(I2), hypoiodic acid (HOI), iodine cation ([H2OI]+), triiodide ion
(I3-), iodide ion (I-), hypoiodite ion (OI-) and iodate ion (IO3-).
Elemental iodine, hypoiodic acid and iodine cation account for
the majority of the antimicrobial activity of PVP-I. Together, they
are highly viricidal, bactericidal, fungicidal, cysticidal, protozoacidal
and moderately sporicidal. The microbicidal mechanism
of action involves iodination and oxidation of various microbial
chemical structures, which results in rapid microbial killing.2
A 10% PVP-I solution contains only 0.0001% free iodine. The
gross majority of the iodine is complexed to PVP and therefore
unavailable for antimicrobial activity. However, as free
iodine is consumed in microbicidal activity, additional iodine
is continually released from PVP, thus maintaining a constant
concentration of free iodine.1,3 Free iodine is a well known irritant,
and thus the low concentration of free iodine in PVP-I
contributes to its favorable side effect profile as compared with
other iodine preparations. For example, tincture of iodine contains
2% free iodine and causes a greater degree and frequency
of irritant reactions.2,4
Chemical burn is a rare but recognized adverse effect of PVPI
with 34 previously reported individual cases.3,5-12 The injury
develops when PVP-I is not allowed to adequately dry, pools
beneath a dependent body part during surgery, or is placed under
an occlusive device. Examples from the literature include a
76-year-old man who developed a burn on his upper back after
thyroid surgery,3 a 38-year-old woman who developed a burn
from her mid-back to buttocks after a laparoscopic gynecologic
procedure,6 a 24-year-old male undergoing a flexor tendon repair
who developed a burn on his arm where PVP-I solution had
soaked into the wool padding beneath a tourniquet,5 a 45-yearold
patient requiring epidural anesthesia who developed a burn
at the epidural cannula site where gauze soaked in PVP-I was
placed under a waterproof dressing,5 and two critically-ill patients
who developed burns on their faces in areas where the
cotton-tape securing the endotracheal tube was contaminated
with PVP-I.12 The offending agent was either PVP-I 10% solution
or PVP-I in alcohol. Table 1 lists the common characteristics of
PVP-I burns. While patients typically heal without significant
scarring, the burn subjects the patient to unnecessary pain, prolongs
hospitalization, increases the risk for infection and can
jeopardize a healthy doctor-patient relationship.5
The proposed mechanism of injury involves the chemical irritant
iodine coupled with occlusion, maceration, pressure and friction.
The injury may be exacerbated by the concomitant use of
alcohol washings which de-esterify the skin thereby decreasing
the epidermal barrier.5,13 The injury is largely regarded to be an
irritant contact dermatitis and not an immunologically-mediated
allergic reaction.3,14-17 In cases where allergic sensitization is
suspected, patch testing can be considered. However, several
studies have demonstrated that PVP-I in solution and under
occlusion is intrinsically irritating which complicates patchtesting.
3,7,17 In one such study, 17,500 consecutive patients were
patch tested with a 10% PVP-I solution diluted 10 times in water.
Of the initial 500 patients, 14 showed a positive patch test,
but when these 14 patients were subsequently subjected to a
repeated open application test (ROAT), only two patients had
a positive ROAT. Thus the authors concluded that the majority
of the initial positive patch tests were actually false positives
due to irritation and not sensitization. In a similar study,3 19 patients
with a history of a rash from PVP-I and a group of healthy
controls were subjected to both a patch test and a subsequent
ROAT with 10% PVP-I. All of the patients and healthy controls
developed a significant reaction with the patch test, yet no subjects
developed a reaction with the ROAT, thus again confirming
that the injury is most likely irritation and not allergy. While
other authors have reported a significant amount of allergic
contact dermatitis from PVP-I,18 these authors did not include
a ROAT trial and thereby failed to exclude false positive irritant
reactions, as argued by Lachapelle.17 Despite these caveats,
there are cases in the literature where true contact sensitization
appears likely.19,20 When patch testing is indicated, several
recommendations have been proposed to exclude false positive
irritant reactions. These include using a ROAT as previously
described, using a dilute PVP-I preparation14 and using either
dried PVP-I15 or PVP-I in a gel polymer16 instead of PVP-I in an
aqueous solution.