CE: A.G.

; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;

ANNSURG-D-16-01402

RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Alcohol-based Preparations

for Surgical Site Antisepsis in Colorectal Surgery
Robyn B. Broach, PhD,  Emily C. Paulson, MD, MSCE,y Charles Scott, PhD,z and Najjia N. Mahmoud, MD 

Although skin flora represents the majority of pathogens in

Objective: To compare 2 alcohol-based, dual-action skin preparations for
clean cases, in colorectal surgery, both bowel flora and skin con-
surgical site infection (SSI) prevention in elective colorectal surgery.
taminants play a role. The risk for SSI originating from these bacteria
Background: Colorectal surgery is associated with the highest SSI rate
can be reduced by skin preparation in the operating room using an
among elective surgical procedures. Although evidence indicates that alco-
antiseptic agent containing alcohol, chlorhexidine, or solubilized
hol-based skin preparations are superior in SSI prevention, it is not clear if
iodine used alone or in combination forms. A randomized, controlled
different alcohol-based preparations are equivalent in clean-contaminated
trail by Darouiche et al6 clearly identified the superiority of chlor-
colorectal procedures.
ehexidine-alcohol compared with povidone-iodine alone for the
Methods: We performed a blinded, randomized, noninferiority trial compar-
prevention of SSIs in clean-contaminated cases.
ing iodine povacrylex-alcohol (IPA) and chlorhexidine-alcohol for elective,
Less clear, however, is which, if any, alcohol-based skin
clean-contaminated colorectal surgery. The primary outcome was the pres-
preparation is most effective. In the study by Swenson et al,7 both
ence or absence of SSI, defined as superficial or deep SSI, within 30 days
IPA (iodine povacrylex and isopropyl alcohol) and povidone iodine
postdischarge. A 6.6% noninferiority margin was chosen.
with isopropyl alcohol sequentially applied were significantly more
Results: Between January 2011 and January 2015, 802 patients were random-
effective than chlorhexidine-alcohol in preventing SSI in a hetero-
ized with 788 patients included in the intent to treat analysis (396 IPA and 392
geneous cohort of general surgery patients. However, a study recently
chlorhexidine-alcohol). The difference in overall SSI rate between IPA
published by Tuuli et al8 demonstrated that chlorhexidine-alcohol
(18.7%) and chlorhexidine-alcohol (15.9%) was 2.8% (P ¼ 0.30). The upper
resulted in significantly lower risk of SSI than iodine-alcohol (with-
bound of the 2.5% confidence interval of this difference was 8.9%, which is
out povacrylex) after Caesarian sections. These, and other conflicting
greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 6.6%. Other endpoints,
reports in differing patient populations, make it difficult to conclude
including individual SSI types, time to SSI diagnosis, and length of stay were
which alcohol-based skin preparations may be most effective in
not different between the 2 arms.
colorectal surgery patients, who have the highest risk of SSI.
Conclusions: In patients undergoing elective, clean contaminated colorectal
The opportunity for improvement in SSI rates in colorectal
surgery, the use of IPA failed to meet criterion for noninferiority for overall
surgery is greater than all other surgical procedures because of both
SSI prevention compared with chlorhexidine-alcohol. Photodocumentation of
high surgical volume nationally and high infection rates. Concom-
wounds and rigorous tracking of outcomes up to 30 days postdischarge
itant reduction of cost, length of stay, and morbidity represents a
contributed to high fidelity to current standard SSI descriptions and wound
significant step forward. Demonstration of comparative effectiveness
classifications.
between agents is essential. We designed this randomized, blinded,
Keywords: colorectal surgery, Skin Antisepsis, surgical site infection prospective trial to test the hypothesis that preoperative skin prep-
aration in colorectal surgery with IPA is noninferior to skin prep-
(Ann Surg 2017;xx:xxx–xxx) aration with chlorhexidine-alcohol. The use of photodocumentation,
exclusion of noncolorectal procedures, blinded SSI analysis, and 30
S urgical site infection (SSI) is the second most common of the
hospital acquired infections (HAI), representing 22% of all HAIs
and accounting for 374,000 infections among hospitalized patients
day outpatient outcomes are unique and overcome some of the
obstacles encountered by prior trials and retrospective reviews.
yearly in the United States.1,2 Colorectal surgery is associated with
the highest SSI rate among elective surgical procedures, with con- METHODS
servative estimates ranging from 5% to 25%.3,4 It is recognized that
SSI is associated with prolonged length of stay and increased Study Design
morbidity, mortality, and cost.1,5 A randomized, blinded, prospective trial designed to evaluate
whether skin preparation with IPA is noninferior to that with
chlorhexidine-alcohol in colorectal surgery was performed in Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania health system between January 2011 and
From the Department of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 January 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01233050; full protocol avail-
Spruce Street, 4 Silverstein, Philadelphia, PA; yDepartment of General able upon request). The study was approved by the Institutional
Surgery, VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA; and zCBS Squared, Inc., Review Board of the University of Pennsylvania and informed
CBS Squared, Inc., Flourtown, PA.
Disclosure: This study was funded by 3 M, Inc., (ClinicalTrials.gov consent was obtained from all patients before enrollment (Fig. 1).
NCT01233050). The authors declare no conflict of interests. The study was stopped in January 2015 after prespecified accrual
Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations numbers were met.
appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of
this article on the journal’s Web site (www.annalsofsurgery.com).
Reprints: Najjia N. Mahmoud, MD, Department of Surgery, Hospital of the Patients
University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St., 4th Floor Silverstein, Philadel- Eligible patients included those 18 years of age or above
phia, PA 19104. E-mail: najjia.mahmoud@uphs.upenn.edu. undergoing an elective clean-contaminated colorectal procedure.
Copyright ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN: 0003-4932/16/XXXX-0001 Exclusion criteria were antibiotic use within 5 days before surgery,
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002189 infected or dirty wound classification, preoperative plan to leave the

Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017 www.annalsofsurgery.com | 1

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
CE: A.G.; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;
ANNSURG-D-16-01402
Broach et al.
incision open, ongoing radiation or chemotherapy, history of lapa-
rotomy within 60 days, current abdominal wall infection, and known
allergy to chlorhexidine gluconate or iodine. Patients were excluded
if they were participating in any concomitant preoperative antibiotic
or skin antisepsis trial. Women who were pregnant or breast feeding
were excluded. Patients were recruited into the study by attending
surgeons or advanced practitioners in the preoperative clinic setting
simultaneously with discussions about, and consent for, surgery.
Interventions
The patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo skin
preparation with either iodine povacrylex-alcohol, a 26 mL single-
use applicator containing iodine povacrylex [0.7% available iodine]/
74% isopropyl alcohol (w/w) or chlorhexidine-alcohol, a 26 mL
single-use applicator containing 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (w/v)
and 70% isopropyl alcohol (v/v). Both skin preps contain isopropyl
alcohol that has strong immediate antimicrobial effects but no
appreciable residual activity on skin. Each contains a second com-
ponent that offers residual activity up to 48 hours.
Block randomization, based on hospital site, was used to
insure that each site would have statistically proportionate
2 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017
FIGURE 1. Screening, randomization,
and follow up of study participants.
representation in the 2 treatment arms. The study statistician created
a computer generated list of random assignments by hospital block.
The clinical trial coordinator delivered sequentially numbered,
randomized opaque envelopes to the sites in a block. The study
coordinator opened the sequentially numbered, opaque envelope
containing the randomization assignment postinduction of anesthesia
when in the operating room.
Training in use of each skin preparation was conducted by the
study coordinator and the operating room staff compliance and
quality officers. Every surgeon, resident, fellow, and nurse involved
in a study case was required to attend or view an online training
module detailing the appropriate use of each skin preparation. The
study coordinator or attending surgeon was present for every prep-
aration application to ensure quality control. A single applicator was
used for most patients. Those who were morbidly obese required a
second applicator. The IPA arm involved single pass application
whereas the chlorhexidine-alcohol arm involved several passes of the
applicator in a circular motion. Both were allowed to dry for 3
minutes before draping. All preparation sticks were used according
to manufacturer’s instructions by attending surgeons, residents or
fellows who underwent live and video training.
ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
CE: A.G.; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;
ANNSURG-D-16-01402
Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017
Outcomes
The primary outcome was the occurrence of any surgical site
infection within 30  5 days postdischarge. This included the occur-
rence of superficial skin infection or deep skin infection. Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definitions were used to
classify superficial and deep skin infections.9–11 Although the CDC
does not recognize cellulitis as a postoperative wound complication,
we believe that it is a clinically meaningful outcome. Therefore,
cellulitis was included as a secondary outcome measurement. Other
secondary endpoints included organ space infection, infectious
pathogen, length of stay, and time to SSI.
Clinical Assessment
Preoperative evaluation included a medical history, physical
exam, and routine laboratory testing. Perioperative information
including prophylactic antibiotics, vital signs, and other relevant
information was obtained from anesthesia and nursing records. The
surgical site was assessed using a standard assessment form and
photographed by a blinded assessor daily starting from postoperative
day 3 to discharge, including weekend days (see assessment form
document, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/
SLA/B194). Vital signs, laboratory values, relevant postoperative
events, and wound culture data, if available, were also recorded by
the blinded assessor. During postoperative clinic visits, participants
completed a questionnaire to help identify possible wound compli-
cations diagnosed and treated at another facility (see questionnaire
document, Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/
SLA/B194). Photodocumentation of the incision was also obtained
by a blinded assessor (Fig. 2). Patients were monitored for up to
FIGURE 2. Photographic examples from
the study illustrating the classifications.
A, Healthy incision; (B) cellulitis; (c)
superficial SSI; and (D) deep SSI.
ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Skin Antisepsis in Colorectal Surgery
30  5 days after hospital discharge. The questionnaires were
acquired during postoperative visits or through phone interviews
at 15  5 days and at 30  5 days postdischarge. Follow up was
discontinued if a wound infection was confirmed by culture or by
CDC defined clinical diagnosis. In addition, if patients were seen in
the office at POD 22–25 and did not have an SSI, and had a well
healed wound, they were discharged from the study and asked to
follow up if problems developed. All photographs and other data
were reviewed, in blinded fashion, twice by the PI, once within 2
months of the assessment, and a second time at the end of the study to
make a final determination regarding SSI classification.
Statistical Analysis
The 30-day postoperative SSI rate (superficial SSI þ deep
SSI) using chlorhexidine-alcohol was assumed to be 20% for the
power calculation.12 Based on the Darouiche study, we assigned a
maximal benefit to chlorhexidine alcohol, compared with povidone
iodine, of 41% (relative risk 0.59); that is, chlorhexidine alcohol
reduces the rate of SSI compare with povidone iodine by 41%. FDA
guidance on noninferiority studies recommends a maximal non-
inferiority margin up to 50% of the maximal benefit of one of the
treatment arms (chlorhexidine-alcohol); in this case, an SSI rate of
27% (ie, a maximum noninferiority margin of 7%). We postulated
that iodine-alcohol would be noninferior to chlorhexidine-alcohol in
preventing SSI, specifying a noninferiority margin of 6.6%, within
the 50% of maximal benefit margin. A sample size of 400 subjects
per treatment group would provide 90% statistical power to detect a
noninferiority margin of 6.6% using a one-sided a of 0.025. The
patients were included for analysis in a modified intent to treat
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 3
CE: A.G.; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;
ANNSURG-D-16-01402

Broach et al. Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017

TABLE 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Patients and Procedures (mITT)

Iodine Povacrylex Alcohol ChlorhexidineAlcohol
Characteristics (n ¼ 396) (n ¼ 392) P
Sex (male) 48.7% (193) 48.5% (190) 0.94c
Age (years) 56.8  15.8 57.0  16.7 0.61F
BMI 28.1  5.8 27.9  5.5 0.61F
Diabetes (yes) 12.2% (48) 14.8% (57) 0.27c
Diagnosis
Neoplasia 44.5% (175) 47.6% (185) 0.40c
Inflammatory bowel disease 27.3% (108) 25.0% (98) 0.46c
Diverticulitis 12.4% (49) 12.5% (49) 0.96c
Benign 16.9% (67) 14.8% (58) 0.41c
Medical therapy
Steroid use 9.8% (38) 10.6% (41) 0.70c
Nonsteroidal immunosuppression 17.5% (69) 16.4% (64) 0.67c
Prior abdominal/pelvic radiation 11.8% (46) 15.8% (61) 0.11c
Prior abdominal surgery 48.2% (190) 51.5% (201) 0.35c
Duration of procedure (minutes) 179.69  77.71 181.04  76.71 0.81F
Surgery technique (laparoscopic) 52.8% (209) 46.7% (183) 0.09c
Body temperature 96.7  1.5 96.9  1.4 0.19F
Length of incision (cm) 13.79  6.88 14.14  6.66 0.50F
Blood transfusion 9.8% (39) 7.6% (30) 0.28c
Glucose level 100.0  38.4 102.8  42.0 0.33F
Creation or reversal of ostomy 29.8% (118) 31.9% (125) 0.53c
Hospital location 0.94c
A 62.4% (247) 61.2% (240)
B 26.5% (105) 27.6% (108)
C 11.1% (44) 11.2% (44)
Prophylactic antibiotics
SCIP compliant 90.9% (360) 92.1% (361) 0.55c

c indicates Chi-square test; F, F test; mITT, modified intent to treat; SCIP, SCIP, Surgical Care Improvement Project.

(mITT) manner. This sample was defined as those subjects who were
randomized and underwent a clean-contaminated surgery and had no
reoperation before SSI within 30 days postdischarge. The differences
between patient factors between the 2 treatment arms were evaluated
using the F test for continuous variables and x2 test for categorical
variables.
To examine the primary outcome, the overall rate of wound
infection was compared by treatment arm using the Fisher exact test.
Secondary outcomes, including the rate of each individual type of
wound infection and organ space infection were evaluated separately
between subjects in each treatment arm. Length of stay was com-
pared using an F test. Time from date of surgery to date of wound
infection was graphed using the product-limit method with subjects
censored at the date of follow up if no SSI was observed. Differences
between groups were evaluated using the log-rank test. All P values
were 2-sided. The organisms identified in wound cultures were
compared descriptively. As not all subjects with infection were
cultured and some subjects had more than one microorganism
identified, no statistical test was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 802 subjects were randomized (402 to IPA and 400
to chlorhexidine-alcohol). Ten subjects were excluded because of
reoperation within 30 days (4 IPA and 6 chlorhexidine-alcohol); 4
were excluded because the case was aborted and no resection was
done. In total, 788 patients (396 patients in the IPA arm and 392 in the
chlorhexidine-alcohol arm) were included in the mITT analysis
(Fig. 1). Eighteen patients in the IPA arm and 12 patients in the
chlorhexidine-alcohol arm did not complete the 15 and/or 30 day
follow up. They were included, however, in the mITT cohort for
analysis based on the information available at time of latest contact.
The baseline patient characteristics by treatment group are
displayed in Table 1. There were no significant differences among the
patients in each group with regard to demographics, diagnoses,
surgical techniques, preoperative medical therapies, or perioperative
antibiotics. The types of operation were also comparable (data not
shown). Of note, all patients received antibiotics within an hour of
incision and almost all received antibiotics consistent with the
Surgical Care Improvement Project guidelines as specified in
the protocol.
The overall rate of SSI (superficial and deep SSI) was 17.3%
and did not differ significantly between the treatment arms (Table 2).
The rate of overall SSI was 18.7% in the IPA arm and 15.9% in the
chlorhexidine-alcohol group (P ¼ 0.30). The difference in SSI rate
between chlorhexidine-alcohol and IPA was 2.8%. The upper bound
of the 2.5% confidence interval was 8.9%, which is greater than the
prespecified noninferiority margin of 6.6%. When examined indi-
vidually, there were no differences in the rate of superficial SSI or
deep SSI or cellulitis between the 2 treatment groups. Cellulitis was
diagnosed in 4.8% of the IPA patients and in 3.6% of the chlorhex-
idine-alcohol patients.
Secondary endpoints including organ space infection, length
of stay, and time to diagnosis of wound infection were analyzed.
Organ space infections were identified in 4.0% of IPA patients and
5.1% of chlorhexidine-alcohol patients (P ¼ 0.50). Length of stay
was identical between the 2 treatment arms. The average length of
stay for patients in the IPA arm was 6.8 days (s.d. 3.7), compared with
7.0 (s.d. 3.9) days for patients in the chlorhexidine-alcohol arm (P ¼
0.45).
Time to infection is displayed graphically in Figure 3. The
average time from surgery to diagnosis was 8.7 days (s.e 0.6 days) in
the IPA arm and 8.0 days (s.e. 0.7 days) in the chlorhexidine-alcohol
arm (P ¼ 0.21). The result is notable for the wide range of times in

4 | www.annalsofsurgery.com ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
CE: A.G.; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;
ANNSURG-D-16-01402
Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017
TABLE 2. SSI Rates by Treatment Arm (mITT)
Iodine povacrylexalcohol
(n ¼ 396)
Overall SSI (superficial þ deep) 18.7% (74)
Cellulitis þ overall SSI 23.5% (93)
Superficial SSI 11.6% (46)
Deep SSI 7.1% (28)
Cellulitis 4.8% (19)
Organ space 4.0% (16)
CI indicates confidence interval; mITT, modified intent to treat; SSI, surgical site infection.
both arms; there were infections diagnosed as soon as 3 days post-
operatively, and as long as 37 days after surgery.
Finally, we examined the bacteria identified in the cultured
wounds. Overall, only 69 wounds were cultured. In 59 wounds, 1
organism was identified; in 9 wounds, 3 organisms were isolated;
and, in 1 wound, 3 organisms were found. There was no difference in
the types of bacteria between the treatment arms (see table, Supple-
mental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/SLA/B194). In both
groups, Escherichia coli was the most frequent organism isolated,
accounting for almost 33% of the organisms identified.
There were no adverse events or serious adverse events
attributed to either skin preparation during the trial. Complications,
other than SSI, not related directly to the skin preparation were not
different between the 2 groups (data available upon request).
DISCUSSION
Optimal preoperative skin preparation is an important aspect
of SSI prevention. Organizations focused on outcome improvement
such as the National Quality Forum now recommend use of alcohol
based skin preparations for surgical procedures but do not specify
which to use.13,14 There are numerous studies examining the efficacy
of preoperative skin preps in both clean and clean-contaminated
procedures, but none prospectively examining only colorectal pro-
cedures—those with the highest risk. With relatively a few excep-
tions, most recent studies examining SSI in abdominal surgery are
retrospective in nature or rely on administrative data from national
and state databases. Our group found that when examined
FIGURE 3. Time to wound infection, by
treatment arm.
ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Skin Antisepsis in Colorectal Surgery
Chlorhexidinealcohol Difference
(n ¼ 392) P (95% CI)
15.9% (62) 0.301 2.8 (–3.2,8.9)
19.4% (76) 0.193 4.1 (–2.5,10.6)
10.2% (40) 0.569 1.4 (–3.6,6.4)
5.6% (22) 0.466 1.5 (2.5,5.3)
3.6% (14) 0.478 1.2 (–2.0,4.4)
5.1% (20) 0.500 –1.1 (–2.3,4.4)
prospectively, with rigorous documentation procedures in place,
the use of IPA compared with chlorhexidine for patients undergoing
clean-contaminated elective colorectal fails to meet the criterion for
noninferiority for our primary outcome, overall SSI.
Two previous prospective trials have examined the relation-
ship between skin preparation and SSI in surgical patients and have
informed this study to a large degree. Findings from these trials have
been seminal in driving the national change to alcohol-based skin
preps for general surgery patients. A study by Swenson et al7
compared 3 different dual action skin preparations, all employing
isopropyl alcohol, in general surgery (including colorectal) patients
with SSI as primary outcome. The results demonstrated that both IPA
and povidone iodine with isopropyl alcohol applied sequentially
were significantly more effective than chlorhexidine-alcohol. This
was followed by a trial from Darouiche et al6 in 2010 that compared
chlorhexidine-alcohol with single component 10% povidone iodine
in general surgery patients. This trial demonstrated a 41% reduction
in SSI in the chlorhexidine-alcohol arm. Although elective colorectal
procedures comprised a percentage of patients in these trials, there
were a large number of low risks (cholecystectomy) and clean
procedures (hernia repair) included. The heterogeneity of the groups
made subset analysis of the highest risk group difficult.
To better evaluate the comparative efficacy of 2 alcohol based
preps, a study dedicated to those cases at highest risk was required.
The inclusion of cellulitis as an outcome in the analysis was
important. Although it does not meet CDC criteria for SSI, it is a
clinically meaningful complication that frequently results in use of
www.annalsofsurgery.com | 5
CE: A.G.; ANNSURG-D-16-01402; Total nos of Pages: 6;
ANNSURG-D-16-01402
Broach et al.
antibiotics. We defined cellulitis as ‘‘erythema, warmth, and pain
requiring antibiotics’’ and only scored erythema as cellulitis if
antibiotics were prescribed and the patient had all 3 symptoms.
Photodocumentation was used in addition to clinical criteria to
document and diagnose SSI. Distinctions between cellulitis, super-
ficial, and deep SSI were ultimately aided by visual cues provided by
high resolution photographs in addition to knowledge of culture and
treatment data (Fig. 2). Blinded review of all study photos allowed
for standardization of diagnosis across subjects and sites and
represents a unique study feature that ensured fidelity to CDC
definitions. Photodocumentation made the most vague and problem-
atic of the CDC definitions—‘‘diagnosis by attending surgeon’’
unnecessary and unused.13
The rate of SSI in this study was comparable with other
prospective datasets but higher when compared with that from
retrospective studies. Although not powered to examine differences
in colorectal procedures, the Darouiche group found rates of SSI
ranging from 15.1 to 22.0%.6 Their protocol included 30 day out-
comes assessed by weekly telephone encounters to determine wound
problems. Swenson’s group did not specifically examine rates of
wound infection in colorectal surgery but did a subset analysis of
clean contaminated procedures and found that the rate of SSI ranged
from 5.9% to 10.7% among the 3 test groups.7 A recently published
retrospective review of skin preparation data from the Michigan
Surgical Quality Collaborative examining only colorectal surgical
cases and encompassing a variety of skin preparations showed a low
rate of overall SSI, ranging from 3.9% to 7.1%.13 This database relies
on inpatient data. It is exceedingly difficult to capture outpatient
clinical data using even specific administrative datasets because of
nonuniformity in recording, varying medical records, and variability
among abstractors. By contrast, in this trial, the rate of superficial and
deep SSI ranged from 15.9% to 18.7%. Data, however, were col-
lected in the office with patients returning within 30 days of
discharge for the questionnaire, photographs, and direct examination.
The data highlight the fact that most SSIs are detected after discharge
and are therefore routinely missed by administrative databases.
Length of stay averaged 6.8 days with average time to diagnosis
of wound infection of 8.7 days. Most wound infections were diag-
nosed in the outpatient population. The higher rate of SSI in this
study likely represents a higher rate of detection rather than a higher
rate of infection.
In contrast to other studies, a majority of the infectious agents
identified by wound culture were gram negative bowel flora; with E.
coli representing 33% of the isolates identified.15 This reflects the
fact that all of the procedures in this trial were large intestine
operations. Clearly, wound infections in these cases are more com-
plex, can be polymicrobial, and are less influenced by skin flora than
clean procedures such as hernia repair.
This trial has several limitations. The generalizability of
findings may be limited by the fact that the trial was conducted
within one health system in 3 hospitals by colorectal specialists.
Although the trial arms were racially diverse and balanced by gender,
most colorectal surgery in the United States is done by general
surgeons in a range of hospital settings and sizes. A major limitation
of all studies of SSI is misdiagnosis based on the often subjective
nature of the data. The risk of misdiagnosis should have been equal
between the 2 cohorts given that diagnosis was made by a blinded
reviewer familiar with CDC definitions of SSI. Moreover, the use of
photodocumentation coupled with clinical information provided a
6 | www.annalsofsurgery.com
Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Annals of Surgery  Volume XX, Number XX, Month 2017
more objective means of diagnosis compared with review of clinical
documentation only.
In conclusion, this study statistically fails to support the
noninferiority of iodine povacrylex-alcohol to chlorhexidine-alcohol
skin preparation in regard to superficial or deep SSI between patients
undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Rigorous photodocumenta-
tion aided standardized assessments, and adherence to the protocol
was high. It is clear that alcohol based skin preparations are an
important part of SSI prevention in elective colorectal surgery. It is
also clear that the absolute differences in SSI prevention between
these preparations are not large. However, in light of these findings,
and until further studies are available, chlorhexidine-alcohol is
favored to prevent superficial and deep SSI in elective clean con-
taminated colorectal cases.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank clinical investigators Robert
D Fry, Skandan S Shanmugan, Joshua IS Bleier, Brian R Kann, and
Cary B Aarons for their contributions to this study.
REFERENCES
1. Dimick JB, Chen SL, Taheri PA, et al. Hospital costs associated with surgical
complications: a report from the private-sector National Surgical Quality
Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;199:531–537.
2. Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Teerlink JR, et al. Hospital costs for treatment of
acute heart failure: economic analysis of the REVIVE II study. Eur J Health
Eco. 2009;11:185–193.
3. Hedrick TL, Sawyer RG, Hennessy SA, et al. Can we define surgical site
infection accurately in colorectal surgery? Surg Infect. 2014;15:372–376.
4. Ju MH, Ko CY, Hall BL, et al. A comparison of 2 surgical site infection
monitoring systems. JAMA surgery. 2015;150:51–57.
5. Anderson DJ, Kaye KS, Classen D, et al. Strategies to prevent surgical
site infections in acute care hospitals. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2008;29(Suppl 1):605–627.
6. Darouiche RO, Wall MJ, Itani KMF, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus
povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. New Engl J Med. 2010;362:
18–26.
7. Swenson BR, Hedrick TL, Metzger R, et al. 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.
8. Tuuli MG, Liu J, Stout MJ, et al. A randomized trial comparing skin antiseptic
agents at cesarean delivery. New Engl J Med. 2016;374:647–655.
9. Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML, et al. Guideline for Prevention of
Surgical Site Infection, 1999. Am J Infect Control. 1999;27:97–134.
10. Horan TC, Andrus M, Dudeck MA. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of
health care-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in
the acute care setting. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36:309–332.
11. CDC/NHSN. CDC/NHSN Surveillance Definitions for Specific Types of
Infections. Available at: http://wwwcdcgov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/9pscSSI-
currentpdf 2013-2015.
12. Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST, et al. Wound infection after elective
colorectal resection. Ann Surg. 2004;239:599–607.
13. Kaoutzanis C, Kavanagh CM, Leichtle SW, et al. Chlorhexidine with iso-
propyl alcohol versus iodine povacrylex with isopropyl alcohol and alcohol-
versus nonalcohol-based skin preparations: the incidence of and readmissions
for surgical site infections after colorectal operations. Dis Colon Rectum.
2015;58:588–596.
14. Talsma A, Chenoweth CE. Review of evidence for alcohol-based skin
preparation agents. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2012;1059–1060.
15. Hidron AI, Edwards JR, Patel J, et al. Antimicrobial-resistant pathogens
associated with healthcare-associated infections: Annual Summary of Data
Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2006-2007. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol.
2008;29:996–1011.
ß 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.