OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Previous work has shown that daily skin cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is effective in preventing infection in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). A colorimetric, semiquantitative indicator was used to measure CHG concentration on skin (neck, antecubital fossae, and inguinal areas) of patients bathed daily with CHG during their MICU stay and after discharge from the MICU, when CHG bathing stopped. PATIENTS AND SETTING: MICU patients at Rush University Medical Center. METHODS: CHG concentration on skin was measured and skin sites were cultured quantitatively. The relationship between CHG concentration and microbial density on skin was explored in a mixed-effects model using gram-positive colony-forming unit (CFU) counts. RESULTS: For 20 MICU patients studied (240 measurements), the lowest CHG concentrations (0-18.75 μg/mL) and the highest gram-positive CFU counts were on the neck (median, 1.07 log(10) CFUs; [Formula: see text]). CHG concentration increased postbath and decreased over 24 hours ([Formula: see text]). In parallel, median log(10) CFUs decreased pre- to postbath (0.78 to 0) and then increased over 24 hours to the baseline of 0.78 ([Formula: see text]). A CHG concentration above 18.75 μg/mL was associated with decreased gram-positive CFUs ([Formula: see text]). In all but 2 instances, CHG was detected on patient skin during the entire interbath (approximately 24-hour) period (18 [90%] of 20 patients). In 11 patients studied after MICU discharge (80 measurements), CHG skin concentrations fell below effective levels after 1-3 days. CONCLUSION: In MICU patients bathed daily with CHG, CHG concentration was inversely associated with microbial density on skin; residual antimicrobial activity on skin persisted up to 24 hours. Determination of CHG concentration on the skin of patients may be useful in monitoring the adequacy of skin cleansing by healthcare workers.
OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Previous work has shown that daily skin cleansing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is effective in preventing infection in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). A colorimetric, semiquantitative indicator was used to measure CHG concentration on skin (neck, antecubital fossae, and inguinal areas) of patients bathed daily with CHG during their MICU stay and after discharge from the MICU, when CHG bathing stopped. PATIENTS AND SETTING: MICU patients at Rush University Medical Center. METHODS:CHG concentration on skin was measured and skin sites were cultured quantitatively. The relationship between CHG concentration and microbial density on skin was explored in a mixed-effects model using gram-positive colony-forming unit (CFU) counts. RESULTS: For 20 MICU patients studied (240 measurements), the lowest CHG concentrations (0-18.75 μg/mL) and the highest gram-positive CFU counts were on the neck (median, 1.07 log(10) CFUs; [Formula: see text]). CHG concentration increased postbath and decreased over 24 hours ([Formula: see text]). In parallel, median log(10) CFUs decreased pre- to postbath (0.78 to 0) and then increased over 24 hours to the baseline of 0.78 ([Formula: see text]). A CHG concentration above 18.75 μg/mL was associated with decreased gram-positive CFUs ([Formula: see text]). In all but 2 instances, CHG was detected on patient skin during the entire interbath (approximately 24-hour) period (18 [90%] of 20 patients). In 11 patients studied after MICU discharge (80 measurements), CHG skin concentrations fell below effective levels after 1-3 days. CONCLUSION: In MICU patients bathed daily with CHG, CHG concentration was inversely associated with microbial density on skin; residual antimicrobial activity on skin persisted up to 24 hours. Determination of CHG concentration on the skin of patients may be useful in monitoring the adequacy of skin cleansing by healthcare workers.
Authors: Carlene A Muto; John A Jernigan; Belinda E Ostrowsky; Hervé M Richet; William R Jarvis; John M Boyce; Barry M Farr Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Naomi P O'Grady; Mary Alexander; E Patchen Dellinger; Julie L Gerberding; Stephen O Heard; Dennis G Maki; Henry Masur; Rita D McCormick; Leonard A Mermel; Michele L Pearson; Issam I Raad; Adrienne Randolph; Robert A Weinstein Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: S O Heard; M Wagle; E Vijayakumar; S McLean; A Brueggemann; L M Napolitano; L P Edwards; F M O'Connell; J C Puyana; G V Doern Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1998-01-12
Authors: 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; D G Maki Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Bárbara Duarte; Ana P Pereira; Ana R Freitas; Teresa M Coque; Anette M Hammerum; Henrik Hasman; Patrícia Antunes; Luísa Peixe; Carla Novais Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Gita Nadimpalli; Lyndsay M O'Hara; Surbhi Leekha; David P Calfee; Loren G Miller; Lisa Pineles; Natalia Blanco; J Kristie Johnson; Anthony D Harris Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Kristen V Dicks; Eric Lofgren; Sarah S Lewis; Rebekah W Moehring; Daniel J Sexton; Deverick J Anderson Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Ashley E Kates; Michele L Zimbric; Kaitlin Mitchell; Joseph Skarlupka; Nasia Safdar Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Bobby G Warren; Alicia Nelson; David K Warren; Meghan A Baker; Candace Miller; Tracey Habrock; Jahnavi Bongu; Abinav Gowda; Jacob Johnson; Deverick J Anderson Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 3.254