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.
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.