Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone–iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of hospital infection 2024-06, Vol.148, p.119-128 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 128 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 119 |
container_title | The Journal of hospital infection |
container_volume | 148 |
creator | Aho Glele, L.S. Simon, E. Bouit, C. Serrand, M. Filipuzzi, L. Sagot, P. Astruc, K. Kadhel, P. |
description | Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone–iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone–iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone–iodine, aqueous povidone–iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone–iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717559</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0195670124001282</els_id><sourcerecordid>3049717559</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-771c4dbc3416d308edb804a482bca2eceb386eafdc20c522e69626c6c2ea92263</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQhkVpaTZp_0AOQcde7OrDlm0IlBDaphDopSVHIY_GrDa2tJG0CdtDf3u0bNJjTyM0z_vCPIScc1ZzxtXnTb1ZO18LJpqayZoJ_oaseCtFJQY5vCUrxoe2Uh3jJ-Q0pQ1jrPy378mJ7FXfy4GvyN-7tYM1NT67hNvsgOZAdwnpFCI1FAwmE9F4mhCyC_4LvaJpnzIu5gBHfHT4VOKWesxPId7TBbOpjDfzPrlEw0Rj2YbF_UFLIfgcwzyXZ47OzOkDeTeVgR9f5hn5_e3rr-ub6vbn9x_XV7cVSNblqus4NHYE2XBlJevRjj1rTNOLEYxAwLFchGayIBi0QqAalFCgQKAZhFDyjHw69m5jeNhhynpxCXCejcewS1qyZuh417ZDQcURhRhSijjpbXSLiXvNmT541xt98K4P3jWTungvoYuX_t24oP0XeRVdgMsjgOXK4izqBA49oHWxmNU2uP_1PwPccZa9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3049717559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Aho Glele, L.S. ; Simon, E. ; Bouit, C. ; Serrand, M. ; Filipuzzi, L. ; Sagot, P. ; Astruc, K. ; Kadhel, P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Aho Glele, L.S. ; Simon, E. ; Bouit, C. ; Serrand, M. ; Filipuzzi, L. ; Sagot, P. ; Astruc, K. ; Kadhel, P.</creatorcontrib><description>Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone–iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone–iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone–iodine, aqueous povidone–iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone–iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0195-6701</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1532-2939</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-2939</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38688391</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage ; Antiseptics ; Caesarean section ; Cesarean Section ; Chlorhexidine ; Female ; Humans ; Network Meta-Analysis ; Povidone-Iodine ; Pregnancy ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Surgical site infection ; Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>The Journal of hospital infection, 2024-06, Vol.148, p.119-128</ispartof><rights>2024 The Healthcare Infection Society</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-771c4dbc3416d308edb804a482bca2eceb386eafdc20c522e69626c6c2ea92263</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7590-8644</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38688391$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aho Glele, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouit, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrand, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filipuzzi, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sagot, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astruc, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadhel, P.</creatorcontrib><title>Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><title>The Journal of hospital infection</title><addtitle>J Hosp Infect</addtitle><description>Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone–iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone–iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone–iodine, aqueous povidone–iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone–iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section.</description><subject>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Antiseptics</subject><subject>Caesarean section</subject><subject>Cesarean Section</subject><subject>Chlorhexidine</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Network Meta-Analysis</subject><subject>Povidone-Iodine</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Surgical site infection</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0195-6701</issn><issn>1532-2939</issn><issn>1532-2939</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1r3DAQhkVpaTZp_0AOQcde7OrDlm0IlBDaphDopSVHIY_GrDa2tJG0CdtDf3u0bNJjTyM0z_vCPIScc1ZzxtXnTb1ZO18LJpqayZoJ_oaseCtFJQY5vCUrxoe2Uh3jJ-Q0pQ1jrPy378mJ7FXfy4GvyN-7tYM1NT67hNvsgOZAdwnpFCI1FAwmE9F4mhCyC_4LvaJpnzIu5gBHfHT4VOKWesxPId7TBbOpjDfzPrlEw0Rj2YbF_UFLIfgcwzyXZ47OzOkDeTeVgR9f5hn5_e3rr-ub6vbn9x_XV7cVSNblqus4NHYE2XBlJevRjj1rTNOLEYxAwLFchGayIBi0QqAalFCgQKAZhFDyjHw69m5jeNhhynpxCXCejcewS1qyZuh417ZDQcURhRhSijjpbXSLiXvNmT541xt98K4P3jWTungvoYuX_t24oP0XeRVdgMsjgOXK4izqBA49oHWxmNU2uP_1PwPccZa9</recordid><startdate>202406</startdate><enddate>202406</enddate><creator>Aho Glele, L.S.</creator><creator>Simon, E.</creator><creator>Bouit, C.</creator><creator>Serrand, M.</creator><creator>Filipuzzi, L.</creator><creator>Sagot, P.</creator><creator>Astruc, K.</creator><creator>Kadhel, P.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7590-8644</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202406</creationdate><title>Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</title><author>Aho Glele, L.S. ; Simon, E. ; Bouit, C. ; Serrand, M. ; Filipuzzi, L. ; Sagot, P. ; Astruc, K. ; Kadhel, P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-771c4dbc3416d308edb804a482bca2eceb386eafdc20c522e69626c6c2ea92263</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Antiseptics</topic><topic>Caesarean section</topic><topic>Cesarean Section</topic><topic>Chlorhexidine</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Network Meta-Analysis</topic><topic>Povidone-Iodine</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Surgical site infection</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aho Glele, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bouit, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Serrand, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Filipuzzi, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sagot, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Astruc, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kadhel, P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of hospital infection</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aho Glele, L.S.</au><au>Simon, E.</au><au>Bouit, C.</au><au>Serrand, M.</au><au>Filipuzzi, L.</au><au>Sagot, P.</au><au>Astruc, K.</au><au>Kadhel, P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of hospital infection</jtitle><addtitle>J Hosp Infect</addtitle><date>2024-06</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>148</volume><spage>119</spage><epage>128</epage><pages>119-128</pages><issn>0195-6701</issn><issn>1532-2939</issn><eissn>1532-2939</eissn><abstract>Guidelines for pre-operative skin antisepsis recommend using chlorhexidine in an alcohol-based solution. However, other antiseptics such as aqueous povidone–iodine or alcohol-based solutions continue to be used. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in caesarean section are rare and do not include all possible comparisons of antiseptics. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy (reduction of surgical site infections) of chlorhexidine at two different concentrations (0.3% and 2%) and povidone–iodine in aqueous or alcohol-based solutions using a network meta-analysis, including only RCTs of caesarean sections. Fragility indices and prediction intervals were also estimated. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were performed. RCTs published up to February 2024 were collected from PubMed, ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library. Interventions included alcohol-based povidone–iodine, aqueous povidone–iodine, and alcohol-based chlorhexidine 2% and 0.3%. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection. Nine RCTs with 4915 patients and four interventions were included in the network meta-analysis. All credible intervals of the compared interventions overlapped. Alcohol-based 2% chlorhexidine had the highest probability of being effective in preventing surgical site infections, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. The fragility index ranged from 4 to 18. The prediction intervals were wide. On the basis of rank probabilities, chlorhexidine 2% in an alcohol-based solution was most likely to be effective in preventing surgical site infections after caesarean section, followed by alcohol-based povidone–iodine. Given the paucity of literature and the relatively small difference between povidone–iodine and chlorhexidine found in our meta-analysis, we suggest that either can be used in an alcohol-based solution as antisepsis for planned or emergency caesarean section.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>38688391</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7590-8644</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0195-6701 |
ispartof | The Journal of hospital infection, 2024-06, Vol.148, p.119-128 |
issn | 0195-6701 1532-2939 1532-2939 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3049717559 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Anti-Infective Agents, Local - administration & dosage Antiseptics Caesarean section Cesarean Section Chlorhexidine Female Humans Network Meta-Analysis Povidone-Iodine Pregnancy Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Surgical site infection Surgical Wound Infection - prevention & control Treatment Outcome |
title | Which antiseptic to use for a caesarean section? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T00%3A40%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Which%20antiseptic%20to%20use%20for%20a%20caesarean%20section?%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20network%20meta-analysis%20of%20randomized%20controlled%20trials&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20hospital%20infection&rft.au=Aho%20Glele,%20L.S.&rft.date=2024-06&rft.volume=148&rft.spage=119&rft.epage=128&rft.pages=119-128&rft.issn=0195-6701&rft.eissn=1532-2939&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jhin.2024.03.021&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3049717559%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3049717559&rft_id=info:pmid/38688391&rft_els_id=S0195670124001282&rfr_iscdi=true |