S Karki1, A C Cheng. 1. Infectious Disease Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The topical use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is intended to reduce bacterial density on patients' skin. AIM: To assess the impact of body bath or skin cleansing with CHG-impregnated or CHG-saturated washcloths in preventing healthcare-associated infections and colonization. METHODS: This systematic review included published randomized controlled trials, cross-over trials, cohort studies and before-and-after studies. Studies were included if they compared the use of CHG in washcloths with any of the following; soap and water bathing, routine advice, no intervention. FINDINGS: Sixteen published studies and four conference abstracts were included for systematic review. Nine studies reported the impact of CHG on incidence of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI); the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.71]. Five studies assessed the impact of CHG washcloths on incidence of surgical site infection (SSI); the RR was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.17-0.49). Four studies reported the impact on vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) colonization; the IRR was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.59). Three studies reported the impact on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization rate; the IRR was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.24-0.95). Six studies reported the impact on VRE infection; the IRR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.42-1.93). Six studies reported the impact on MRSA infection; the IRR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.51-1.30). There was no reduction in acinetobacter infection rates in the three studies where this was reported. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the use of non-rinse CHG application significantly reduces the risk of CLABSI, SSI and colonization with VRE or MRSA, but not infection.
BACKGROUND: The topical use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is intended to reduce bacterial density on patients' skin. AIM: To assess the impact of body bath or skin cleansing with CHG-impregnated or CHG-saturated washcloths in preventing healthcare-associated infections and colonization. METHODS: This systematic review included published randomized controlled trials, cross-over trials, cohort studies and before-and-after studies. Studies were included if they compared the use of CHG in washcloths with any of the following; soap and water bathing, routine advice, no intervention. FINDINGS: Sixteen published studies and four conference abstracts were included for systematic review. Nine studies reported the impact of CHG on incidence of central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI); the incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-0.71]. Five studies assessed the impact of CHG washcloths on incidence of surgical site infection (SSI); the RR was 0.29 (95% CI: 0.17-0.49). Four studies reported the impact on vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) colonization; the IRR was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32-0.59). Three studies reported the impact on meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization rate; the IRR was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.24-0.95). Six studies reported the impact on VRE infection; the IRR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.42-1.93). Six studies reported the impact on MRSA infection; the IRR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.51-1.30). There was no reduction in acinetobacter infection rates in the three studies where this was reported. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the use of non-rinse CHG application significantly reduces the risk of CLABSI, SSI and colonization with VRE or MRSA, but not infection.
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: Ana M Guzmán Prieto; Jessica Wijngaarden; Johanna C Braat; Malbert R C Rogers; Eline Majoor; Ellen C Brouwer; Xinglin Zhang; Jumamurat R Bayjanov; Marc J M Bonten; Rob J L Willems; Willem van Schaik Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.191
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: Michael J Noto; Henry J Domenico; Daniel W Byrne; Tom Talbot; Todd W Rice; Gordon R Bernard; Arthur P Wheeler Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272