Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Efficacy and safety of a novel antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation

  • Christopher J. Crnich (a1), Aurora E. Pop-Vicas (a1), Thomas G. Hedberg (a2) and Trish M. Perl (a3)

Abstract

Objective:

Alternatives to skin preparation with conventional preoperative antiseptics are required because of adverse reactions and the potential emergence of resistance. Here, we present 2 phase 2 studies of ZuraGard (ZG), a novel formulation of isopropyl alcohol and functional excipients developed for preoperative skin antisepsis.

Methods:

Microbial skin flora on abdominal and inguinal sites in healthy volunteers were quantitatively assessed following application of ZG versus a negative control (ZV) and a chlorhexidine/alcohol preparation, Chloraprep (CP). In trial 1, ZG administered for both recommended and abbreviated application times was compared with CP and ZV via bacterial reductions at 10 minutes, and 6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours following application. In trial 2, the 10-minute postapplication responder rates (RRs) for ZG, participants with abdominal ≥2 log10 per cm2, and inguinal ≥3 log10 per cm2 reductions in colony-forming units (CFU) were compared to RRs of participants treated with CP.

Results:

In trial 1, ZG at the recommended application time reduced mean bacterial counts by ~3.18 log10 CFU/cm2 and ~2.98 log10 CFU/cm2 at abdominal and inguinal sites, respectively. Qualitatively similar reductions were observed for the abbreviated ZG application time and all CP applications. Application of ZV was ineffective. In trial 2, 10-minute RRs for ZG and CP exceeded 90% at abdominal sites. At inguinal sites, RRs were 83.3% for ZG and 86.7% for CP. No skin irritation or other adverse events were observed.

Conclusions:

ZG matched CP efficacy under these experimental conditions with immediate and persistent microbial reductions, including abbreviated application times. Further clinical studies of this novel preoperative antiseptic are merited.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Efficacy and safety of a novel antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Efficacy and safety of a novel antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Efficacy and safety of a novel antimicrobial preoperative skin preparation
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Thomas G. Hedberg, IMCRA, 50 Washington St. Norwalk CT 06854 E-mail: Hedberg@imcra.org

References

Hide All
1. Steiner, CA, Karaca, Z, Moore, BJ, Imshaug, MC, Pickens, G. Surgeries in hospital-based ambulatory surgery and hospital inpatient settings, 2014: statistical brief #223. Healthcare Cost and Utilization project website. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb223-Ambulatory-Inpatient-Surgeries-2014.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed July 3, 2019.
2. Anderson, DJ. Surgical site infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2011;25:135153.
3. Chow, WB, Merkow, RP, Cohen, ME, Bilimoria, KY, Ko, CY. Association between postoperative complications and reoperation for patients undergoing geriatric surgery and the effect of reoperation on mortality. Am Surg 2012;78:11371142.
4. Vogel, TR, Dombrovskiy, VY, Lowry, SF. Impact of infectious complications after elective surgery on hospital readmission and late deaths in the US Medicare population. Surg Infect 2012;13:307311.
5. Li, LT, Mills, WL, White, DL, et al. Causes and prevalence of unplanned readmissions after colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2013;61:11751181.
6. Gibson, A, Tevis, S, Kennedy, G. Readmission after delayed diagnosis of surgical site infection: a focus on prevention using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am J Surg 2014;207:832839.
7. Merkow, RP, Ju, MH, Chung, JW, et al. Underlying reasons associated with hospital readmission following surgery in the United States. JAMA 2015;313:483495.
8. Kirkland, KB, Briggs, JP, Trivette, SL, Wilkinson, WE, Sexton, DJ. The impact of surgical-site infections in the 1990s: attributable mortality, excess length of hospitalization, and extra costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:725730.
9. Kaye, KS, Anderson, DJ, Sloane, R, et al. The effect of surgical site infection on older operative patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2009;57:4654.
10. Klevens, RM, Edwards, JR, Richards, CL, et al. Estimating healthcare-associated infections and deaths in US hospitals, 2002. Public Health Rept 2007;122:160166.
11. Scott, RD. The direct medical costs of healthcare-associated infections in US hospitals and the benefits of prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pdfs/hai/scott_costpaper.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed July 3, 2019.
12. Berríos-Torres, SI, Umscheid, CA, Bratzler, DW, et al. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017. JAMA Surg 2017;152:784791.
13. Anderson, DJ, Podgorny, K, Berríos-Torres, SI, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical site infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35 suppl 2:S66S88.
14. Allegranzi, B, Bischoff, P, de Jonge, S, et al. New WHO recommendations on preoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective. Lancet Infect Dis 2016;16:e276e287.
15. Ban, KA, Minei, JP, Laronga, C, et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: surgical site infection guidelines, 2016 update. J Am Coll Surg 2017;224:5974.
16. Maiwald, M, Chan, ESY. The forgotten role of alcohol: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and perceived role of chlorhexidine in skin antisepsis. PLoS One 2012;7(9):e44277. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0044277.
17. Maiwald, M, Widmer, AF. WHO’ recommendation for surgical skin antisepsis is premature. Lancet Infect Dis 2017;17:10231024.
18. Adapted from GHX Database; Global Healthcare Exchange Market Intelligence Medical/Surgical Product Schema 2017. (Independent report available from authors).
19. Madden, GR, Sifri, CD. Antimicrobial resistance to agents used for Staphylococcus aureus decolonization: is there a reason for concern? Curr Infect Dis Rep 2018;20:26.
20. Williamson, DA, Carter, GP, Howden, BP. Current and emerging topical antibacterials and antiseptics: agents, action, and resistance patterns. Clin Microbiol Rev 2017;30:827860.
21. Sharp, G, Green, S, Rose, M. Chlorhexidine-induced anaphylaxis in surgical patients: a review of the literature. ANZ J Surg 2016;86:237243.
22. Food and Drug Administration. Tentative final monograph for health-care antiseptic drug products. Fed Register 1994;59:5879958800.
23. ASTM. E1173-15: standard test method for evaluaton of preoperative, precatheterization, or preinjection skin preparations. ASTM International website. https://standards.globalspec.com/std/9935734/ASTM%20E1173. Published 2015. Accessed July 3, 2019.
24. ICH harmonized tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice E6 (R1) International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use website. Available from: https://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R1_Guideline.pdf. Published 1996. Accessed July 3, 2019.
25. Sidhwa, F, Itani, KMF. Skin preparation before surgery: options and evidence. Surg Infect 2015;16:1423.
26. Dumville, JC, McFarlane, E, Edwards, P, Lipp, A, Holmes, A, Liu, Z. Preoperative skin antiseptics for preventing surgical wound infections after clean surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;120(4):CD003949.
27. Garvey, LH, Krøigaard, M, Poulsen, LK, et al. IgE-mediated allergy to chlorhexidine. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007;120:409415.
28. Krishna, MT, York, M, Chin, T, et al. Multi-centre retrospective analysis of anaphylaxis during general anaesthesia in the United Kingdom: aetiology and diagnostic performance of acute serum tryptase. Clin Exp Immunol 2014;178:399404.
29. Abdallah, C. Perioperative chlorhexidine allergy: Is it serious? J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:152154.
30. Moka, E, Argyra, E, Siafaka, I, Vadalouca, A. Chlorhexidine: hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions in the perioperative setting. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2015;31:145148.
31. Horner, C1, Mawer, D, Wilcox, M, et al. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine in staphylococci: is it increasing and does it matter? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:25472559.
32. Kampf, G. Acquired resistance to chlorhexidine—is it time to establish an “antiseptic stewardship” initiative? J Hosp Infect 2016;94:213227.
33. Wang, J-T, Sheng, W-H, Wang, J-L, et al. Longitudinal analysis of chlorhexidine susceptibilities of nosocomial methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates at a teaching hospital in Taiwan. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:514517.
34. Hardy, K, Sunnucks, K, Gil, H, et al. Increased usage of antiseptics is associated with reduced susceptibility in clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus. MBio 2018;9(3):e0089418.
35. Lee, AS, Macedo-Vinas, M, Francois, P, et al. Impact of combined low-level mupirocin and genotypic chlorhexidine resistance on persistent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriage after decolonization therapy: a case-control study. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52:14221430.
36. Smith, K, Gemmell, CG, Hunter, IS. The association between biocide tolerances and the presence or absence of qac genes among hospital-acquired and community-acquired MRSA isolates. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;61:7884.
37. Horner, C, Mawer, D, Wilcox, M. Reduced susceptibility to chlorhexidine in staphylococci: is it increasing and does it matter? J Antimicrob Chemother 2012;67:25472559.
38. El-Othmani, MM, Mahmood, BM, Pearson, L, Xi, H, Delfino, K, Saleh, KJ. Assessment of standardization in surgical site preparation: does a compliance-culture exist? Int Surg J 2016;3:110.
39. Hibbard, JS, Mulberry, GK, Brady, AR, et al. A clinical study comparing the skin antisepsis and safety of ChloraPrep, 70% isopropyl alcohol, and 2% aqueous chlorhexidine. J Infus Nurs 2002a;25:244e9.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed