-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
A randomized trial comparing povidone-iodine to a chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated dressing for prevention of central venous catheter infections in neonates.
- J S Garland, C P Alex, C D Mueller, D Otten, C Shivpuri, M C Harris, M Naples, J Pellegrini, R K Buck, T L McAuliffe, D A Goldmann, and D G Maki.
- St. Joseph's Hospital, Milwaukee, WI 53210, USA. jsgarland@hotmail.com
- Pediatrics. 2001 Jun 1;107(6):1431-6.
UnlabelledNeonates who require a central venous catheter (CVC) for prolonged vascular access experience high rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI).PurposeA multicenter randomized clinical trial was undertaken to ascertain the efficacy of a novel chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing (Biopatch Antimicrobial Dressing) on the CVC sites of neonates for the prevention of catheter tip colonization, CRBSI, and bloodstream infection (BSI) without a source. Setting. Six level III neonatal intensive care units. Patients Studied. Neonates admitted to study units who would require a CVC for at least 48 hours.MethodsEligible infants were randomized before catheter placement to 1 of the 2 catheter site antisepsis regimens: 1) 10% povidone-iodine (PI) skin scrub, or 2) a 70% alcohol scrub followed by placement of a chlorhexidine-impregnated disk over the catheter insertion site. A transparent polyurethane dressing (Bioclusive Transparent Dressing) was used to cover the insertion site in both study groups. Primary study outcomes evaluated were catheter tip colonization, CRBSI, and BSI without an identified source.ResultsSeven hundred five neonates were enrolled in the trial, 335 randomized to receive the chlorhexidine dressing and 370 to skin disinfection with PI (controls). Neonates randomized to the antimicrobial dressing group were less likely to have colonized CVC tips than control neonates (15.0% vs 24.0%, relative risk [RR]: 0.6 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5-0.9). Rates of CRBSI (3.8% vs 3.2%, RR: 1.2, CI: 0.5-2.7) and BSI without a source (15.2% vs 14.3%, RR: 1.1, CI: 0.8-1.5) did not differ between the 2 groups. Localized contact dermatitis from the antimicrobial dressing, requiring crossover into the PI treatment group, occurred in 15 (15.3%) of 98 exposed neonates weighing =1000 g. No neonates in the PI group developed contact dermatitis.ConclusionThe novel chlorhexidine-impregnated dressing, replaced weekly, was as effective as cutaneous disinfection with 10% PI and redressing the site every 3 to 7 days for preventing CRBSI and BSI without a source in critically ill neonates requiring prolonged central venous access. The risk of local contact dermatitis under the chlorhexidine dressing limits its use in low birth weight infants who require prolonged central access during the first 2 weeks of life.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.