Comparison of normal saline and antiseptic solution effect on the early peristomal infection rates of patients with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes: A randomized double‐blind study

Abstract

BackgroundThis study's aim was to compare the efficacy of normal saline (NS) with that of antiseptic solution in early peristomal skin care after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement in terms of peristomal infection incidence.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled double‐blind study conducted at a university hospital between December 2019 and April 2021. All patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. The study population consisted of 64 patients randomized to group 1: NS (n = 31) and group 2: 0.1% polyhexamethylene biguanide and 0.1% betaine (PHMB‐B; n = 33). Daily peristomal skin care was performed for 7 days, starting 24 h after insertion. Peristomal skin was evaluated by two blinded investigators before each dressing, and findings were recorded. Data analysis was performed with descriptive statistics; chi‐square analysis; and exact, Shapiro‐Wilk, Mann‐Whitney U, and Cochran Q tests.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of peristomal infection rates (group 1: 12.9%, group 2: 9.07%; P > 0.05). Redness increased from day 4 in group 1 and day 5 in group 2, and exudate increased from day 5 in both groups. There is a statistical difference in the number of patients between the days when redness and exudate appear and increase.ConclusionBoth NS and PHMB‐B solutions can be preferred in peristomal care. However, NS may be the first choice for early peristomal care that does not show signs of infection, because it is not irritating and allergic and is cost‐effective.

Assessment between antiseptic and normal saline for negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time in diabetic foot infections

“…This disparity in research methodologies may be attributed to the distinction between our human study and their ex vivo study. Furthermore, several studies comparing the efficacy of NS and PHMB-B in patients with infected wounds found no significant differences in rates of dehiscence, wound closure, wound recurrence, amputation, or mortality between the two solutions 39 – 41 . These findings are consistent with the results of our study.…”

“…These findings are consistent with the results of our study. The clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, greater accessibility, non-irritating and non-allergenic properties of NS may position it as the preferred choice for expanding the utilization of NPWTi-d in larger patient populations 40 , 41 .…”