Operating Room Air Filtration-Sterilization and Surgical Infections: The ORACLE Randomized Trial in 110,538 Surgeries.

IF 9.4 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Daniel I Sessler, Edward J Mascha, Elyad Ekrami, Mauro Bravo, Catalina Dussan, Federico Almonacid-Cardenas, Yanyan Han, Alparslan Turan
{"title":"Operating Room Air Filtration-Sterilization and Surgical Infections: The ORACLE Randomized Trial in 110,538 Surgeries.","authors":"Daniel I Sessler, Edward J Mascha, Elyad Ekrami, Mauro Bravo, Catalina Dussan, Federico Almonacid-Cardenas, Yanyan Han, Alparslan Turan","doi":"10.1097/ALN.0000000000006424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surgical infections are the most common nosocomial infections and cause substantial morbidity and mortality. Operating rooms are relatively clean, but far from sterile. An unknown fraction of infections result from wound contamination by air-borne bacteria. We therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental air purification reduces wound infections and related complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Operating rooms, our clusters, were each randomized in each 4-week blocks to either active or identical-looking sham supplemental air sterilization. All investigators, clinicians, and patients were fully blinded to treatment. No other aspect of anesthetic or surgical management was proscribed. Intent-to-treat analysis was restricted to adults who had surgery lasting at least an hour without evidence of pre-existing wound infections. We tested the primary hypothesis that supplemental active purification reduces a collapsed (one or more) composite of surgical wound infections, infection-related complications, or death within 30 days after inpatient surgery. Secondarily, we tested the hypothesis that supplemental air purification reduces the same composite after combined inpatient and outpatient surgeries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 110,538 combined inpatients and outpatients were enrolled across 68 operating rooms, with 107,334 qualifying for analysis. At the third interim analysis, the futility boundary on the composite outcome was crossed for inpatients and for all patients. Enrollment thus stopped with 58,938 randomized inpatients. The primary composite outcome occurred in 8.1% (n=2,389) of inpatients randomized to active purification versus 8.2% (n=2,405) with sham purification: odds ratio 0.98 (95%CI: 0.92 to 1.05), P=0.609. Across all patients, the secondary composite outcome occurred in 5.5% (n=2,959 / 53,730) of active purification cases versus 5.6% (n=2,981 / 53,604) sham cases: odds ratio 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.05), P=0.669). Treatment effect did not vary over the weeks in the randomized periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Supplemental active purification did not reduce surgical wound infections or mortality in surgical patients. Infection-control efforts might better focus on limiting direct wound contamination.Trial registration:A priori registration at ClinicTrials.gov: NCT04610294.Funding: Supported by a grant from ActivePure (Bristol, VA) to the Cleveland Clinic. The funder approved the original protocol which was written by the lead author. The funder was not involved in data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript preparation. A draft of the manuscript was provided to the funder as a courtesy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000006424","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Surgical infections are the most common nosocomial infections and cause substantial morbidity and mortality. Operating rooms are relatively clean, but far from sterile. An unknown fraction of infections result from wound contamination by air-borne bacteria. We therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental air purification reduces wound infections and related complications.

Methods: Operating rooms, our clusters, were each randomized in each 4-week blocks to either active or identical-looking sham supplemental air sterilization. All investigators, clinicians, and patients were fully blinded to treatment. No other aspect of anesthetic or surgical management was proscribed. Intent-to-treat analysis was restricted to adults who had surgery lasting at least an hour without evidence of pre-existing wound infections. We tested the primary hypothesis that supplemental active purification reduces a collapsed (one or more) composite of surgical wound infections, infection-related complications, or death within 30 days after inpatient surgery. Secondarily, we tested the hypothesis that supplemental air purification reduces the same composite after combined inpatient and outpatient surgeries.

Results: A total of 110,538 combined inpatients and outpatients were enrolled across 68 operating rooms, with 107,334 qualifying for analysis. At the third interim analysis, the futility boundary on the composite outcome was crossed for inpatients and for all patients. Enrollment thus stopped with 58,938 randomized inpatients. The primary composite outcome occurred in 8.1% (n=2,389) of inpatients randomized to active purification versus 8.2% (n=2,405) with sham purification: odds ratio 0.98 (95%CI: 0.92 to 1.05), P=0.609. Across all patients, the secondary composite outcome occurred in 5.5% (n=2,959 / 53,730) of active purification cases versus 5.6% (n=2,981 / 53,604) sham cases: odds ratio 0.98 (95% CI: 0.93 to 1.05), P=0.669). Treatment effect did not vary over the weeks in the randomized periods.

Conclusion: Supplemental active purification did not reduce surgical wound infections or mortality in surgical patients. Infection-control efforts might better focus on limiting direct wound contamination.Trial registration:A priori registration at ClinicTrials.gov: NCT04610294.Funding: Supported by a grant from ActivePure (Bristol, VA) to the Cleveland Clinic. The funder approved the original protocol which was written by the lead author. The funder was not involved in data acquisition, analysis, or manuscript preparation. A draft of the manuscript was provided to the funder as a courtesy.

手术室空气过滤-灭菌和手术感染:110,538例手术的ORACLE随机试验。
背景:手术感染是最常见的医院感染,并导致大量的发病率和死亡率。手术室相对干净,但远非无菌。未知比例的感染是由空气传播的细菌污染伤口引起的。因此,我们测试了补充空气净化减少伤口感染和相关并发症的假设。方法:我们分组的手术室在每4周的分组中随机进行主动或相同的假补充空气消毒。所有研究者、临床医生和患者对治疗完全不知情。没有其他方面的麻醉或手术管理被禁止。意向治疗分析仅限于手术持续至少一小时且无先前伤口感染证据的成年人。我们验证了主要假设,即补充活性纯化可减少住院手术后30天内手术伤口感染、感染相关并发症或死亡的塌陷(一种或多种)复合。其次,我们检验了补充空气净化在住院和门诊联合手术后减少相同复合物质的假设。结果:68间手术室共纳入110538名住院和门诊患者,其中107334名符合分析条件。在第三次中期分析中,住院患者和所有患者都跨越了复合结局的无效边界。因此,58,938名随机住院患者停止了登记。主动净化组8.1% (n= 2389)的住院患者出现主要综合结局,而假净化组8.2% (n= 2405)出现主要综合结局:优势比0.98 (95%CI: 0.92 ~ 1.05), P=0.609。在所有患者中,次要综合结局发生在5.5% (n= 2959 / 53730)的主动净化病例中,而5.6% (n= 2981 / 53604)的假净化病例中:优势比0.98 (95% CI: 0.93至1.05),P=0.669)。治疗效果在随机期的几周内没有变化。结论:补充活性纯化不能降低手术患者的伤口感染和死亡率。感染控制工作可能更侧重于限制直接伤口污染。试验注册:在ClinicTrials.gov上进行先验注册:NCT04610294。资助:由ActivePure(布里斯托尔,弗吉尼亚州)向克利夫兰诊所提供资助。资助者批准了由第一作者撰写的原始方案。资助者没有参与数据采集、分析或稿件准备。出于礼貌,已向资助者提供了一份手稿草稿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
542
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书