Drinkable Tap Water May Be Suitable for Wound Cleansing

[Guest guest]



Per a recent discussion on cost savings in an office - using tap water vs sterile saline or water

Studies suggest we can also use new non-sterile latex gloves, too, when doing biopsies, lacerations, etc.

Of interest (to me at least) was the comment --> "However there is not strong evidence that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection. "

I thought cleansing wounds decreased the bacteria count and therefore the infection rate.

But the article says --> When wounds were cleansed with tap water or not cleansed at all, there was no statistically significant difference in infection rates (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.07 - 16.50).

Interesting issues to think about.

Locke, MD

=======================================================================================

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/569161?sssdmh=dm1.333568 & src=nldne

To Print: Click your browser's PRINT button.NOTE: To view the article with Web enhancements, go to:http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/569161

This activity is developed and funded by Medscape.

CME/CE

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MDCME Author: Laurie Barclay, MD

Complete author affiliations and disclosures, and other CME information, are available at the end of this activity.

Release Date: January 24, 2008; Valid for credit through January 24, 2009

Credits AvailablePhysicians - maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)â„¢ for physicians;Family Physicians - up to 0.25 AAFP Prescribed credit(s) for physicians;Nurses - 0.25 nursing contact hours (None of these credits is in the area of pharmacology)

All other healthcare professionals completing continuing education credit for this activity will be issued a certificate of participation.Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

The content of this CME activity, "Drinkable Tap Water May Be Suitable for Wound Cleansing," was developed by the faculty.To participate in this activity: (1) review the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures; (2) study the education content; (3) take the post-test and/or complete the evaluation; (4) view/print certificate View details.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

Compare the effects of tap water vs normal saline for wound cleansing.

Compare infection rates for wounds cleansed with tap water vs wounds not cleansed at all.

Authors and Disclosures

Laurie Barclay, MDDisclosure: Laurie Barclay, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Brande Disclosure: Brande has disclosed no relevant financial information.============================================================

January 24, 2008 — Drinkable tap water applied topically is as effective as normal saline for cleansing a wound, according to a Cochrane review published in the January 23 issue of the Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews.

"Various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, however normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and does not interfere with the normal healing process," write Ritin Fernandez, RN, MN, and Rhonda D. Griffiths. MSc, DrPH, from the University of Western Sydney in New South Wales, Australia. "Tap water is commonly used in the community for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost effective, however, there is an unresolved debate about its use."

The objective of this review was to compare the effects of water vs other solutions used for wound cleansing. The investigators performed electronic searches of Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), MEDLINE (1996 - 2007), EMBASE (1980 - 2007), CINAHL (1982 - 2007), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3; 2007). They also searched reference lists from included trials and contacted lead authors, company representatives, and content experts to identify other eligible studies.

Inclusion criteria for studies were randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared water with other solutions in efficacy and safety for wound cleansing, with outcome measures including objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing.

Two authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. These procedures were checked by a third author, and differences in opinion were settled by discussion. A random effects model was used to pool some of the data.

Of 11 included trials, 7 compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water vs normal saline, 3 trials compared cleansing vs no cleansing, and 1 trial compared procaine spirit vs water. Procaine spirit is a mixture of procaine HCl 2% with spirit 70% and is commonly prescribed for wound cleansing following surgery. Ability to pool the data was limited because there were no standard criteria across the trials for evaluating wound infection. The predominant comparisons were water vs normal saline and tap water vs no cleansing.

When chronic wounds were cleansed with tap water vs normal saline, the relative risk (RR) of developing an infection was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 - 2.96). Compared with saline, tap water was more effective in reducing the infection rate in adults with acute wounds (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 - 0.99). In children, the use of tap water to cleanse acute wounds was not associated with a statistically significant difference in infection vs saline (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.43 - 2.64).

When wounds were cleansed with tap water or not cleansed at all, there was no statistically significant difference in infection rates (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.07 - 16.50). In a similar fashion, episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or with procaine spirit did not differ in infection rate. For cleansing open fractures, use of isotonic saline, distilled water, and boiled water was not statistically significantly different in the number of fractures that became infected.

"There is no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults increases infection and some evidence that it reduces it," the review authors write. "However there is not strong evidence that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection. In the absence of potable tap water, boiled and cooled water as well as distilled water can be used as wound cleansing agents. . . . The decision to use tap water to cleanse wounds should take into account the quality of water, nature of wounds and the patient's general condition, including the presence of comorbid conditions."

Methodologic limitations of the included trials are absence of details concerning the method of randomization of patients to treatment groups, selection bias, overall poor quality, lack of replication of most comparisons, poorly defined eligibility criteria in some cases, lack of consistency in the criteria used to assess wound infection, variance data for the healing outcomes not reported in the study that compared tap water with procaine spirit, failure to measure other outcomes such as patient comfort and satisfaction, and meta-analysis restricted to trials of the same intervention that evaluated the same outcome.

"While the findings of this review do not indicate adverse effects from the use of tap water, practitioners and health service managers should interpret the findings with caution as most of the comparisons were based on single trials, some of which do not report the methodology in sufficient detail to enable assessment of quality," the review authors conclude. "The availability and cost of resources may also determine which solution is used for cleansing wounds in different settings."

The review authors conducted 1 of the trials included in the review, but the authors did not receive from any commercial entity any payments or other benefits that were related in any way to the subject of the work. The University of Western Sydney and the South Western Sydney Area Health Service Australia supported this work.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;00:000-000.

Learning Objectives for This Educational Activity

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

Compare the effects of tap water vs normal saline for wound cleansing.

Compare infection rates for wounds cleansed with tap water vs wounds not cleansed at all.

Clinical Context

Although wound care has changed significantly in the last decade, there has been limited focus on the types of solutions used for wound cleansing. Antiseptic preparations have been traditionally used, but animal models suggest that antiseptics may actually hinder healing. Guidelines developed by wound care experts for antiseptic use have resulted in changes in hospital practice.

Normal saline (0.9%) is typically preferred for wound-cleansing solution because it is isotonic and does not interfere with healing, damage tissue, provoke an allergic reaction, or affect normal skin bacterial flora. Advantages of tap water for wound cleansing are efficiency, cost effectiveness, and accessibility, but normal saline has been recommended for wounds that have exposed bone or tendon. The purpose of this systematic Cochrane review was to investigate the efficacy of tap water for wound cleansing in clinical practice.

Study Highlights

The reviewers conducted electronic searches of Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (June 2007), MEDLINE (1996 - 2007), EMBASE (1980 - 2007), CINAHL (1982 - 2007), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3; 2007).

The reviewers also searched reference lists from included trials and contacted lead authors, company representatives, and content experts to identify other eligible studies.

Studies included in the review were randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing water with other solutions for wound cleansing, with outcome measures being objective or subjective measures of wound infection or healing.

2 authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included studies. These procedures were checked by a third author, and differences in opinion were settled by discussion.

A random effects model was used to pool some of the data.

Of 11 included trials, 7 compared rates of infection and healing in wounds cleansed with water vs normal saline, 3 compared cleansing vs no cleansing, and 1 compared procaine spirit vs water.

Lack of standard criteria across the trials for evaluating wound infection prevented pooling most of the data.

For chronic wounds cleansed with tap water vs saline, the RR for infection was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.01 - 2.96).

Tap water vs saline was more effective in reducing the infection rate in adults with acute wounds (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 - 0.99).

For children with acute wounds, infection rates were not statistically significantly different with tap water vs saline (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.43 - 2.64).

Wounds cleansed with tap water vs wounds not cleansed at all did not differ in infection rates (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.07 - 16.50).

Episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or with procaine spirit did not differ in infection rate.

Infection rate for open fractures was not statistically significantly different for cleansing with isotonic saline, distilled water, or boiled water.

Based on these findings, the authors concluded that there was no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults increases infection and some evidence that it reduces it, but evidence is not strong that cleansing wounds per se increases healing or reduces infection.

When potable tap water is not available, boiled and cooled water or distilled water may be used for wound cleansing.

Factors affecting the decision to use tap water to cleanse wounds include water quality, nature of the wound, the patient's general condition, and comorbidities.

Methodologic limitations of included trials are lack of details concerning method of randomization, selection bias, overall poor quality, lack of replication of most comparisons, poorly defined eligibility criteria, lack of consistency in criteria used to assess wound infection, failure to measure patient comfort and satisfaction, and meta-analysis restricted to trials of the same intervention that evaluated the same outcome.

Pearls for Practice

This Cochrane review identified no evidence that using tap water to cleanse acute wounds in adults increases infection and some evidence that it reduces it. For chronic wounds cleansed with tap water vs saline, the RR for infection was 0.16. Tap water vs saline was more effective in reducing the infection rate in adults with acute wounds. For children with acute wounds, infection rates were not statistically significantly different with tap water vs saline. Infection rate for open fractures was not statistically significantly different for cleansing with isotonic saline, distilled water, or boiled water.

Wounds cleansed with tap water vs wounds not cleansed at all did not differ in infection rates, and episiotomy wounds cleansed with water or with procaine spirit did not differ in infection rate.

Instructions for Participation and CreditThere are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page.FOLLOW THESE STEPS TO EARN CME/CE CREDIT*:

Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.

Study the educational content online or printed out.

Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. Medscape encourages you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 5 years; at any point within this time period you can print out the tally as well as the certificates by accessing "Edit Your Profile" at the top of your Medscape homepage.*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.