Key result
This editorial discusses the CHLOVIS randomized trial comparing 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine and alcohol-based povidone-iodine for preventing CIED infections.
Why the study?
Does 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine prevent CIED infection compared to alcohol-based povidone-iodine in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
Does 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine prevent CIED infection compared to alcohol-based povidone-iodine in patients undergoing CIED procedures?
This editorial discusses the findings of the CHLOVIS and WRAP-IT trials regarding the optimal preincisional antisepsis for preventing CIED infections.
Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection remains one of the most consequential complications of electrophysiology practice.Even in contemporary series, a device infection may lead to prolonged hospitalization, complete system extraction, antimicrobial therapy, reimplantation, and excess mortality [ 1-3 ].Because most causative microorganisms originate from the patient's endogenous skin flora, preincisional antisepsis represents a simple and potentially modifiable component of prevention [ 1-3 ].The recently published CHLOVIS randomized trial now provides the first large CIED-specific randomized comparison of 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine and alcohol-based povidone-iodine, and its findings can be interpreted alongside the procedural analysis from WRAP-IT [ 4-6 ].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costa et al. (2026) conducted an editorial in Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine vs. alcohol-based povidone-iodine was evaluated. This editorial discusses the CHLOVIS randomized trial comparing 2% alcohol-based chlorhexidine and alcohol-based povidone-iodine for preventing CIED infections.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: