Comparison of Efficacy and Cost of Iodine Impregnated Drape vs. Standard Drape in Cardiac Surgery: Study in 5100 Patients.

We sought to examine the efficacy in preventing surgical site infection (SSI) in cardiac surgery, using two different incise drapes (not iodine-impregnated and iodine-impregnated). A cost analysis was also considered. Between January 2008 and March 2015, 5100 consecutive cardiac surgery patients, who underwent surgery in our Institute, were prospectively collected. A total of 3320 patients received a standard not iodine-impregnated steri-drape (group A), and 1780 patients received Ioban(®) 2 drape (group B). We investigated, by a propensity matched analysis, whether the use of standard incise drape or iodine-impregnated drape would impact upon SSI rate. Totally, 808 patients for each group were matched for the available risk factors. Overall incidence of SSI was significantly higher in group A (6.5 versus 1.9 %) (p = 0.001). Superficial SSI incidence was significantly higher in group A (5.1 vs 1.6 %) (p = 0.002). Deep SSI resulted higher in group A (1.4 %) than in group B (0.4 %), although not significantly (p = 0.11). Consequently, the need for vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy use resulted 4.3 % in group A versus 1.2 % in group B (p = 0.001). Overall costs for groups A and B were 12.494.912 € and 11.721.417 €, respectively. The Ioban(®) 2 offered totally 773.495 € cost savings compared to standard steri-drape. Ioban 2 drape assured a significantly lower incidence of SSI. Additionally, Ioban(®) 2 drape proved to be cost-effective in cardiac surgery.