OBJECTIVE: To determine relative rates of blood culture contamination for 3 skin antisepsis interventions-10% povidone iodine aqueous solution (PI), 2% iodine tincture (IT), and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG)-when used by dedicated phlebotomy teams to obtain peripheral blood cultures. DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial with hospital floor as the unit of randomization. SETTING:Teaching hospital with 885 beds. PATIENTS: All adult patients undergoing peripheral blood culture collection on 3 medical-surgical floors from May 2009 through September 2009. INTERVENTION: Each antisepsis intervention was used for 5 months on each study floor, with random crossover after a 1-month washout period. Phlebotomy teams collected all peripheral blood cultures. Each positive blood culture was adjudicated by physicians blinded to the intervention and scored as a true positive or contaminated blood culture. The primary outcome was the rate of blood culture contamination for each antisepsis agent. RESULTS: In total, 12,904 peripheral blood culture sets were evaluated, of which 735 (5.7%) were positive. There were 98 contaminated cultures, representing 13.3% of all positive cultures. The overall blood culture contamination rate for the study population was 0.76%. Intent-to-treat rates of contaminated blood cultures were not significantly different among the 3 antiseptics ([Formula: see text]), yielding 0.58% with PI (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38%-0.86%), 0.76% with IT (95% CI, 0.52%-1.07%), and 0.93% with CHG (95% CI, 0.67%-1.27%). CONCLUSION: Choice of antiseptic agent does not impact contamination rates when blood cultures are obtained by a phlebotomy team and should, therefore, be based on costs or preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01216761 .
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine relative rates of blood culture contamination for 3 skin antisepsis interventions-10% povidone iodine aqueous solution (PI), 2% iodine tincture (IT), and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (CHG)-when used by dedicated phlebotomy teams to obtain peripheral blood cultures. DESIGN: Randomized crossover trial with hospital floor as the unit of randomization. SETTING: Teaching hospital with 885 beds. PATIENTS: All adult patients undergoing peripheral blood culture collection on 3 medical-surgical floors from May 2009 through September 2009. INTERVENTION: Each antisepsis intervention was used for 5 months on each study floor, with random crossover after a 1-month washout period. Phlebotomy teams collected all peripheral blood cultures. Each positive blood culture was adjudicated by physicians blinded to the intervention and scored as a true positive or contaminated blood culture. The primary outcome was the rate of blood culture contamination for each antisepsis agent. RESULTS: In total, 12,904 peripheral blood culture sets were evaluated, of which 735 (5.7%) were positive. There were 98 contaminated cultures, representing 13.3% of all positive cultures. The overall blood culture contamination rate for the study population was 0.76%. Intent-to-treat rates of contaminated blood cultures were not significantly different among the 3 antiseptics ([Formula: see text]), yielding 0.58% with PI (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38%-0.86%), 0.76% with IT (95% CI, 0.52%-1.07%), and 0.93% with CHG (95% CI, 0.67%-1.27%). CONCLUSION: Choice of antiseptic agent does not impact contamination rates when blood cultures are obtained by a phlebotomy team and should, therefore, be based on costs or preference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01216761 .
Authors: J Michael Miller; Matthew J Binnicker; Sheldon Campbell; Karen C Carroll; Kimberle C Chapin; Peter H Gilligan; Mark D Gonzalez; Robert C Jerris; Sue C Kehl; Robin Patel; Bobbi S Pritt; Sandra S Richter; Barbara Robinson-Dunn; Joseph D Schwartzman; James W Snyder; Sam Telford; Elitza S Theel; Richard B Thomson; Melvin P Weinstein; Joseph D Yao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gary V Doern; Karen C Carroll; Daniel J Diekema; Kevin W Garey; Mark E Rupp; Melvin P Weinstein; Daniel J Sexton Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: D F J Dunne; R McDonald; R Ratnayake; H Z Malik; R Ward; G J Poston; S W Fenwick Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Anna Tenderenda; Monika Łysakowska; Robert Dargiewicz; Anna Gawron-Skarbek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.390