Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Mar 1;7(1):61.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-021-00800-8.

Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating pre-operative aqueous antiseptic skin solution in open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): the feasibility of a cluster randomized crossover study

Sheila Sprague  1   2 , Paige Guyatt  3 , Sofia Bzovsky  3 , Uyen Nguyen  3 , Mohit Bhandari  3   4 , Lehana Thabane  4 , Brad Petrisor  3 , Herman S Johal  3 , Jordan Leonard  3 , Shannon Dodds  3 , Franca Mossuto  3 , Robert V O'Toole  5 , Andrea Howe  5 , Haley K Demyanovich  5 , Megan Camara  5 , Nathan N O'Hara  5 , Gerard P Slobogean  5 ; PREP-IT Investigators
Collaborators, Affiliations

Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating pre-operative aqueous antiseptic skin solution in open fractures (Aqueous-PREP): the feasibility of a cluster randomized crossover study

Sheila Sprague et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Preoperative antiseptic skin solutions are used prior to most surgical procedures; however, there is no definitive research comparing infection-related outcomes following use of the various solutions available to orthopedic trauma surgeons. The objective of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of a cluster randomized crossover trial that assesses the comparative effectiveness of a 10% povidone-iodine solution versus a 4% chlorhexidine gluconate solution for the management of open fractures.

Methods: Two orthopedic trauma centers participated in this pilot study. Each of these clinical sites was randomized to a starting solution (povidone-iodine solution or chlorhexidine gluconate) then subsequently crossed over to the other treatment after 2 months. During the 4-month enrollment phase, we assessed compliance, enrollment rates, participant follow-up, and accurate documentation of the primary clinical outcome. Feasibility outcomes included (1) the implementation of the interventions during a run-in period; (2) enrollment of participants during two 2-month enrollment phases; (3) application of the trial interventions as per the cluster randomization crossover scheme; (4) participant follow-up; and (5) accurate documentation of the primary outcome (surgical site infection). Feasibility outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics reported as means (standard deviation) or medians (first quartile, third quartile) for continuous variables depending on their distribution and counts (percentage) for categorical variables. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were also reported.

Results: All five of the criteria for feasibility were met. During the run-in phase, all 18 of the eligible patients identified at the two clinical sites received the correct cluster-assigned treatment. A total of 135 patients were enrolled across both sites during the 4-month recruitment phase, which equates to 92% (95% CI 85.9 to 96.4%) of eligible patients being enrolled. Compliance with the assigned treatment in the pilot study was 98% (95% CI 93.5 to 99.8%). Ninety-eight percent (95% CI 93.5 to 99.8%) of participants completed the 90-day post-surgery follow-up and the primary outcome (SSI) was accurately documented for 100% (95% CI 96.6 to 100.0%) of the participants.

Conclusions: These results confirm the feasibility of a definitive study comparing antiseptic solutions using a cluster randomized crossover trial design. Building upon the infrastructure established during the pilot phase, a definitive study has been successfully initiated.

Trial registration: ClincialTrials.gov , number NCT03385304 . Registered December 28, 2017.

Keywords: Aqueous antiseptic skin solution; Cluster crossover; Feasibility; Open fractures; Pilot study; Surgical site infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest with regards to this study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Itani KMF, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810988. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic agents at cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(7):647–655. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1511048. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Swenson BR, Sawyer RG. Importance of alcohol in skin preparation protocols. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(9):977. doi: 10.1086/655843. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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(10):964–971. doi: 10.1086/605926. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREP-IT) Investigators. Slobogean GP, Sprague S, et al. Effectiveness of iodophor vs chlorhexidine solutions for surgical site infections and unplanned reoperations for patients who underwent fracture repair: The PREP-IT master protocol. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e202215. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2215. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources