean deliveries.
Methods: This is a randomized prospective study conducted from April 2017 to September 2017 at a tertiary care center in India. Women who underwent caesarean sections were allocated into either group. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to have the surgical site painted with chlorhexidine-alcohol preparation or painted with a solution of 10% povidone-iodine and then with surgical spirit. The outcomes were any SSI occurring within a week or during the 30 day follow up period of the surgery including any of: superficial or deep surgical site infection, or endometritis, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions.
Results: A total of 560 subjects (273 in the chlorhexidine group and 287 in the iodine group) qualified for the study. The number of surgical-site infection was significantly lower in the chlorhexidine group than in the iodine group (6.95% vs. 14.28%; P=0.005). Chlorhexidine–alcohol was significantly more protective than iodine-alcohol against both superficial incisional infections (5.49% vs. 10.10%, P=0.03) and deep incisional infections (1.46% vs. 4.18%, P=0.04).
Conclusions: This study highlighted that Chlorhexidine-alcohol provided superior skin antisepsis in comparison to povidone iodine-alcohol.
National Healthcare Safety Network, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surgical site infection (SSI) event. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf.
Berríos-Torres SI, Umscheid CA, Bratzler DW, Leas B, Stone E, Kelz R, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection, 2017. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:784-91.
Wenzel R. Surgical site infections and the microbiome: An updated perspective. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019:1-7.
Darouiche RO, Wall Jr MJ, Itani KM, Otterson MF, Webb AL, Carrick MM, et al. Chlorhexidinealcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:18-26.
Culligan PJ, Kubik K, Murphy M, Blackwell L, Snyder J. A randomized trial that compared povidone iodine and chlorhexidine as antiseptics for vaginal hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:422-5.
Amer-Alshiek J1, Alshiek T, Almog B, Lessing JB, Satel A, Many A, et al. Can we reduce the surgical site infection rate in cesarean sections using a chlorhexidine-based antisepsis protocol? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26:1749-52.
Menderes G, Athar Ali N, Aagaard K, Sangi-Haghpeykar H. Chlorhexidine-alcohol compared with povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis in cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1037-44.
Elshamy E, Ali YZA, Khalafallah M, Soliman A. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for skin preparation before elective cesarean section: a prospective observational study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;18:1-5.
Springel EH, Wang XY, Sarfoh VM, Stetzer BP, Weight SA, Mercer BM. A randomized open-label controlled trial of chlorhexidine-alcohol vs povidone-iodine for cesarean antisepsis: the CAPICA trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:463.e1-e8.
Giacometti A, Cirioni O, Greganti G, Fineo A, Ghiselli R, Del Prete MS, et al. Antiseptic compounds still active against bacterial strains isolated from surgical wound infections despite increasing antibiotic resistance. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2002;21:553-6.
Fitzgerald KA, Davies A, Russell AD. Mechanism of action of chlorhexidine diacetate and phenoxyethanol singly and in combination against gram-negative bacteria. Microbios. 1992;70:215-30.