Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:47:52.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lack of Evidence for Attributing Chlorhexidine as the Main Active Ingredient in Skin Antiseptics Preventing Surgical Site Infections

Part of: BARRY FARR AWARD RECIPIENTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Matthias Maiwald ,
Andreas F. Widmer  and
Manfred L. Rotter
Matthias Maiwald*
Affiliation:
. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore
Andreas F. Widmer
Affiliation:
Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University of Basel Hospitals, Basel, Switzerland
Manfred L. Rotter
Affiliation:
Institute of Hygiene and Applied Immunology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
*
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, 100 Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 229899, Singapore ([email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Letters to the Editor
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , April 2011 , pp. 404 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2011

References

1. Noorani, A, Rabey, N, Walsh, SR, Davies, RJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of preoperative antisepsis with Chlorhexidine versus povidone-iodine in clean-contaminated surgery. Br J Surg 2010;97:1614–1620.Google Scholar
2. Lee, I, Agarwal, RK, Lee, BY, Fishman, NO, Umscheid, CA. 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;31:1219–1229.Google Scholar
3. Gröschel, DHM, Pruett, TL. Surgical antisepsis. In: Block, SS, ed. Disinfection, Sterilization and Preservation. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1991:642–654.Google Scholar
4. Rotter, ML. Hand washing, hand disinfection, and skin disinfection. In: Wenzel, RP, ed. Prevention and Control of Nosocomial Infections. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Willems, 1997:691–709.Google Scholar
5. Rotter, ML. Hand washing and hand disinfection. In: Mayhall, CG, ed. Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:1727–1746.Google Scholar
6. Mangram, AJ, Horan, TC, Pearson, ML, Silver, LC, Jarvis, WR, Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:250–278.Google Scholar
7. Maiwald, M, Widmer, AF, Rotter, ML. Chlorhexidine is not the main active ingredient in skin antiseptics that reduce blood culture contamination rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2010;31:1095–1096.Google Scholar
8. Darouiche, RO, Wall, MJ Jr, Itani, KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:18–26.Google Scholar
9. Kampf, G, Shaffer, M, Hunte, C. Insufficient neutralization in testing a chlorhexidine-containing ethanol-based hand rub can result in a false positive efficacy assessment. BMC Infect Dis 2005;5:48.Google Scholar
10. Swenson, BR, Hedrick, TL, Metzger, R, Bonatti, H, Pruett, TL, Sawyer, RG. Effects of preoperative skin preparation on postoperative wound infection rates: a prospective study of 3 skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009;30:964–971.Google Scholar