Current Issue Highlights

Latest Articles

Most Popular Articles

  • Image

    Peptic Ulcer Disease

    JAMA. December 3, 2024: 332(21):1832-1842

    Importance

    In the US, peptic ulcer disease affects 1% of the population and approximately 54 000 patients are admitted to the hospital annually for bleeding peptic ulcers.

    Observations

    Approximately 10% of patients presenting with upper abdominal pain in a primary care setting have a peptic ulcer as the cause of their symptoms. The principal causes of peptic ulcer disease are Helicobacter pylori infection, which affects approximately 42% of patients with peptic ulcer disease, and aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, which are etiologic factors in approximately 36% of people with peptic ulcer disease. Complications of peptic ulcer include bleeding (73% of patients), perforation (9% of patients), and pyloric obstruction (3% of patients). Annually, 10 000 people die of peptic ulcer disease in the US. Endoscopy definitively diagnoses peptic ulcer disease. Acid blockers, such as omeprazole, can heal peptic ulcers in approximately 80% to 100% of patients within 4 weeks, but gastric ulcers larger than 2 cm may require 8 weeks of treatment. Eradication of H pylori decreases peptic ulcer recurrence rates from approximately 50% to 60% to 0% to 2%. Discontinuing NSAIDs heals 95% of ulcers identified on endoscopy and reduces recurrence from 40% to 9%. When discontinuing an NSAID is not desirable, changing the NSAID (eg, from ketorolac to ibuprofen), adding a proton pump inhibitor such as omeprazole or lansoprazole, and eradicating H pylori with treatment such as bismuth, metronidazole, and tetracycline combined with omeprazole can reduce recurrence rates.

    Conclusions and Relevance

    Peptic ulcer disease is associated with increased hospitalization rates and mortality. Acid blocking with proton pump inhibitors, such as omeprazole or lansoprazole, is the primary treatment. Recurrence of ulcers can be prevented by eradicating H pylori if present and discontinuing aspirin or NSAIDs if applicable.

  • Image

    Povidone Iodine vs Chlorhexidine Gluconate in Alcohol for Preoperative Skin Antisepsis

    JAMA. August 20, 2024: 332(7):541-549

    Importance

    Preoperative skin antisepsis is an established procedure to prevent surgical site infections (SSIs). The choice of antiseptic agent, povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, remains debated.

    Objective

    To determine whether povidone iodine in alcohol is noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol to prevent SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery.

    Design, Setting, and Participants

    Multicenter, cluster-randomized, investigator-masked, crossover, noninferiority trial; 4403 patients undergoing cardiac or abdominal surgery in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland between September 2018 and March 2020 were assessed and 3360 patients were enrolled (cardiac, n = 2187 [65%]; abdominal, n = 1173 [35%]). The last follow-up was on July 1, 2020.

    Interventions

    Over 18 consecutive months, study sites were randomly assigned each month to either use povidone iodine or chlorhexidine gluconate, each formulated in alcohol. Disinfectants and skin application processes were standardized and followed published protocols.

    Main Outcomes and Measures

    Primary outcome was SSI within 30 days after abdominal surgery and within 1 year after cardiac surgery, using definitions from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network. A noninferiority margin of 2.5% was used. Secondary outcomes included SSIs stratified by depth of infection and type of surgery.

    Results

    A total of 1598 patients (26 cluster periods) were randomly assigned to receive povidone iodine vs 1762 patients (26 cluster periods) to chlorhexidine gluconate. Mean (SD) age of patients was 65.0 years (39.0-79.0) in the povidone iodine group and 65.0 years (41.0-78.0) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group. Patients were 32.7% and 33.9% female in the povidone iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate groups, respectively. SSIs were identified in 80 patients (5.1%) in the povidone iodine group vs 97 (5.5%) in the chlorhexidine gluconate group, a difference of 0.4% (95% CI, −1.1% to 2.0%) with the lower limit of the CI not exceeding the predefined noninferiority margin of −2.5%; results were similar when corrected for clustering. The unadjusted relative risk for povidone iodine vs chlorhexidine gluconate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.69-1.23). Nonsignificant differences were observed following stratification by type of surgical procedure. In cardiac surgery, SSIs were present in 4.2% of patients with povidone iodine vs 3.3% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 1.26 [95% CI, 0.82-1.94]); in abdominal surgery, SSIs were present in 6.8% with povidone iodine vs 9.9% with chlorhexidine gluconate (relative risk, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.46-1.02]).

    Conclusions and Relevance

    Povidone iodine in alcohol as preoperative skin antisepsis was noninferior to chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol in preventing SSIs after cardiac or abdominal surgery.

    Trial Registration

    ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03685604