...
首页> 外文期刊>Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control >The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial
【24h】

The effect of preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfection on bacterial colonization during pacemaker device implantation: a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

机译:心脏起搏器植入期间预热与室温皮肤消毒对细菌定植的影响:一项随机对照非劣效性试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Background In clinical practice, patients who are awake often comment that cold surgical skin disinfectant is unpleasant. This is not only a problem of patients’ experience; heat loss during the disinfection process is a problem that can result in hypothermia. Evidence for the efficacy of preheated disinfection is scarce. We tested whether preheated skin disinfectant was non-inferior to room-temperature skin disinfectant on reducing bacterial colonization during pacemaker implantation. Methods This randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial included 220 patients allocated to skin disinfection with preheated (36?°C) or room-temperature (20?°C) chlorhexidine solution in 70?% ethanol. Cultures were obtained by swabbing at 4 time-points; 1) before skin disinfection (skin surface), 2) after skin disinfection (skin surface), 3) after the incision (subcutaneously in the wound), and 4) before suturing (subcutaneously in the wound). Results The absolute difference in growth between patients treated with preheated versus room-temperature skin disinfectant was zero (90?% CI ?0.101 to 0.101; preheated: 30 of 105 [28.6?%] vs. room-temperature: 32 of 112 [28.6?%]). The pre-specified margin for statistical non-inferiority in the protocol was set at 10?% for the preheated disinfectant. There were no significant differences between groups regarding SSIs three month postoperatively, which occurred in 0.9?% (1 of 108) treated with preheated and 1.8?% (2 of 112) treated with room-temperature skin disinfectant. Conclusion Preheated skin disinfection is non-inferior to room-temperature disinfection in bacterial reduction. We therefore suggest that preheated skin disinfection become routine in clean surgery. Trial registration The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCTO2260479 ).
机译:背景技术在临床实践中,清醒的患者经常评论说冷外科皮肤消毒剂令人不快。这不仅是患者经验的问题;消毒过程中的热量损失是一个可能导致体温过低的问题。预热消毒功效的证据很少。我们测试了预热的皮肤消毒剂在起搏器植入过程中减少细菌定植方面是否不劣于室温皮肤消毒剂。方法该随机,对照,非劣效性试验包括220名接受70 %%乙醇预热(36?C)或室温(20?C)洗必太溶液消毒的皮肤病患者。通过在4个时间点擦拭获得培养物。 1)皮肤消毒之前(皮肤表面),2)皮肤消毒之后(皮肤表面),3)切口之后(伤口处皮下)和4)缝合之前(伤口处皮下)。结果预热与室温皮肤消毒剂治疗的患者之间的生长绝对差异为零(90%CI CI 0.101至0.101;预热:105/30 [28.6%] vs室温:32/112 [28.6] ?%])。对于预热的消毒剂,协议规定的统计上的劣势的预先设定的余量设置为10%。术后3个月,两组之间的SSI差异无统计学意义,其中以预热治疗的0.9%(108分之一)和以室温皮肤消毒剂治疗的1.8%(112分2)中发生。结论预热的皮肤消毒在细菌减少方面不亚于室温消毒。因此,我们建议在清洁手术中将预热的皮肤消毒作为常规操作。试验注册该研究在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCTO2260479)上进行了注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号