RCT: tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone-iodine vaginal cleansing solution

Friedman, J.; Rastogi, Shipra; Glaser, L.M.; Lis, C.; Carter, I.; Milad, M.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.07.127

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been case reports about the adverse effect of CHX use for vaginal preparation, with issues of discomfort, including vaginal pain/burning, and complications, including desquamation, although these do not identify the concentration of CHX used. 12,24,25 A prior study comparing postoperative pain between 2% CHX and PI found no significant difference between the 2 antisepsis agents; this was a consecutive study, without randomization. 20 However, a randomized controlled trial of 134 women undergoing hysteroscopy found that vaginal pain, burning, and dysuria were increased with 4% CHX when compared with PI both immediately and at 24-48hours postoperatively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…A prior study comparing postoperative pain between 2% CHX and PI found no significant difference between the 2 antisepsis agents; this was a consecutive study, without randomization 20 . However, a randomized controlled trial of 134 women undergoing hysteroscopy found that vaginal pain, burning, and dysuria were increased with 4% CHX when compared with PI both immediately and at 24–48 hours postoperatively 24 . Part of the difficulty with assessing these studies is the variations in the concentrations of CHX used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…20 However, a randomized controlled trial of 134 women undergoing hysteroscopy found that vaginal pain, burning, and dysuria were increased with 4% CHX when compared with PI both immediately and at 24-48hours postoperatively. 24 Part of the difficulty with assessing these studies is the variations in the concentrations of CHX used. Our study found no difference in vaginal burning or pain between 2% CHX and 4% CHX.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 2% Versus 4% Chlorohexidine Gluconate for Surgical Preparation of the Vagina

Patnam

Askew

Alby

et al. 2022

Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceThere have been no studies comparing 2% and 4% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) for vaginal surgical site preparation despite both commonly being used.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to assess the noninferiority of 2% CHX versus 4% CHX to reduce bacterial contamination rates at 60 minutes after surgical preparation of the vagina. Secondary objectives were to assess differences in colony-forming units and the sensation of postoperative vaginal burning and pain.Study DesignThis is a single-blinded randomized controlled trial of women who underwent vaginal prolapse surgery. Study participants were randomized into 2 groups: 2% CHX versus 4% CHX. Two vaginal bacterial cultures were collected: (1) preoperatively before vaginal preparation and (2) intraoperatively at 60 minutes. A questionnaire on vaginal pain and burning was administered preoperatively and postoperatively. For our sample size, assuming that 2% CHX would have double the contamination rate of 4% CHX, 26 participants were needed per group to demonstrate noninferiority.ResultsSixty-one women participated in the study. There were no differences in baseline demographics, length of surgery, or surgical procedures. For our primary outcome, the postpreparation contamination rates were 7% for 2% CHX versus 10% for 4% CHX, with a difference of 3% (P = 0.52). This difference did meet the criteria for noninferiority. Secondary outcomes were not different between groups.ConclusionsTwo percent CHX is noninferior to 4% CHX in reducing vaginal bacterial contamination at 60 minutes after vaginal surgical site preparation, with low rates of postpreparation contamination and vaginal discomfort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 2% Versus 4% Chlorohexidine Gluconate for Surgical Preparation of the Vagina

Patnam

Askew

Alby

et al. 2022

Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We used the VSS survey tool with permission from Magdy P. Milad, MD (e‐mail communication; March 3, 2020). The tool was based on a biomedical protocol submitted to the National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine clinical trials web site 41 before the publication of study results associated with the protocol 37 and the initiation of our study. The survey tool was an adaptation of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) Measurement System that was created by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences of the National Cancer Institute and is used in cancer clinical trials to detect self‐reported, symptomatic adverse events 42 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Povidone‐Iodine Versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate With Isopropyl Alcohol for Preoperative Vaginal Antisepsis

Dunn,

Yannotti,

Centrella‐Nigro

et al. 2024

AORN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many surgeons request use of 10% povidone‐iodine (PI) for vaginal antisepsis; however, when PI is contraindicated, some surgeons request use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) instead. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine any significant differences in self‐reported symptoms associated with vaginal antisepsis with either 10% PI scrub or 4% CHG with 4% isopropyl alcohol. The control group comprised 62 participants who underwent vaginal antisepsis with the PI product, and the intervention group comprised 58 participants who underwent vaginal antisepsis with the CHG product. Participants completed surveys immediately before surgery, immediately after surgery, and 48 to 72 hours after surgery. No significant differences were found in the reported vaginal symptoms between the two groups for any survey. One participant in the intervention group reported symptoms consistent with an allergic reaction. Additional studies are needed on the use of CHG for vaginal antisepsis.

show abstract

RCT: tolerance of chlorhexidine gluconate versus povidone-iodine vaginal cleansing solution

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 2% Versus 4% Chlorohexidine Gluconate for Surgical Preparation of the Vagina

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of 2% Versus 4% Chlorohexidine Gluconate for Surgical Preparation of the Vagina

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Povidone‐Iodine Versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate With Isopropyl Alcohol for Preoperative Vaginal Antisepsis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About